SirMichaelJordan

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="MHero" data-cite="MHero" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I imagine it'd be like EVOLVE using Fabian Aichner & The Street Profits. Workers only get so much time for shows on development so with this, it brings the option to farm workers out if you/the development fed don't have time for them at the point of booking.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yea I look at it like a football team sending a player to a lower league team to get playing time instead of the reserve team or come in off the bench in sporadic games.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Historian" data-cite="Historian" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I really like the developments of company relationships. Sister relationships could provide an interesting dynamic -- the ability to send workers for development to a promotion that you don't own is going to be an interesting dynamic. It creates a more fluid game world that feels lived in -- which is something that I've always loved -- when the world feels lived in.<p> </p><p> Do AI controlled companies initiate company relationships -- namely, can they/do they ask you to let them send you developmental workers? Or can they ask for you to send them talent? I love when I'm approached by AI companies for things, so I'd love it if they do.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This would be awesome!</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'd like to weigh in on this discussion, as it is close to something I've never been able to put into words.<p> </p><p> When we talk about hardcore vs casual viewers I think we leave out another group that would probably be called casual, but not by definition of how we talk. I can use myself as an example of this since I haven't been watching as much as I used to.</p><p> </p><p> I watched wrestling in the 70's really into it in the 80's, then around late 80's early 90's didn't watch it as much. What got me back into it was seeing Rey Mysterio doing his crazy moves (at the time) on a friends TV that was watching it. If not for the seriously great in ring wrestling on the same show I was watching, I wouldn't of got back into it at all. Never really cared about work ethics and such before, as in the 80's it was "bigger than life" wrestlers fighting giants, etc. The new guys caught my eye.. didn't know them at all.</p><p> </p><p> Anyways, I really believe a wrestling program doing some serious athletics, be it spot monkeys, cruiserweight style matches, just great in ring wrestling, or even great mic work that you can't seem to change the channel until over. I think these things can catch a persons eye that wouldn't normally watch wrestling. It wouldn't matter to them if it was a big name or not. </p><p> </p><p> I've never been able to explain how that could be emulated in a game though.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Whether its spot monkey stuff or slow pace technical wrestling, I think what you are describing comes down to quality which falls under show grade IMO.</p>

Wow that’s even better

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Questlove" data-cite="Questlove" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I wonder how you would even find a way to accurately simulate the way a star is made in TEW. You can't really have a storyline or angle that bombs horribly or does amazingly well because of your input, they're just... as good as the workers you have involved in them because there's no potential for audience interaction. You don't really *create* stars, you just find someone with the skills to be one and then put them on TV until they become one by themselves.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I always thought that angles ratings shouldn’t be as predictable as they currently are. I would love to see the consistency rating effect all of a worker’s ratings outside of wrestling skills (in this case for angles, acting and mic) and even have a “agent” for angles (like a road agent for matches) to throw another variable into the formula. Some of the biggest stars were made by accident.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Also love today’s entry. That was fast! Thanks for listening.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BigINMoldova" data-cite="BigINMoldova" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>And that was a massive failure that devastated the company for years. The whole idea of Star Quality making a product successful in wrestling is an outdated one rooted in the 1980s. It has no place in a game trying to simulate modern wrestling.<p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> The Main roster of the WWE right now is far better then NXT star quality wise but it is noticeably less popular the NXT.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> It's just an outdated idea. It'd be like playing Out OF The Park Baseball with pitchers who pitch nine innings every outing. The industry has evolved past that point and the game should reflect that.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Hence why it should be both. They sacrificed quality for star power and the star power wasn’t even big as what WWE had at that moment.</p><p> </p><p> WWE is only less popular than NXT to hardcore fans lmao. There is no proof that points to having bigger names in a product being outdated. This idea is not exclusive to wrestling...If it was outdated than NJPW would have been able to make a bigger splash in the US market than what they currently have going on. ROH would be bigger than what it is. AEW wouldn’t invest big money on an aging vet...</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BrokenCycle" data-cite="BrokenCycle" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>First real disappointment here. Not into this. <p> </p><p> I was hoping that the new battles system would at least have some sort of nuance to it besides "Good show good, bad show bad." These things have always been incredibly half baked ideas built upon fairly weak game mechanics. How about just combine the two systems? Because in 2013 the complaint was that main event talent wasn't taken into account, and in 2016 the complaint was that show quality wasn't taken into account. </p><p> </p><p> The only way I could see this actually being a significant fix is if the equations for the final show rating sees an overhaul.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I agree with this. A mix between the two would have been great. The great thing about 2016’s way is that it forced you to make stars or sign some if you were going head to head with another company. It’s a reason why TNA started signing guys like hogan when they declared a Monday night war...It was the only way they could try to compete with WWE despite having the better shows at the time.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="DAVEFAN95" data-cite="DAVEFAN95" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Just a heads up this may be long, but I was hugely disappointed in the devolution of the "national battle" system, while I loved the regional battle split. I wasn't a huge fan of the SQ national battle system that was there but I don't believe that show ratings are what dictates that you are winning a battle with another company. I do think it is important (show ratings are essentially how good your storylines are doing) and the previous shows success/failure should dictate the amount of eyes on your product next week (TV rating/attendance etc). <p> </p><p> I had previously made out a new idea for a national battle system (It's posted here in the suggestions section if you want to check it out: <a href="http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=537007" rel="external nofollow">http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=537007</a>) and it had three main concepts, TV ratings/PPV buyrates, star power (2016 system) and show rating (average rating of the shows held in a month) and it would be a percentage of each of these three would be converted into points, put together and the highest number of points wins the battle. </p><p> </p><p> Now, I'm not trying to push my own agenda or anything like that, but I do think that there should be more than just one particular aspect of a company that should be taken into account. I'm also aware that these three concepts may not be perfect as some things might be missing, but I do think it would be a good start. </p><p> </p><p> Another thing is that the percentages for the concepts could be different for each region. Like the US market might have more importance on TV/PPV rating and star power and a small input from show rating while the Japanese market might be mostly show rating, some star power and no TV/PPV rating, while in Mexico all three might be of equal value.</p><p> </p><p> I do think that the last two systems weren't great and although my system may not be the answer, I think a system with more variables would be a welcome addition.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="RingRider" data-cite="RingRider" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So I am a little disappointed to see SQ be taken out of the National Battle calculations as well. As stated by DAVEFAN95, I think a marriage between the show ratings and SQ could be a better solution.<p> </p><p> That being said, maybe the workaround is simply making "stars" more essential to broadcasters. Perhaps the biggest broadcaster demand bigger stars (both in overness and SQ)? </p><p> </p><p> The other thing is that a lack of star power could cause fans to "hijack" shows as they demand to see bigger stars--thus hurting show ratings.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Star qualification and broadcast deals is a good idea. As well as hijacking shows.</p>

A write up would be cool. Not an actual play by play like WMMA. EWR was lke that but the entries were repeated far too often.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="James Casey" data-cite="James Casey" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm genuinely surprised by this. It was <em>amazing</em> when EWR was released back in the day, but my experience was of people quickly tiring of it because it was the same few lines thrown together in differing ways - maybe there was more variety if you tried different feds, but even so. It's amazing what different things people remember positively about old games.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I personally enjoyed it. It was before its time, now days games like football manager and OOTP have extensive write ups that are not repeats. I could imagine how much the feature could have grown and avoided repeats.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Kingster" data-cite="Kingster" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Today's entry is very interesting, I like that there can now be different scheduling models for different companies. I'm also curious how the AI handles different schedules and different event intents. For example with a weekly schedule, will the AI realize that holding a normal event each week would be overkill and so would schedule lesser shows most of the time with the occasional "normal" event?<p> Some things are still unclear to me:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> So, I'll take it this model means that AI controlled companies will try to schedule several events per week? Interesting.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I hope this doesn't mean that the AI will never run events if they have an active tv deal. For example, with a "regular" monthly schedule the AI will still run monthly events in conjunction with tv shows if they have an active deal, right?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Agree with the last part, i know WMMA 5 works that way, it’s ether events or TV. I hope there is an hybrid setting.</p>

I’m curious to know at what point does the AI try to start expanding into other regions?

UFC is based in Vegas. Company base could be used more than just cosmetics. A small attendance boost could simulate loyal/cult fans in the region. This really wouldnt matter that much for a big company like UFC or WWE (besides in TEW depending on the mod and era, it’s not out of the norm for WWE to have more popularity in the tristate region; simulating this effect) small regional companies in real life are region specific and have fighters from the area.

<p>A few small questions and suggestions.</p><p> </p><p> Are there any risk for a low level regional company that is based in Texas choosing to run events in Nevada?</p><p> </p><p> And are there any benefits to running events in your company’s home region?</p><p> </p><p> I hope this is already a thing but I feel like running events in high lucrative states should cost more financially (scaled to company size) </p><p> </p><p> In WMMA 4, playing as a small regional company I was able to just run all my shows way outside my home region and select the most lucrative place to make maximum profit every event. Not saying that I shouldn’t have been able to do such a thing but those places should have been reserved for big fights as a fight that would not draw too much probably wouldn’t make a profit after all the expensive being paid from running an event in a place like NY or Nevada as an outsider.</p><p> </p><p> Also I think running an event in a company’s home region should boost attendance.</p>

Is it possible to get the AI to run weekly events?

Probably lost heat because the storyline didn’t advance.

<p>Custom Merchandise</p><p> </p><p> Would a ME Heel who currently holds a ME championship sell more merchandise than a mid card babyface?</p><p> </p><p> In short, does hold any titles boost sells a bit?</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Phreak" data-cite="Phreak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41205" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Oh gods no! TEW attendance figures and finances were never designed to be an exact replication of real life. It will never be realistic and still balanced/playable.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Unless you edit the game world.</p>

Glad to see you make the switch and welcome back. I've been following this mod since 2013 <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />

They'll all have a high ceiling. Some higher than others based on age. They still have to grow through the right develop and avoid career altering injuries. So no, not everyone will be HOFers.

<p>Any plans for updating this for the new version?</p><p> </p><p> Also, think some of the small details about ratings could come in handy as well</p><p> </p><p> like needing a certain amount of menace to be able to use dominate effectively, the effect charisma have on thing other than entertainment angles, personality traits for able to work off a script and etc.</p>

No, she was not trying to beat her opponent at her own game. She tried multiple times to get close and grapple but was getting tagged and when she finally was able to get a clinch Holm was skilled enough to defend it well. I don't see the rematch going any differently unless Ronda change camp, learn to stike and wrestle. That's not happening because of her schedule. Holm may not even be champ bout time the rematch happens assuming Ronda is not Holm's first defense.

It all depends. Maybe they are National at 77 if you are importing WWE into the C-Verse. A 70 pop overall in C-Verse would make them Cult and like you said you can change things to get them back to 15,000 in attendance. The problem is that Real world and C-verse aren't the same. I think getting the right game world settings is just as important as getting the right attributes balance for workers. Also the problem with WWE being Cult is that Cult only allows 1 tv show and not to mention the AI would probably start signing some of it's featured workers to PPA deals. Depending on how you set up the game world a 77 in pop could be a cult company or a global company which would be more correct since 1 allows 1 tv show and the other allows 4. My main point is that a RWM needs its own gameworld setting. I think the opinion of WWE is not big as it once was is hyped because of the current product and noone being on the level of Rock, Hogan and Austin. That opinion is ignoring the fact that WWE has had more bad eras then good. Golden Age and Attitude were probably WWE's peak but they are bigger than they ever were dating back to those periods. Does that mean WWE's pop should be in the 90's? Definitely not but like I said you can manipulate the gameworld.

Just want to point out that a lot of the viewers and attendence figures can get manipulated by tweaking the community size which I like to call "wrestling community size" Community size is the main culprit of inflated attendence. Those default c verse numbers could be easily be cut in half for USA in a RWM.

It's the same with indy companies. Modders would give a indy company even popularity to all regions because the company is "popular" everywhere in the US. This would have a company like PWG booking shows in florida... Popularity is subjective, obviously companies are going to book where they are going to make guaranted max profit. Modder can either work within the game's mechanism or ignore it and compromise realism. Things like TV deals could get modded to your own criteria. Inaccurate and high attentence makes money even more easy to obtain which make it even more easy to grow. But some players want to be able to grow fast.