nebradska

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BleedTheFreak_23" data-cite="BleedTheFreak_23" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Another example would be MLW. It was originally opened in 2002, but came back in 2017. I can set it to open in 2017, but I'd lose the 2002 open date too. No way to fix this either, right?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> So I'm not sure how you would finagle this, but there is a bug where if you import a company into an already established game, its founding date will read as unknown. As the company does not have that date, it can later be selected for "reopening" by the game.</p>

I like to try out historical fiction games, and to that end I think these would provide an (unfortunately) accurate flavor to that. Racist: this worker is more likely to form negative relationships with others of a different ethnicity. Homophobic: this worker is more likely to form negative relationships with workers who are homosexual or bisexual. Closeted: this worker hides their true sexuality. A closeted worker would be listed as heterosexual on in game displays. It would also be possible for them to be outed, either by themselves or by another person (in which case I envision an event like the "breakup" that's already in the game, with potentially multiple negative relationships forming from it).

Implying that the salary and stability available in 90s WWF/WCW was available in independent organizations is a very silly or outright ignorant assessment of reality. That any particular wrestler was or was not a hot commodity is irrelevant. Fewer big money companies in play means less competition for the labor, fewer opportunities, and less pay overall. I don't think that workers need a negative response when a war ends, but I do think that they should all get a bonus is a misunderstanding of human motivation. Perhaps you're getting confused by the kayfabe, but the WWE locker room was not some united community fighting for a collective benefit by taking down WCW. It's not a major part of gameplay and it won't make much a difference for me whether it stays or changes, but I find it very interesting to discuss and I think several of us are providing strong, logical, real world-based feedback. Get mad about it.

And fewer companies leads to fewer opportunities. You prove my point.

I strongly disagree about the morale bump to workers for winning a war. If anything, it leads to less opportunity because there's not competition for their services, wages will inevitably be suppressed, and, if anything, their jobs will be less secure. The winning owner getting a boost makes sense, as well as workers who are loyal to the winning company and/or owner. However, for anyone else, I think the result should be neutral. It's not a game breaker to me either way, however.

That's overly complicated, but in an abstract way, 2016 already does this with the 'mercenary' slider and it's a good enough approximation. Presumably there will be a trait that covers this in '20.

Looks like SOTBPW is offering a 20% bonus per show, not just per event.

Handshake deals could reasonably be accepted immediately, but written deals should take a few days to, if nothing else, simulate the attorneys getting the paperwork together to be signed. Maybe in the future we could see the option of not paying out on a handshake deal. Say if you're a very small company and just skating by, you skip paying someone. Of course that leads to negative relationships and maybe some kind of reputation hit.

This is an especially ironic statement coming from the only poster defending the removal and who made 5 posts in a row. Worker promises are an excellent and welcome edition. However I continue to agitate for the return of FoW.

Everything is good so far, except removing fog of war. That's a disaster. I'd prefer to keep that than to have the search function it was dumped for.

So whose sock puppets are you guys? --- Tournament brackets are a pretty neat feature that I didn't think I cared about but now I am actually excited for. I can foresee a lot of ways in which it would be useful.

<p>Actually it might be nice to see the bribe included in the match booking mechanic, if possible, and just cancel the negative mood completely. As it is, the negative from the booking sticks around a lot longer than the positive from the bonus.</p><p> </p><p> Of course, if playing as a booker, the owner should have a say in the maximum payout.</p><p> </p><p> Maybe a small negative to backstage morale after? To represent general jealousy. It would be neat if giving bribes often resulted in more top workers (or workers with egos) asking for them more often; representing that they see their coworkers getting a bonuses and they want to get theirs, too. But that last idea is probably too fiddly to implement.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Steven James" data-cite="Steven James" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>snip.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> By the current financials, a moderately successful national sized company can comfortably afford to employ 30+ (maybe even more) A popularity workers.</p><p> </p><p> Worker incomes going up and forcing more thoughtful and judicious use of resources is a good thing.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div> IF IT DOESN'T MAKE THE GAME INTO BABBY MODE THEN IT SHOULD BE REMOVED</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Why even play any game at all if you don't want mechanics that challenge you? The amount of blowback on this very simple idea, and from some of the forum "celebrities," is astounding to me.</p><p> </p><p> It's also optional, so, y'know, save your air for something else.</p>

Hard no, Buddy. Broadcaster adjustments have been needed desperately for awhile and there's some gems here. The ratings disruption in particular is something I've wanted to see modeled since 2013 and is a game changer. Though I do wish there was a set number of viewers per region (influenced by industry strength and population) that could be watching at any given time. It still seems like there's a potentially infinite pool of eyeballs, but this is at least a strong step in the right direction.