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.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="crackerjack" data-cite="crackerjack" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41290" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>About 2 years into a 1994 rtg, best run so far. Company is teasing going cult after i bought out NWA:NJ. Now debating whether or not to aggressively push towards cult and try to buy out and absorb ecw, or wait it out. I have 1,500,000 in the bank, so i’ll think i’ll push it.<p> </p><p> My rtg is developing nicely in performance and entertainment skills, but is struggling physcially (outside stamina) and in star quality/sex appeal/menace. Any tips from anyone on getting those stats up?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Too late now, but start out small and flabby. You can increase size, which usually leads to SQ gain, and sometimes you'll get random body type changes (which from flabby would almost always be positive). Otherwise, allow steroids backstage (unclear from the rules if this is voluntary or not as one of the rolls forces you to do it; then again I think the rolls are an optional addition to the challenge) and increase size.</p><p> </p><p> I've gone through a few years of game time in several RTG challenges; sometimes you cap out in the 70s, sometimes you grow naturally well into the 90s.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Kingster" data-cite="Kingster" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41193" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>snip/QUOTE]<p> </p><p> That's kind of gross and sleazy in 2016, so definitely a face for a modern prototypical GOP voter (though on the whole I would guys that wrestling fans trend more conservative than liberal).</p><p> </p><p> I think it can depend on how you book him, but if we view USPW as being the "rock & wrestling" era, generally I would say heel. If you're moving USPW into an attitude direction like SWF, it's a face gimmick. Or if, as in your original post, you just don't think those wholesome fans excuse en masse in the Cverse anymore, you can justify running it as a tweener face as long as everything is consensual.</p></div></blockquote>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Bobbi Starr" data-cite="Bobbi Starr" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>How do I use a pre main event video featuring the wrestlers in the main event without the video tanking the storyline rating and thus affecting the match? I can't seem to do it right at all.<p> </p><p> For example: I just ran Flair vs. Steamboat (storyline at 97 pre show). The video (1 minute) scored a 79, the main event scored a 97, but was penalized due to the storyline's low heat. Post show the storyline is at 93...</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Use a freestyle angle (or edit the set one in the database) to make it a "minor" rather than "major" angle. It won't impact any storyline then.</p>

I think unfortunately that Lawler will cause you to fail even if you offer him exclusively an out of ring role. And you can fail this particular kind of goal several times (I think you may be able to fail it each time you make an offer, even if you're outbid or it isn't accepted), so make sure you put forward a strong offer to start with. There are definitely workers who are worth failing a "normal" importance goal for.

He wasn't unequivocally better than every other main eventer in every single criteria (someone else had "slightly more star quality" and another someone else had "slightly more charisma"), but he had the tools to be a strong figurehead.

You won't be fired unless your approval rating is "Abysmal," so you can break some less important goals and be fine. Also the hiring limits only apply to in-ring workers.

Not always true! I had Frehley pinging negative morale over and over again for "the pressure of being figurehead" and being either neutral or happy (can't remember which, it was awhile ago) when I removed him.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="will_d19" data-cite="will_d19" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41193" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>snip</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Unfortunately, one of the things that TEW does not do well yet (and I hope Adam focuses on for the next installment) is the simulation of limited audiences and customer bases.</p><p> </p><p> That is to say there are only so many people that are going to watch wrestling and spend their money on it at any given time. If there are two (or more) simultaneous events or television shows, the vast majority of people will only watch one (I realize there are/were some dedicated people who switched back and forth or record one while watching another live, but they're the exception). Likewise, people don't have unlimited resources to spend on merchandise, tickets, and PPV buys.</p><p> </p><p> I would like to see companies forced to take part in a market with limited customers where each new product creates direct competition with opposing promotions as opposed to everyone essentially existing in a vacuum like it is now.</p><p> </p><p> It also may have helped if you had started the game as bookers rather than as owners, as goals can throw a fair number of spanners into the works.</p><p> </p><p> I like the idea posted above about limiting contract lengths.</p><p> </p><p> Otherwise, like you said, you're flush with cash. Give out big contracts as your brother's workers become available. He'll either have to pay up to keep them or he'll catch on too late to the fact that he's fallen behind in the national battle and he doesn't have the firepower to replace his top stars in the near future.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jaysin" data-cite="Jaysin" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>It is accurate. It was added in TEW2016 to simulate NXT's rise. If you really need proof, it's not that hard to do. Create a dev promotion. Change their popularity to make them cult and advance a day and boom-shacka-lacka you have a cult developmental territory.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> <img alt=":rolleyes:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/rolleyes.png.4b097f4fbbe99ce5bcd5efbc1b773ed6.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> No, I don't think that a development company being LIMITED to cult is accurate. My understanding is that there's no cap on their size unless set in the editor.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Teh_Showtime" data-cite="Teh_Showtime" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Max size is cult</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Source? I don't think this is accurate.</p>