thadian
-
Posts
606 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by thadian
-
-
- a very well reception to an important event or an angle being received very well.
- workers completing their instructions, fulfilling promises.
- securing a big contract.
-
If I set a Season Finale as a Multi Day Event, am I right in thinking there is no penalty for Season Finale being used on both events, because they are "one event" as a series?
-
It is gross to imply that it's performative to want to use better language dichotomies than Risque/Moral. It's oppressive to accuse people being performative about real concerns. Your entire argument here could have been applied to the LGBT+ stuff as well, and it could all still not be part of the game - "it would be performative to have it".
It's not like I am asking for Polyamory - workers being allowed to have multiple romantic partners/spouses, which is the majority of dating trends on OKCupid right now, and these people claim Monogamy is actually the immoral system. If I asked for it, I would certainly not want Polyamory/Moral to be the dichotomy. Polyamory is VERY common, and if it were part of the game, it would be harmful to use "Moral" and "Immoral" as descriptors for either choice/lifestyle.
It is not performative to want respectful language to be used. Just because something is risque does not mean it's immoral, many risque things have made positive moral and ethical social commentary, and many elements of counter culture make moral/ethical social commentary. Normally, they look at areas where those claiming to be "moral" are actually the immoral ones, and how their own path has morality unseen by people.
Defaulting one side of any dichotomy as "Moral" labels the other side "Immoral" - this isn't performative, this is mechanics of how labeling works.
If you want a "nicer" word than Prude or Priggish, "Modest" and "Modesty" would imply a resistance to that which is Risque. Risque/Modest, Highly Risque/Highly Modest sounds nice.
Morality can be rightfully used to describe characters who would refuse to do something underhanded, skeevy or shady. Whether someone likes Risque stuff or not has no bearing on whether they are likely to be underhanded and dishonest.
I do not like the idea that anyone who would do any "sexy business" or dress scantily, is all of a sudden immoral, and among the ranks of shady business.
I don't mind a Moral/Immoral terminology for something which is more concrete such as "moral workers won't steal, start fights, spread rumors, participate in gossip, and will avoid scandals while immoral workers will have scandals around these things". That is fine, because it uses the term accurately.
So - Modest/Risque can be used to capture the sexy/vulgar stuff without accusing someone of being immoral for being into it.
While Moral/Immoral could be used to describe a grouping of attributes/personality/business things that generally involve harming people, taking advantage of people, screwing others over, etc.
-
No companies in C-Verse have lesser events. I have not seen any B-Shows, maybe there is one, not that I have seen.
I would like to propose someone gets one of each - the features are there, the default database should use them.
-
YES.
Also - It reminds me of how Shawn Michaels, in this game, would be listed as the owner of NXT - but he is actually contracted to WWE.
I would like to be able to use a contract to hire someone to be Owner/Booker of a Child/Developmental company.
-
I agree. The angle was probably taped early in the day, or days before the event in question.
Not to mention Satellite Interviews, where a worker isn't even present in the building, but "appears live".
-
Being a lifelong jobber does not make you apolitical, give you a definitive style, or mean your personality is quiet or stalwart. It just means you "know your role". I also don't see being a lifelong jobber as something that automatically means you will become a road agent. Some definitely do, many don't.
I would say a lifelong jobber is not someone who lacks ambition - it's someone who's ambition is different.
A lot of job guys weren't unmarketable. Part of them being a jobber IS looking generic/non-special. When the opponent comes out with nice gear, they stand out a lot more. So they aren't unmarketable, they are branding themselves generic to enhance the opponent.
This is an area where I think we should be allowed to create Templates ourselves. It seems to me the purpose of a template is to "one click add list of personality/attribute stuff", so why shouldn't we be able to make our own? Then we can all have the templates we feel fit, even if others don't.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, MisterSocko said:
I don't know about that. When you tell someone "you're such a prude!", generally you don't mean "I'm neutrally stating the fact that you don't enjoy risque content", you mean "geez, you are so stuck up and boring".
Moral is a BIG word: Imagine if all the LGBT+ stuff was labeled in-game as Immoral, and descriptors of "Moral" included "does not want LGBT+ stuff". That would be antagonistic, obviously. But a LOT of people believe it - and in their "personal morality", maybe it is. But they are the same group who is Anti-Risque. We shouldn't cave to them.
For the same reason LGBT+ stuff in-game shouldn't be attached to morality, neither should Risque.
10 hours ago, MisterSocko said:I don't know about that. When you tell someone "you're such a prude!", generally you don't mean "I'm neutrally stating the fact that you don't enjoy risque content", you mean "geez, you are so stuck up and boring".
Sure, when you say it like that it can be used as a pejorative, but so can anything. I invite you to the US South where everything that is commonly "nice" is said in a way that it's actually an insult, "bless your heart", "i'll pray for you".
Morality has nothing to do with being Risque - morality can have a place in wrestling, BUT, morality is subjective and is just "my opinion of good/bad vs yours". Ethics attempts to dig a lot deeper and devise moral systems. The opposite of Risque would be Prudish or Priggish, depending on whether you "don't wanna" or "want nobody to". The opposite of moral is immoral.
9 hours ago, MisterSocko said:It's also quite funny to have such a simplistic view of things while defending a "let's be as inclusive and non-antagonistic as possible!" idea, sorry to say.
Some people don't like risque stuff because it's really just not their thing. It's not because they think they're better than you, and they're not hypocrites who secretly have intercourse with farm animals. They just don't like risque stuff, it happens.
1. And yes - people who swing the axe of morality upon others are usually not moral, when inspected much closer. And their movements tend to use unethical tactics. I am involved in, and have been in the past, a few Risque communities, and most people were highly moral. In these spaces, the respectful term for Non-Risque people is "Vanilla" or "Square". I have, in the past, been involved in "moral communities who hate Risque" - they are between Prudish and Priggish and most were far less moral. It's just a word they use to demonize people who are different. This is not a narrow or naive view, this is a view that has been derived from decades of personal experience and many hours of conversations with self-described "moral leaders". That is the opposite of narrow,. Narrow is saying "Risque is immoral".
2. Some people don't like Risque things, cool. There are words to describe that. However, "moral" is not that word. There should be an in-game means to differentiate those who want Risque stuff and those who abhor it. Moral is NOT that word. Most of the people who do use "Moral" to describe anything "Risque" do include positive LGBT+ representation in that category.
3. The farm animals comment is really weird, but you made my point for me - moral is a big word, and when big words are used recklessly like that, it does naturally result in farm animal comparisons - it's a normal course of what happens when anyone uses Moral vs Risque as their dichotomy, it's the same reason those who are Anti-LGBT make child and farm animal comments. That side is given POWER by others to declare their position "Moral" as the opposite to whatever they are naming as immoral. Just by being "Moral", they gain leverage to bring up babies and farm animals and make awful comparisons and accusations - but since they're "Moral", they can't be called out on that.
Moral and Immoral are BIG words. They are also very aggressive and evocative words, and provoke people who are thrust into the "immoral" category. I hoped since the game went Pro-LGBT (which is a good thing), a vital next step would be removing harmful references to morality/immorality by using it as the other side of a dichotomy.
There are a large number of descriptors to use for the other side of "Risque vs _________", it doesn't need to be Morality or any other supercharged buzzword like that.
I will close by thanking you - these conversations about these topics, no matter how well intended or offered, tend to deviate into very negative territory. It is important that when discussing any of these issues, we remember the real goal is to give ideas to make the game more fun, which for me, would be not seeing Moral vs Risque dichotomy. There are many better words than Moral to oppose Risque. Just like we wouldn't use "Moral" to describe "Does not accept LGBT+", we shouldn't use Moral to describe "does not accept Risque".
-
TL/DR - Solution: instead of Moral/Morality mentions in attributes, personality, and other areas of the game, use Prude. Prude is a non-derogatory word.
People who hate risque stuff pretend to be moral (and often are not), and cite morality (usually an immoral, high control concept of morality). This tactic is antagonistic and aggressive. Since this game joined the Pro-Rainbow crowd (good move, for real), I would like to see the removal of the antagonism that is "you are risque which is immoral, or you are a moral puritan". Risque people have morals - are often more moral, and Ethics has a lot of different proposed moralities. Let's just change it from "Moral" to something that isn't antagonistic. It's not like you're calling Anti-Risque people "square" or "vanilla" (both terms in risque spaces for Non-Risque people). Anti-Risque people are often called Puritans.
What is the default? If the default is "most people are not risque", then "people who are risque are weird" and "Risque" should just be renamed "Immoral". Because if Vanilla is named Moral, the opposite of Moral is not Risque, it's Immoral, right?
Is the default "most people are risque?" - If so, we don't need a term for it, it's the norm and weird non-risque people are Vanilla Squares.
How about this - there is no default. Neither is "weird" and both are "normal" and neither one is attached to morality. One is "risque" and the other is "prude". Much better than one being "immoral" on the basis the other one gets to be named "moral".
EDIT: Priggish means "self-righteously moralistic and superior" - maybe rename all instances of Non-Risque to be either Prude (I don't wanna...) and Priggish (I don't want you to be allowed to enjoy/do..."
-
It was a hiring rule. I set it for EVERY "A Level" company and every company I just wanted to be Scandal-Free (mostly). I did this because I noticed an inordinate amount of toxic workers being generated and saw my child companies stacked themselves with toxic workers who began to influence my developmentals. Instead of "part of the fun of the game", I took it as "part of the anti-fun that I should find a way to get around" so I was happy to find it in the hiring preferences.
Me belief - Adam probably thinks these features made the game "too easy" and wants it to be "harder", same as the REAL reason we can't design our own products any more, ala TEW 13 and 16. We were able to maneuver the sliders in a way that could give us products that "were easy to use" and "didn't have enough pitfalls". I had a wrestling-based company that was rated on wrestling - but was not hard on the body, did not require 10, 15, 20 minute matches, was friendly to sponsors, and had a cult following. I had a lot of fun with that. I can see that the sliders were not really a good method of build-a-bear product creation.
Now all of my companies, period, are somewhere between No Style, Three Ring Circus, and Classic Balanced. Not because I want my mod full of that, but because I find match length and "hard on the body" to be unfun. But I also want fans to appreciate Technical Masterclass/Wild Brawl/Storytelling matches - no options for me unless I also want a big list of rules to obey, which are often against the grain of the product I am trying to create.
I could just disable all the elements when starting a new game, but then why have product types at all, right? I wish there were a middle ground between being oppressed by a product's "thing" you don't like and "just turn off all product effects". When "create your product" was removed, I had fears that a lot of us would want products that will never exist because "the dev doesn't see the need".
-
2
-
-
2020 let us select for/against attributes and had "no toxic personalities" which was nice for a few companies.
-
I would like "worker does not enter" (Curtis Axel and others), and "worker enters in place of" which would also cover some real things.
Usually, the two would be used together. X beats up Y and steals his spot. X beats up Y, then Z steals his spot.
I could even picture "Ted DiBiase appears on the ramp, and buys the Number 30 spot from Number 30!"
I would like "Re-Enters match" for those situations.
I would like "Enters Late" for situations where a guy like Jerry Lawler or Miz just hangs out ringside or hides somewhere for a while before entering.
Lastly, I would like "False Elimination" for situations like Shawn/Bulldog where everyone thought Shawn was out, but only had one foot on the ground.
-
1
-
-
Similar to hiring preferences. The idea is that not only can you hire from a limited range of wrestlers, but also have the booker "prefer" certain types of workers for the main event, and for title reigns. This simulates situations where Verne Gagne prefers Technicians as Champion, though he was willing to tolerate Hulk Hogan main eventing now and then - and even "willing" to give a title run to (in exchange for a very bad deal involving Hogan turning over Japan merch profits).
Prefer __________ (style, weight, skill level) as champion ________ (only, mostly, etc)
It could also simulate situations where ECW prefers "mostly" hardcore guys, but will accept Shane Douglas as World Champion.
It could simulate situations where Vince McMahon believes "only certain guys have IT, whatever IT is" - it lets you pick the IT which Vince sees or doesn't.
-
1
-
-
I would like a "Few" and "Mostly" option. "Hire Few Technicians", "Hire Few Foreign Workers". "Hire Mostly English Speakers". Now the England Company can use "few" Europe workers, generally ones who can speak English. A few exceptions for the exceptional.
WWE was never going to NOT hire Brock Lesnar when he exited UFC because "he is now a Technician, Brawler, Former MMA Fighter" instead of "Powerhouse, Entertainer". But he slowly became an Entertainer with his facials and body language, even if his moveset diminished a bit, his psychology went through the roof.
-
1
-
-
Does have ____ is very important, how could I have forgotten that? I have an alliance (public, consortium, tiny size company in every US region - one region in each other country, every company owned by a media group and can only run shows in its own region. The media group owns one cable commercial broadcaster in each area, Very Small size in that area. It also owns a PPV Cable network that is tiny size in every area of the world. Each company has a "Morality Wrestling" product, and runs a weekly A-Show, B-Show, and monthly event.
I want to ensure that one of them doesn't hire an inappropriate worker who gets a scandal and kills the entire alliance (consortium).
I also have a few shoot style and mma based companies who I want to ensure don't hire people with certain histories.
With all the rainbow settings, I think "does not hire" ______ (gender/sexuality/pronoun). I understand why it might never be added, but I am considering when I create a few rainbow companies I want to ensure they remain a very dominantly rainbow roster.
I would like something that tells the company what rough percentage/how many workers of gender/pronoun/race to keep on the roster, or to avoid having. I might tell a DEI Wrestling Inc company "do not have more than 40% of the roster be the same race" along with "maintain equal ratios, where possible, of each race". Again, I understand why this might never be added.
I would like Rainbow products to not be Risque, except the ones which are. A company like a TNA or WCW or AEW, where all is "normal" wrestling - but the characters are all rainbow, have rainbow storylines and relationships, but otherwise have normal beef over things you would expect in "normal" wrestling. Family Friendly Rainbow Entertainment, Classic Rainbow Wrestling, etc.
For such companies, "prefers to hire Rainbow folks" or "Prefer a racially diverse roster" would be great.
-
1
-
-
Not a good name for it - "When the worker is involved in Cheap/Dirty Finishes, is good at them and does them better". Kinda like how some of the attributes let a worker be "better" at something, this worker REALLY knows the art of screwball endings (whether booking or performing).
-
The other issue is the hidden destiny values - sometimes you roll into that game where Ric Flair's technical goes down to 40 while Bart Gunn rises to 100. For some people it's part of the fun but for others it's very unfun and immersion breaking and you don't discover the need to reset until you're a year to two in watching values move.
-
I need new hiring rules.
No toxic personality trait
Does not have ______ Personality Trait
Does not have ______ Attribute
No Adult Entertainer
No Former Adult Entertainer
-
3
-
-
If a company is owned by a Media Group, can it own a Broadcaster? If so, is it de-facto part of the Media Group?
-
When creating a Broadcasting Deal in the Editor and I have chosen the Company, it would be nice if the list of Shows were reduced to only shows of that company. Similar to how when we "fix venue" we can set a region and only see venues of that region in the list. Currently seeing the entire list of everyone's shows/events is cumbersome and a lot.
-
Then I 100% support calling it "person", especially because it does take into account on the results/recaps.
I do still prefer some gender limiting terms, sometimes it provides positive distinction. For example, if I have a Men's, Women's, and Intergender Champion, the gender declarations add positive distinction. On the other hand, match types should definitely be non-gendered.
I will say I like consistency - meaning, "in what areas should the game use gender neutral language, and in what areas should the game use gendered language", so that it's consistent about the where/whens, and letting the player control as much of it as possible.
-
1
-
-
I would like to be able to tell a current worker "Improve on this, and you might be re-signed with better pay".
Improve _______ (skill), and I give _______ once fulfilled (vacation, a sum of money, a contract term, a title, etc).,
Asking workers to add/remove attribute or personality trait "stop being a bully" or "you, become good at training people".
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, MisterSocko said:
Leave Wrestling to Professionals: This worker resents the involvement of celebrities in professional wrestling, as they feel the spotlight should be on the people who put their body on the line every night, not some outsider just collecting a paycheck. They'll lose morale whenever the promotion they're working for hires a celebrity. They'll lose morale if they have to be involved in an angle or match with a celebrity. If they have to be involved in the match with a celebrity, they will do their best to make the celebrity look bad, or even to injure them (if they have a particularly negative personality in the first place). The negative reaction is dampened if the celebrity is an A-Lister.
I want a similar one to make a wrestler hate workers getting the "Roman Contract", "Brock Contract", "Rock Contract", etc. where they get paid a large amount of money for few dates. They lose morale every week if the top 5 paid workers aren't used (unless they are injured, loaned, or otherwise ineligible for booking).
Another one where wrestlers hate other wrestlers going to Hollywood "your job is in this ring", when any worker goes to hollywood, they lose morale until the worker returns. Also, this worker will start trouble with anyone who goes to Boxing/MMA and loses a fight. This worker won't be mad if they win, but do not lose.
Actually - I would love an attribute for "this worker gets angry when another worker flops/loses in Hollywood, MMA, Boxing, Other Sports, etc. But is happy when that other worker has a hot success or wins their thing.
-
1
-
-
It wouldn't even bother me if the game let an A vs B with C storyline, where C is a different company worker (alliance champion, alliance loan, company relationship loan), and uses that worker in a few Angles and Matches to simulate involvement in the rivalry. As is, you can set the borrowed worker into an angle//storyline, use them in a hot angle to add to the storyline heat, give them the match fresh off the angle. The AI doesn't really do that.
"Free" Turn
in Total Extreme Wrestling IX Suggestions
Posted
A worker debuting as face/heel should not count toward Face/Heel Turn or Gimmick Change. Very often, a wrestler comes out "looking like" the last character you've seen them use in other companies, and right around their first match, appear with all new gear, maybe a new nickname, etc. They might cut a promo close to their "other company" promo in their debut, then embrace a different promo.