thadian

<p>I use Open Match when:</p><p> </p><p> 1. In a match where the less good member of a tag team should look as good as their partner. Some of this could involve the RL strategy of toning down the better partner to the slower one's speed. Or in other moments where teams like Owen and Yoko would keep both members looking great, despite that Yoko was perceived as a deadly force and former world champion while Owen floated between the Midcard and Upper Midcard, generally through association or feuds with more over stars than himself. Owen wasn't made to be the weak guy with Yoko the strong guy - they were both strong in different areas.</p><p> </p><p> 2. In a multi-man match where one or more person needs to look as good as the people above them. This helps justify the presence of 1-2 people who are one perception category beneath the main ones there. Two Major Stars and one Star, for example.</p><p> </p><p> 3. In a DQ, Draw, or Sports Entertainment, Dusty Finish, Flash Pinfall. In these situations I usually want the match to look even until the end.</p><p> </p><p> 4. When I have a very disproportionate skill difference between two people, such as Undertaker vs Giant Gonzalas. You can't make Gonzalas perform better, but Undertaker can control the situation and tone down his own work rate to match his opponent.</p><p> </p><p> I will reflect on the Boxing Match with Mr. T vs Roddy Piper. What was supposed to happen, is Mr. T comes out looking as good as Wladimir Klitschko. What actually happened is, Piper (without meaning to), made Mr. T look really bad. T got chumped and looked defenseless, and Piper would fall down and open himself up for good shots but T didn't recognize them. Piper had boxing experience and T didn't. </p><p> </p><p> This could have worked if they booked "Open Match", and they rehearsed it a few times so that Piper could really shine up Mr. T and keep his own "game" paced on T's performance. To me, this is what Open Match should be for.</p><p> </p><p> About the Hager vs Jack Evans, High Spots, Open Match - you're not going to make Hager's high flying look equal but you can make Jack pace his spots on Hager's movements. If I remember correctly, Open Match is more about overness/perception than skill? I wonder if Psychology should have something to say about Open Match if Skill is involved. Evans and Hager's psychology would have to make up the difference in an Open High Spots match. If the Open Match only cares about Perception/Overness, it would represent Evans hitting (or missing) all of his spots, while Hager over sells, lands an occasional impact or power move, and works "with" the skill gap by making that the match story, rather than trying to pretend they're equal. Hager might not be great at moonsaults, but he can still use the Hager Bomb, Gutwrench Powerbomb, Ankle Lock, and a military press - do something through a table.</p>

Different companies have different operations of merchandise. Merchandise is an industry that revolves around acquiring materials, processing them into units, storing the units, shipping the units - all of this has different costs. Sometimes, a company will want to own its own entire operation, to fine tune their product, and control the business relationships of their supplier. Other companies just want to outsource everything. So, the first question should be, what parts of the merch industry is the company invested in? Are they running their own shop like WWE, or using a supplier like AEW? The second question would look at the cut-and-sale. In AEW, I would expect workers get a bigger share of their merch cut, retain ownership of intellectual property rights, and possibly share in the costs of producing their own merch and designing their own merch, and selling it. While in WWE, I would expect the WWE to have "creative" determine all elements of the art, own all intellectual property, corporate determine all elements of quality, and the company to manage the sales of the merch. The worker might get a combination of a smaller cut, and some personal merch to sell on their own. So, how can the game represent these differences? A company that handles its own merch should give the worker less of a cut, 10%-25% range is more than fair. A company that gets the worker involved in the labor/management of the merch should pay the worker a much bigger cut, maybe 30%-60% range, depending on the size of the company and hotness of the product. Lastly - I did propose that the attributes "Easily Marketable" and "A Marketing Dream" should cause a worker to seek a higher cut by default, but it shouldn't be enough that it nullifies the attribute.

This would be a very acceptable alternative. Set up "Cliques" just like Tag Teams, and if they're in the same company, there's a chance of that clique forming a stable. No new mechanics needed. I really like it. I am not really wanting this to change gameplay, but rather to harmlessly add the aesthetic, and this achieves it perfectly. It also serves a secondary function that, other than relationships, stables, and tag teams, gives wrestlers an affiliation with one another. This would also help folks like Strong Hearts.

The difference isn't so much when you tape 2 shows at a time. When you tape 4, you notice that difference because the penalties will sag the 3rd and 4th show. I set up a B-Show Reserve Development brand and set it to Block Tape 4 episodes. I do it because it lets me get through my third brand quickly, but I would never do it for anything other than a B-Show. I could see the value in taping 2 shows at a time. The main benefit would be workrate or injury heavy companies give workers more time to rest. Just make sure to remember because they're making more than one appearance on the actual same day, it will also hurt them more now, but give them an extra week to rest. This would especially be useful for a Medium size company that doesn't really want to sign the whole roster to exclusive deals just yet.

I could be wrong, but I think it's two-pronged. 1. AI aggressiveness. If you're not bidding, they won't necessarily bid either. The AI companies might also have other reasons for not hiring - negative relationships, no more needed workers of said level, etc. It feels, and again I could be wrong, like the AI waits for you to get involved in a bid before really competing. 2. World Stability. If there's not enough workers, the game generates more. If they all got signed, there wouldn't be enough workers and the game would always produce more. In fact, if the game tried to have companies just hire everyone good (or who's not bad), then new start companies, smaller companies, etc. would have nobody. The fact that Gallows/Anderson, EC3, and Eric Young can either get picked up by AEW, Impact, ROH, MLW, NJPW - or really, just sit and occasionally work an independent show is good. Because it means they are available to be signed when someone's ready. I like that some of these workers sit until there's a use for them. Lots of these guys are rich - dude, Gallows and Anderson were making 700k/yr. They can totally retire if they want to. And if they only want to work 1-2 dates per year while waiting for another big deal, they've got the bills covered. Lower level workers or workers who haven't made the bank yet should certainly be trying to get booked everywhere possible, they got bills to pay. I wonder if the rate of a worker's likelihood to sit or sign, and the financial terms, to be based on Business Setting, Wealth? A guy gets into a category based on their best current or past contract, then does business as a person of that category - who's Normal, Rich, Millionaire, etc. A Millionaire would be content to sit while someone who's Rich might be looking to get more work.

I was also thinking about Ant Colony stable and indeed Trios factions like The Freebirds who worked in multiple companies. The main concerns for the game's stability and capability are: 1. The Stable set as "None" probably cannot gain/lose heat without recoding, which is fine if they don't. It's an aesthetic. 2. The Stable, once "incorporated" to a company, will gain/lose heat in that company as all normal stables, and have no further considerations. 3. Workers either should not be removed from the stable, or only if they sign an Exclusive Written deal. I would say yes to a stable "dying" if two people are Exclusively signed to different companies. Or the stable could become "inactive" while the person remains in. This is a case for "no new workers". As for companies, they probably shouldn't just create the stable unless they sign more than one person in it, or have one but sign the other. Once they have it, it should be set to go Inactive if said members leave the company, which already happens with a lot of stables I've seen.

Thrives in Chaos - Worker gains small bonus to Mayhem, Car Crash, and Steal the Show matches. Worker gets small penalty to Technical Masterclass, Spectacle, and Epic. Worker cannot use Slow Build match note or be penalized. Worker gets small bonus for "All Out" match aim. Thrives in Order - Worker gains small bonus to Technical Masterclass, Spectacle, and Epic matches or when using Slow Build match aim. Worker gets small penalty to Mayhem, Car Crash, and Steal the Show. Worker cannot use All Out match note or be penalized. Worker gets small bonus to Slow Build match aim. Lone Wolf - Worker dislikes being in Tag Team matches and gets a small penalty for being in Tag Team matches. Star in a Crowd - Worker looks great in matches when working a match featuring 5 or more people. Worker gets small penalty when a match has less than four participants. Star Alone - Worker gets small bonus if a match has fewer than five participants, and a small penalty if a match has five or more participants. Uncreative - Worker less likely to generate a new spot or move. Offensive - Worker more likely to develop Negative Relationships with others. Loveable - Worker more likely to develop Positive Relationships with others. I proposed these for a few reasons: 1. They each have a small advantage-disadvantage. 2. They each represent someone. We all know those Tag Team heroes like Cesaro, or those guys like Hogan who aren't really a good tag team guy, and guys like Kane or Braun who either thrive in multi-man matches or who knows how to use them. We all know a worker who seems to struggle in big matches. We also all know a Sabu who can do anything fast and flashy but don't give him an Olympic Rules match outside of ECW. We all know a guy like Krispen Wah who can do any story type match, but should not really be used in a mayhem match because his style doesn't shine there. I think having some attributes like this would add a layer of strategy to how some stars should be managed and used in-game. It can also reinforce which matches a worker is good at.

Big Fish in a Small Pond - Worker does not complain about being in developmental/child companies. This represents people like Kevin Owens, Finn Balor, Breezango, Tommaso Ciampa, and others who would rather be in NXT than the Main Roster. Lazy - (opposite of driven) Worker has slightly negative backstage morale. While worker is not likely to start an incident, they can get pulled into incidents. Worker does not have any ambition to move up the card, is unlikely to ask for raises. Lanky - Worker's Body Type will remain between Skinny and Average, and will not have an easy time increasing size. Decreasing size will be easy. Out of Shape - Worker cannot become Muscular, Toned, or Ripped. They will more likely remain Average, Bulky, or Obese.

I would like to see a few new attributes that allow some minor control over destiny, without crashing the system. Destined for Fame - Worker's popularity cap minimum 70. Destined for Greatness - Worker's popularity cap minimum 80. Destined for Stardom - Worker's popularity cap minimum 90. Limited to Glory - Worker's popularity cap maximum 80. Limited to Mediocrity - Worker's popularity cap maximum 70. Limited to Scraps - Worker's popularity cap maximum 55. Already, I want to set Joey Ryan to Limited To Scraps and Mr. Perfect to Limited to Glory. I would set Kenny Omega as both Destined for Fame and Limited to Glory which ensures his pop caps will be consistently 70-80 range unless something happens to his momentum or negative incidents. Or even the removal of the attribute through the natural course of the game. Similarly, for some skills, I would like an attribute for Psychology, Basics, Safety, Selling, Consistency, Charisma, Star Power. Gaining and Losing these attributes would also have another cool dynamic - throughout the games, workers who gain/lose these attributes would become better/worse in spurts and over time. It shouldn't happen too often. Perhaps said attribute can either override Destiny, or give Destiny +10 or Destiny +20 or Destiny -20. This lets the player have a minimalist control without having the ability to crash the whole system.

I think workers with the attributes Easily Marketable and A Marketing Dream should expect a bigger cut of the merchandise or higher payment than normal. While you can hire a 3 year Exclusive Written for 6,000/mo, if they have Easily Marketable, Easily Marketable workers should push for 8,000/mo or 40% cut for a 3 year exclusive written iron clad contract. A Marketing Dream might even want a 55% cut or 10,000/mo for the same. . The player still benefits from the actual sales of more merchandise, but the worker becomes just a little more expensive as well.

How does everyone feel about having the Pop Caps more impacted by Experience and Respect? The Good: 1. Guys like Tommy Cornell Jr. who come out of the gate as The Rock but low popularity won't outgrow development in popularity - then be a burden on the main roster with no experience or reputation. 2. You will be able to gauge a worker's average expected popularity. While there will be variation, outliers can still emerge from momentum, great matches, etc. We can already kind of gauge this, but we will have more precision. The Bad: 1. Guys like Goldberg can't be as easy to replicate. When he debuts, his low match quality and lack of Experience/Respect will add an extra filter to his popularity. Of course, Goldberg didn't really matter to most people until his rivalry with Steve "Mongo" McMichael. This would be where something causes his popularity to rise above his Experience and Respect. Maybe this would be the effects of Goldberg gaining Red Hot Momentum en route to his midcard run? Up to this point, he had "warm" momentum. His midcard run brought him to "Red Hot". So, Goldberg can still be replicated, almost the exact same way he was in WCW - at first, nobody cares but down the road, they do. 2. Guys like Kenny Omega, who I would guess in the real world has around 75-85 Experience and 55-70 Respect would kind of be stuck forever based on the combination of Star Power 70. Through the course of the game, he will get more over as his Experience/Respect increases and break out of the 55-70 popularity range (and about 70 Popularity in the US is where I put AEW). So for now, it's fine - but as the company grows, this proposition might stop him from growing with it. Which I suppose means finding new stars and sticking him into a tag team... fancy that. Is there something I am not seeing about why this might be good or bad? Obviously, a guy with 70 popularity, respect, and star power probably shouldn't jump to 85 popularity very easily. And if they can get there for several months, they should struggle to hold it due to their Experience and Respect (which would still be increasing, so while it would be a struggle, it would get easier as they continue to improve).

On the screen to view Hiring Decisions, I would like to see the attribute/skills displayed under the picture on the right hand side, similar to how it is when you click a worker in the company screen and you have the arrow that lets you shift from skills to attributes. This would let me avoid opening the worker's profile inside of the negotiation screen and save time/clicks. Especially for new workers I have first refusal on.

1. I would like something in a Worker's "Business" that makes them more aggressive bidders, or less. I don't mean what they offer - I mean their likelihood of actually going for someone and committing. 2. I would like the AI to "bluff" - negotiate with a guy to force their rival to up the price, then let it go. Just to make them pay more. (Note, I do this in game all the time, and sometimes I get stuck with an unwanted chap, but usually when the AI increases their offer, I withdraw). I think the AI should use this type of tactic. 3. I notice the AI only seems to rival bid me with real heat. I've noticed a few decent workers come up, and while I didn't sign them, I made a very low offer, just to keep an eye on negotiation. When I wasn't in the running, the AI didn't seem to "go hard" on upbidding. But when I was in contention, all comers with a dollar jump at the plate. 4. I think the worker makes a choice too fast. I think when the first rival bid is made, it should start a timer - 5, 7, or 10 day, maybe depending on an attribute or some other quality about the worker. The worker will not take a deal until either these days pass, or 3 days pass without anyone upping the ante. This would let the worker bargain for more. 5. Relative to 4; I've noticed companies tend to make a small bid, then increase it every day. During this time, the worker usually signs someone else. So, 4 is a solution to this issue and lets the company reach their final bidding point. This shouldn't be such a long timer that every worker bids up to prime value, but I think it would fix the issue where workers take a job for peanuts. Giving the companies a few more days of bidding would (hopefully) increase the cost of prime workers without having to fudge too much else. So it could also go a long way toward balancing the economics.

Workers don't value their own percentage of Merch Sales enough. If they did, we might see a lot more workers demanding 50%-70% or asking for larger sums, which might normalize the issue with Merchandise giving lots of money. Of course, for some products such as non-advertiser friendly ones, this advertiser revenue is one of the few things they can lean on until they buy their own broadcaster.

I agree with this. I will also add that I'm seeing rookies jump in popularity to the company's pop level and start demanding to be called up to the main roster. Despite having the skills of a developmental guy, they have popularity that's competitive with my B-Show guys and complain about being where they belong.

It was possible in TEW16, but it was removed. The best you can do is turn on Loyalty for your company, and edit your workers to have loyalty. This won't prevent theft, but it will cause most of your loyal workers to refuse to sign Exclusive Deals anywhere else. This has the unfortunate side effect of ruining parts of the game (such as competition for talent on your roster), but allows you to mostly ensure your contracts are safe. True Born loyalty is even stronger, but also even worse. There's a VERY good reason it's pretty much for Japan. I don't personally do this because I did it once and it kinda ruined the experience for me. I liked having to both fight for my stars and make it expensive to steal them. But it does happen, and it's part of the fun for me. If you don't mind that, and just want to protect your company roster, you can just set your True Born Loyalty and not worry about being unable to edit ongoing contracts with the in-game editor. Do you give yourself 10 year contracts? I advise giving 2, 3, 4, 5 year contracts. I wish we could choose what months in addition to what year so I can choose which ones expire in January vs October. Otherwise, your 10 year contracts will all come up at once, and that's a lot of click-work to manage all at once, in addition to the entire risk burden all at once. 2 years Major Star, 3 Star, 4 Well-Known, 5 Recognizable AND Figurehead. Then I pick one (or two) in each category to move one step left or right.

Or take anyone "recognized" and put them in stuff like 3v3 matches with two unimportant on both sides. Have a "Star" show up and say hi on one entertainment angle without working a match. I could be wrong, but I think the B-Shows giving this penalty is really an enforcement of the caps. The penalties help limit the growth of the workers, which is a good thing. I love my B-Show Developmental Brand. I have three "Stars" unbranded who usually show up for an angle or to work in a multi-man match with a "limited role" to avoid fatiguing too much. If it didn't give these complaints, the workers would rise up way too quickly?

Each month, the Alliance President (owner of a company within) should be chosen similar to battles - it should include usage of alliance titles for high rated matches. When you are president, you can "overturn" a "no" from an alliance member rejecting an invite. The president's company does not pay for using Alliance Titles. _____ Alliance members should pay a "Duty" to be in the alliance. This could be set to Low, Medium, or High and be based on company size. Generally, it shouldn't break anyone in COTT to remain a member. The company of the Alliance President gets 20% of "the pot" on the last day of the month and the pot is deleted. Then, on the first day of the next month, the alliance chooses a president. Companies who pay a higher "Duty" might have more influence - for example, might be able to overturn a "no" on alliance invites, or being able to have some extra alliance loans. _____ The idea is just to have more alliance interactions, some competitiveness within alliances for "something" related to the alliance itself, and create a few more sources of drama. Surely if you overturn someones "no", the owner might dislike you, or (if not permanent member) leave the alliance, or become hostile.

Editing the Moves from the Move List screen when creating a new worker would allow faster and more accurate processing. Much better than all the clicks of going back and forth. Also, I would like to be able to search for "Workers" on the Moves screen; again, for more efficient processing and to save time/clicks.

To reflect things like Bullet Club, I would like to see a default "None" option for who a stable belongs to. Then, if a company hires workers from said stable, it can "use" it the same way it does a Tag Team. Companies with "None" would have their "company copy" start with the base heat, then increase/decrease naturally. The base company should have its base heat determined by the average heat between the companies using the stable. Such stables should not naturally form in the game. If a worker signs an Exclusive Written contract; if the company creates the stable before advancing the next day, nothing happens. If they do not, the exclusive worker is removed from the stable at the next processing. This would let someone sign Kenny Omega and The Bucks exclusive while they're in Bullet Club and they remain in the base faction. However, if your own "Bullet Club" stable is disbanned, the workers are removed from the stable. ___ Perhaps forming a stable should require a minimum of two workers from it.

I would like to add Dojo Graduation on the worker screen. One of my companies has a dojo in 3 game areas and it would be easier to graduate people from native/local dojos if I didn't have to constantly change screens.

I would like to make fewer mouse clicks. Please let us sort contracts by brand and developmental yes/no. Edit: This would also apply on the Company > Contracts screen.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="LloydCross" data-cite="LloydCross" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51333" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think improvements to priority so workers take into account what the events actually are would be an improvement. <p> </p><p> I don't think a new mechanic related to pre-booking would improve the game unless that mechanic has something resembling equal opportunity to be used against you. If you have a tool the competition doesn't, then using that tool is for all intents and purposes cheating at the game. If this was supposed to be a fantasy vs game argument, then why not just ask for a cheat code that makes the player company always get first dibs on workers?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't see the tournament ranking scoreboards with a payoff.</p><p> </p><p> I don't see how you draw your conclusion whatsoever. By your logic, turning off natural growth or lessening it is cheating. Creating a new worker is cheating unless it's 100% balanced within the C-Verse. It's also cheating to play a real world mod because most of them have too many guys at 80+ who shouldn't be. </p><p> </p><p> I bet you also don't mind "cheating" in other areas of life. Have you ever cut corners at work to get something done even if it's not the "company way", have you ever told a small lie to make someone feel good? These things could also be viewed as cheating. Do you follow EVERY rule at all times? Jay walking? Using subtlety to mask a no-no word? So why do you care what someone does in a single player game they paid money for? Sorry if I come off as aggressive, but your tone about the OP request is that of a hall monitor who wants to police what others are doing and label them by what they want to do.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="joemurphy" data-cite="joemurphy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51333" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Is that a bad thing? It's the user playing the game, not the AI.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Why are we concerned about entertaining the AI?</p><p> </p><p> How much did the AI pay for the game and why do its feelings matter?</p>

<p>We certainly should keep asking for it. Of course, there's no reason to believe any changes will be made. It's just like the products. We have to make the suggestions, even knowing they will NEVER be put in the game. The only way I can get any satisfactory results is to manipulate preferences/options to turn off entire game elements. I can't get a product that both gives me the matches I want, and has a satisfactory angle/match ratio, that doesn't also screw me on match/angle length. It tells you what match types to use - you can't edit it. It tells you how your matches are rated, your angle/match length. So people who feel the products are too restrictive need to propose less restrictive ones. People who think there should be a few more attributes should propose it. That's what the suggestions are here for?</p><p> </p><p> We can't expect our ideas to be put in the game, but we can hope. The hopes should be very low, but we should still advocate for it. It's not complaining, it's advocating. Complaining is a snarl word used by haters who think "the game should be as hard as possible". Some of us want to be a "Game Master" instead of a "Player", on dungeons and dragons terms. There's more than one type of player audience, each one has different things they're trying to get out of the game. Gamists mostly want hard number crunching and objective limits that force them to overcome challenges. Simulationists would rather have the best replica of how things do (or should believably) work.</p><p> </p><p> Narrativists would rather build their own challenge - for example, by using the In-Game Editor to change someone's Popularity Cap or Skill Cap. These type of players want to decide for themselves who the stars are, and not have the game come in behind them, and say "Actually, we will have the fans reject Omega, give The Rock a low popularity cap, and Joey Ryan will be the biggest megastar ever". This also gets into asking if Minecraft is a game or a toy. To some people, it is played as a game, but it's really a toy. Some people would rather "play" TEW as a game, while some would rather use it as a toy.</p><p> </p><p> Unfortunately, the game is tailored against Narrativists. Simulationists and Gamists are the only ones who matter. So my suggestions are always tailored toward opening the game for Narrativists without infringing on Gamists or Simulationists. Gamists, for example, don't ever have to change a destiny roll, use a "overpowered product", and can give their guys negative attributes. Simulationists can still try to set up the most "realistic" means of things.</p><p> </p><p> Imagine if there was a crowd demanding to remove the Natural Growth options and lock everyone into "Full" at all times, then accuse everyone who doesn't like it of being a cheater, bad at the game, post their 100 rank shows within the natural growth limits, tell you how easy it is, etc. That's what basically happens when anyone proposes looser products, allowing players to change destiny, or anything else.</p>