thadian
-
Posts
537 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by thadian
-
-
<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>
-
<p>While the numbers should be adjusted, there is a point where you reached maximum merchandising and you shouldn't really have to micro every inch of the merchandise to avoid your merch being worthless like in TEW13 and 16 where Merch was worthless entirely unless you micro managed it properly in which you almost made too much money.</p><p> </p><p>
Of course, companies who are NOT sponsor friendly - rely on these big merch numbers to reach Big, Large, Titanic, etc. They need to make the money from somewhere. If they aren't able to really get it from advertisers, their best option left is merch.</p><p> </p><p>
I do agree with a few controls. Costs should increase more as a company gets bigger and its merchandise quality/production/etc increases. I am nervous about too much of a nerf that would harm some of the products. I am also nervous about turning this area of TEW into a supply-side warehouse-lite simulator.</p><p> </p><p>
I also wonder what the interactions are between "Economy", "Industry", and "Merchandise Sales" to apply scaled bonuses and penalties?</p><p> </p><p>
I also think this Merchandise Insanity as some of you think it is, would actually be "not a problem" if Owned Broadcasters gave less money. </p><p> </p><p>
While my own merchandise sales are big money, what really fills my coffers over the limit is the broadcaster. I used the editor to set up two broadcasters - Internet PPV (Big America only) for events, and Internet Commercial (Huge America only) for my 3 brands and my two development companies. My broadcasters give me a LOT more money than my merchandise. So, if you want to really fix the gold farming, nerf the broadcasters.</p><p> </p><p>
They should give a ridiculous amount of money to manage and handle everything. But they do kinda give too much. Especially if you can get a Prime Time broadcasting deal on any network bigger than Medium. Once you have that combination, it doesn't matter if you have merchandise or not.</p><p> </p><p>
I also wonder if the Production Levels per Company Size should increase a bit on all fronts.</p>
-
<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="DjRelativity" data-cite="DjRelativity" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The lengthy match penalty doesn't apply to Timed-entrance matches/ Battle Royales or Royal Rumbles. This was adjusted on a patch a while back</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I also mean for things like Gauntlet Matches, War Games, etc. Anything with timed entrances that might involve a few "well known" folks.</p><p> </p><p> I was unaware they had fixed rumbles, I can proceed with my rumble event, then. Thanks for the tip. </p><p> </p><p> The rest of the product I still strongly suggest.</p>
-
As title. Before the update, I was able to safely run "Steal the Show" and "All Out" match aims about 15 minutes with guys who's safety ranged from 75-90 with occasional fatigue issues.
I even had a few nice "Slow Build" All Out matches for 17 minutes. I did have fatigue and a minor injury, but I knew the risk and had done this 2-3 times.
After update, I turned everyone's Safety, Consistency, Toughness, and Resilience to 100, and am murdering guys on 11-13 minute "All Out" and Steal The Show matches. Can the dial be turned down just a little?
Or did the Ruthless/Three Ring Circus change being easy on the body? - Aha, it seems the culprit. Almost every product that had "soft on the body" lost it, so now we're killing our guys on RAW like it's FMW.
Something changed somewhere, and it's murdering everyone. Now I have to have like 90 wrestlers just to have enough people to keep the show going because weekly "Steal the Show" is killing me, smalls.
And all I can do is either:
1. Change products to something unfun to play.
2. Turn off Match Aims entirely.
Both aren't fun options. This isn't NJPW where 10 minute matches should kill someone. And I do have spinal impact moves off and no risky spots.
-
Also, like I said - is this a match where they build a story around someone using a light tube for "the big shot" that ends the match? Or is this one of those crazy FMW matches with Terry Funk? There's a difference between how WWE booked Inferno match with Kane vs Undertaker and how FMW booked them.
Same with Barbed Wire - WWE's very few barbed wire experiences were nothing like Japan or ECW. This had two effects:
1. "Very Low Risk" with Barbed Wire, Fire, and other arrangements.
2. Fans feeling both less amped up (and less upset) by the content.
3. Fans feeling like they saw a watered down nerf gun version.
So, I believe each weapon's "Base Risk" should be the 0 point of full benefit interaction of the bonus (and penalty, in cases where that happens). And less Content Risk/Injury Risk causes less bonus/penalty interaction and more Content/Injury risk causes more bonus/penalty interaction.
So, even though Cage is only "Low" risk, booking a "High Injury Risk" content match would be the difference between the Magnum TA bloodbath and maybe that calm Hogan vs Bundy cage match.
In the real world, when a weapon or gimmick is promised, that itself gives fans an expectation. Chekov's Gun rule reminds that if there's a barbed wire baseball bat on a pole, and nobody uses it, the fans will be upset. If there's a ladder and it's only used to climb for the briefcase after a standard wrestling match, fans won't feel like they saw the Ladder Match they were expecting.
I don't advocate mass penalty dumping people for not going "High Injury Risk" on everything, but I do believe the lower the Content and Injury risk - both equally important - the lower the gains/penalties. TNT will let you have a Low Risk Ladder Match but they probably wouldn't let you have a full blown modern style Ladder Match. So tuning it down appeases the network, but doesn't give fans the full experience. So you get a small bump but not the big one you hoped for.
-
The only time I use it is in a Tag Team situation where I want to protect one of the two losers. This guy gets knocked off the apron for most of the match. Now instead of the fair match, fans basically get a handicapped match if Ol' Gimp would ever get up.
Or in a triple threat to protect the third guy.
-
Before 1.17, I was working Steal The Show, or All Out matches at 12-15 minutes on both Three Ring Circus and Ruthless Aggression products. For the most part, I was fine with an occasional injury or fatigue issue.
Now it seems every Steal The Show and All Out match at 10 minutes injures and max fatigues everyone. I think the dial needs turned back down.
Edit: Also, editing my workers to have 100 Resilience, Consistency, Toughness and Safety didn't help reduce the rate. I don't WANT superman workers but I will do that once in a while if it's the ONLY way I can book a show and not murder my roster for using "Steal the Show".
I'm just murdering guys left and right.
-
<p>But just because there's light tubes - there's using a ring surrounded in fire the way they did in Japan in FMW, and the way they did with Kane vs Undertaker on RAW in the 1990s, both times.</p><p> </p><p>
A ladder match could well be more like Shawn-Bret 1 and less like Modern TLC. The match aims for Wild Brawl, Mayhem, and Car Crash already increases injury and fatigue, the weapon "high risk" just gives a double whammy. </p><p> </p><p>
So I think at minimum, Ladders should allow Low Injury Risk.</p><p> </p><p>
I also wonder if, when using Weapon Gimmicks, perhaps the fans reaction levels should be dependent on the risks - Chekov's Gun. You have a Ladder Match and only use it for 1-2 spots? Fans are disappointed, "very low risk" might not increase match ratings very much. Likewise, "average risk" would give the full standard bonus, and increasing the risk would increase further bonuses.</p><p> </p><p>
This could apply for both Injury and Content Risk; the amount you use will determine the amount of bonus-penalty interactions. A "low risk" ladder match wouldn't have a penalty - it might be the best your network will let you do on Monday Nitro, so it would give a small bonus. It would be better than "very low" risk one, that's for sure. But that would allow a "Fun Time" wrestling promotion to access that match. A very tiny bonus, nobody's hurt or upset. They might irish whip someone into the ladder during a power ranger type of dance, maybe one body slam onto a ladder or ladder ram to the mid section.</p><p> </p><p>
My real concern about it, is accessibility of promotions/networks. Once in a while, a ladder or cage match is fun, and it shouldn't guarantee the injury of the workers.</p><p> </p><p>
And the 1.17 update "feels" to me like it increased rate of injuries with the "Steal the Show" match aim, maybe it's just me. Sure feels that way.</p><p> </p><p>
Every type could have it's standard as the break even point, with less risk giving less bonus and more risk increasing it.</p><p> </p><p>
Light Tubes "Low Injury Risk", "Average Content Risk" might imply minimal use of the weapons, so very small bonus to the show (and less likely than normal to upset the network - they will understand this is just a few controlled light tube whacks and not a Mad Man Pondo match).</p>
-
Episodic Aggression - This product is based on Ruthless Aggression with a touch of Episodic and No Style forms. The fans don't want anything that is raunchy or too violent; however, they enjoy 10 minute matches as long as 30 minute matches if they're good. This is also aimed at companies who wish to have a Royal Rumble - really, it's not fun to run them in companies where you get dinged hard for match length. Nor is it fun to create new match, smallest match time possible for a rumble, and fit in a 15 minute royal rumble. Likewise, the HHH/Rock and Bret/Shawn and other classic Iron Man matches are enjoyed by these fans.
Fans will expect events to be 70% matches, 30% angles
Fans will expect TV shows to be 60% matches, 40% angles
Matches are rated on a ratio of 40:60 or 60:40 in ring action/popularity, whichever produces higher rating.
Fans are open to any match type.
Each show will need at least one match aimed as Story Telling
Matches must be at least five minutes.
Deathmatches will get severely penalized.
The most violent matches will get severely penalized.
Eye Candy matches/angles will get severely penalized.
Fans expect everyone to have a gimmick.
The fans will expect there to be lots of ongoing storylines.
Fans expect major matches to have a storyline.
The company is "somewhat" attractive to sponsors.
Comedy based gimmicks can be used even by Stars and Major Stars
Having a wrestler be forced to unmask will add heat to a segment
Having someone shaved bald as a forfeit adds heat to a segment
Could a new restriction be made on upper match times along the lines of "Matches that go beyond 15 minutes will be penalized unless it is the main event slot and features a championship"?
This would allow both the 15 minute match restriction, while providing the criteria for Rumbles to succeed - no penalty IF it's in the main event slot AND features a title such as Royale Rumble which "counts as an achievement". It would also help an Iron Man match if there is a title and it's the main event. The restriction involved, obviously, is you must have said match as the main event. If you have an angle in the "main event slot", here comes the ding.
Otherwise, just have no time limit penalties. These fans aren't ADHD so they can pay attention to a 30 minute match or 15 minute angle - if it's good. I wonder if there's a way to say "Matches above 15 minutes get a penalty unless it's really good" similar to how some products don't penalize you IF it's really good.
-
InThe game shouldn't force you to figure it out on your own. Don't say "lengthy" or "quite lengthy" or other words with subjective meanings.
Instead, please have it say "...matches must be at least 15 minutes long" or "...cannot be longer than 15 minutes" or 10 or whatever.
-
How does the game determine which matches are important? I'm booking matches that are a team of a Major Star and a few Stars against a team of unimportants who have never won a match. Gave them 10 minutes at first since that's what I always did in TEW 16, just want to get the young guys in the ring to help them grow. However, this year it's saying that "the match was too short for a match that fans consider important"
So I decided to bump it up, seeing where this goes. I put it at 15 minutes and still got the message. Then later in the same show, I had a tag title match in the midcard featuring a team of Major Stars vs. a team of Well Known. This was given 17 minutes, which is not a short amount of time for a midcard match, yet I got the message that the fans thought it was too short for a match the fans consider important! I feel like that note shouldn't be existing for midcard matches unless it's somehow Major Star vs. Major Star in a singles. It's a silly note in it's current implementation.
It will usually depend on your product. Some products do not want matches longer than 15 minutes, and will sag your ratings. Other products do not want matches shorter than 5 minutes, shorter than 10, shorter than 15, shorter than 20. So your individual product will determine how long a match must be.
What matches matter? Someone, correct me if I am wrong!
1. Any match featuring a "Major Star" vs "Star" or higher. If you don't have any Stars or Major Stars, it would be the most important you do have.
2. Any main event match, title match, top storyline match.
On your product screen, SCROLL DOWN all the way. Sometimes, the list isn't big enough for all the things a product does to you. And I have had to change products to be allowed to perform matches longer than 15 minutes.
-
Content Risk ONLY matters when a product/fanbase loves or hates "High Risk" content, in which High and Very High Content Risk will come into play.
I have never seen "Average" content come into play, but I assume it would apply for a broadcaster with "Very Low" risk levels basically only allowing standard and comedy matches.
-
I think Cage, Ladder and Tables should ALL be able to run a "Low Injury Risk".
As for Light Tubes, at least "Average".
-
It's also great for Road Agents to have 0 popularity because they will cost less money. I learned this when I let go a few old time wrestlers working as road agents to replace them with a few better ones I hired.
The better ones had no popularity and were significantly cheaper because of it.
-
I am an American company who turned off Oceana, Europe, and India. Does this mean I will never have the ability to become Titanic because I cannot visit these game areas?
-
I wish Child Companies had no say whatsoever in Alliance matters, or had their "vote" automatically cast by the parent. It's annoying when trying to build an Alliance of developmental, but the more developed (medium) size ones refuse to let others in who otherwise meet the criteria.
Okay, I get that you "don't see the benefit". You're a child company. I pay you to say the benefit is whatever I told you it is, whether you believe me or not.
I can still set it up in the editor before starting a game, but once the game starts, I cannot add any further members because "I don't see the benefit". The child company owner and booker are both "Unifier" in business and have a positive relationship with me, and with the owner of the other company.
-
Alliance Functions/Proposals - it should work somewhat like the Dirty Tricks or Locker Room Speech menu. It gives a list of 2-3 options to sway the alliance members to vote in your favor (or upset them).
Some functions might include "Cannot borrow Company Champions unless they also have an Alliance Title", "Worker becomes unavailable for Alliance Loan", "Worker becomes available for Alliance Loan", and maybe - "Reward/Penalty for Alliance Title matches" where the alliance gives money for high rated matches and takes money for low rated matches, to encourage the prestige.
Vote Setting:
1, Majority Rules. Alliance Members vote on invites, expulsions, and other things with the majority (if there is one), winning. Tie = No.
2, One Strike Out (one says no, it's no).
3, Executive Action ("leader" chooses all; and is elected once every 6 game months. Leaders might upset members they decide against and make happy the members they decide for).
Alliances can gain some much needed depth and interactivity, and become a more fun part of the game.
Alliance Event: Proposal. Company must run an Event (of their own prestige level, so no throwaway for Titanic companies) that features at least one worker from each alliance member within 90 days.
Worker Use Loan: Put a worker in the "pool" for other alliance members. Worker will have one of three designated uses: Training means the worker can be jobbed out. Get Over means the worker should be built up and minimally lose. Alliance Face means they should be used in main event level things. Worker goes into a "pool", and alliance members may draw from the pool.
So, instead of going to a company to borrow a worker, you put a worker into a pool, and if other companies in the alliance are interested, they can recruit the person to use them for the Designated Use. This might have a limit of how many workers in a pool, and how many pool workers may be used. It might also come with lowering the natural alliance loan numbers.
Alliances can still borrow outside the pool, but it basically tells the members "Here are the first priority workers I am happy to give". Maybe have a second pool of "Please don't take me". They can still take them, but are less likely to do so except for a major event.
-
What stimulates my interest most is when I can run one weekly show, one event, and finally have my roster "worked" into story. Sometimes it takes me a few months (in game) to really get a feel for the storylines that come to me.
When I get into a groove, everything feels good. What keeps me from running out of ideas is that I am an idea machine once I get going. The only real hindrance to me is the first month or so, during which I either become captivated or lose interest entirely.
Like I said - I mostly lose interest when the load of what I must do each week increases too much. Right now, I violated my own rule by having three shows a week, M, W, F, at two and a half hours. For some reason this hasn't "hit" me yet, but I won't be surprised if I tire and open a third child company to stick them all in.
-
Are you talking about launching your own broadcaster in-game? As far as I can tell, all broadcasters that you can launch in-game are all Internet-based.
The difference will between PPV, FTA, Commercial, and Subscription.
If that's not your question, are you asking about creating a broadcaster in database editor?
I am talking about - I own a Terrestrial Subscription network.
To what end would it hurt me more than help me, to start an Internet Subscription network for more viewers?
I created the first broadcaster, Terrestrial Subscription, in the database. Then, after a year or so, I realized "I can own more than one broadcaster" but then remembered reading something about "If you have a show on more than one broadcaster, they will eat each other and both get lower ratings".
So, if I own a Terrestrial Subscription, then I should NOT start an Internet Subscription, right? Because they will just eat each other?
-
Give yourself about 7 points in "Silver Tongue", then "Talk to worker" and you can ask them to come to your area.
I always get that Japanese Spider girl, first thing. She doesn't always say yes, but when she does, she's the immediate "2016 Spencer Spade" of my women's division.
-
My interest is cut 50% when I have to run more than one weekly show.
It starts to feel like a chore when I have to micromanage every match to get a good rating.
It starts to feel like a job when I reach the point where I have to start gimping the game with abusive practices to remain viable.
-
Question, while I am here. I am an American company who turned off Oceana, Europe, and India. Does this mean I will never have the ability to become Titanic because I cannot visit these game areas?
-
If I understand Broadcasters correctly, one should not start both a Terrestrial and Internet broadcaster because one will step on the toes of the other?
Is internet the best then? (Internet Subscription)
Pre-booking worker dates in advance
in Total Extreme Wrestling 2020 Suggestions
Posted