tormyb

<p>Does anyone know what the minimum number of matches a wrestler is required to have in a year to qualify for the Power 500? Also, is meeting this requirement binary, or will wrestlers be penalised on a scale depending on how many matches under the required number they wrestle?</p><p> </p><p> Also, while I'm asking, the Power 500 is said to be, "based upon match ratings". Is this an average?</p><p> </p><p> Any pointers in the right direction would be very much appreciated, please. Thanks in advance.</p>

Wow! Particularly like those 21CW alts, although every one of those logos gives me a different idea for a save game I want to start, or promotion I want to create. Such great work.

I, Partridge: We Need to Talk About Alan...Alan Presumably this is all helpful stuff GDS? Plenty more recommendations where these come from.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Kamchatka" data-cite="Kamchatka" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47689" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>It's a scrolling list of the skills on top of the graphic i make so sadly i can't implement this. As soon as you start to scroll down the blocks wouldn't be in the right place. Also you can switch the skills list over to attributes as well so the two tone pattern has to accommodate for either list</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Interesting. Thanks for clarifying.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Powerful_Fox" data-cite="Powerful_Fox" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Neil Warnock can go f*ck himself for comments he made about me in a build up to an FA cup Quarter Final, I've hated him for a good 12 years.</p><p> </p><p> Randy Orton turned down an offer I made to him when I already pencilled in around 4-6 months of story for him in TEW 05. He doesn't exist to me now.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> 100% agree.</p><p> </p><p> On a related note, I think if Steve Coogan and Rob Bryden ever get bored of filming The Trip, Neil Warnock and Randy Orton would be a great replacement duo.</p><p> </p><p> Has anyone made a mod where I can book Warnock and Orton to go meandering along the French Riviera together? If Adam doesn't patch it in to TEW 20, I'm not buying it!</p><p> </p><p> Mr Kennedy and Alan Pardew on the other hand. Get in the sea you drug test failing, transfer blocking a**holes! (For clarity, Mr Kennedy had nothing to do with my failure to sign a young Papu Gomez).</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Powerful_Fox" data-cite="Powerful_Fox" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Wife: Fox, do you want tea?<p> Me: Those reports are preposterous, I've never even heard of tea!</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Haha!</p><p> </p><p> Boss: You haven't achieved any of your goals this year.</p><p> Internal memo: tormyb vows to end goal drought.</p><p> </p><p> Says a lot about my abilities, that the first new report I think of from the game is about my striker not scoring!</p><p> </p><p> Actually, I better stop talking about FM. I won't stop.</p><p> </p><p> What about this new TEW 20 game eh? I hear there's a hell of a box-to-box midfielder called Tommy Cornell.</p>

As a rapidly balding man in his twenties, there will be an negative correlation between the booking you get and the amount of hair you have. I'm not saying that I'm wildly jealous and bitter, but you can have luscious locks or a good push, not both.

You've made me realise that I should probably preface everything I say like this. I'm pretty sure that I've played enough Football Manager, that my entire understanding of the world is through that lens. Hmm...this cake is delicious, but as a Football Manager player, it's not as good as the ability to create a manic high pressing system in a few clicks.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Right now, Tyson Baine would get rated higher in a bikini contest than the sexiest female you can make, as long as she has low popularity. Totally unrealistic. </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't know. I'd would 100% take a look at a show, if someone told me that Tyson Baine was going to compete in a bikini contest. Maybe I just need to take a long, hard look at myself (and not at Tyson Baine in a bikini).</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Kamchatka" data-cite="Kamchatka" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Everyone is talking about this purely from the WWE / SWF point of view.<p> </p><p> It's worth remembering there are real life promotions that regularly use exotic dancers, aerial artists, pole dancers, burlesque acts etc to perform during their shows. These acts would be based under "sex-sells" as an angle, so yes, there can be a lot of skill involved it and its not entirely a standing and looking pretty as a valet function.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Does this not, to some extent, prove the limitations of sex appeal within the wrestling industry?</p><p> </p><p> I'm a pretty casual wrestling viewer. I've seen the WWE shows. I haven't seen any of these companies that incorporate burlesque style acts (etc.) into their shows. That suggests to me that these acts aren't getting that over.</p><p> </p><p> .......................................................................................</p><p> </p><p> It's also important to remember that (I think this was written somewhere in one of the TEW handbooks), that popularity is not just about popping the crowd (I'm not saying that anyone has said this). I feel - very much just my opinion - that there are certain types of performances in wrestling that are good for popping a crowd, but don't really have that much of a lasting impact. Flash a bit of skin, and a certain segment of the audience is almost conditioned to cheer. It's like mentioning someone's home town, they're conditioned to react, even if they don't really care and will forget about it moments later. I think that sometimes (not necessarily always, I don't watch widely enough to know) sex appeal angles are conducive to a more temporarily raucous crowd more than they are to much lasting impact.</p><p> </p><p> An absolute killer promo may well be done to a much quieter crowd than a bikini contest - not because they are less into it - but because the nature of the segment is that they need to shut up and listen. I think a lot of sex appeal segments seem deceptively more over than they are, because the natural crowd reaction is more raucous than for some other types of segment.</p><p> </p><p> In TEW terms, I don't think an angle needs to necessarily get a good rating to entertain the live crowd in the short term. In the case of matches, in TEW 16 (sorry haven't played enough 20 yet), you could get notes telling you that a match had "great heat" but which don't get great ratings. The angle/match/show rating seems, to me at least, to be a measure of the lasting impact of a show, more than just whether people enjoy it or not. I would describe extreme expose (or similar) as segments with low ratings but better crowd heat. As someone who wasn't watching much wrestling at the time, I don't think I had any idea who Kelly Kelly was until a couple of years later when she was wrestling more. I think those segments were popping people who were already watching (i.e. performed to a hot crowd), but with lower performance ratings (Kelly Kellly has admitted herself, that she wasn't much of a dancer). I would argue that the segment ratings should be relatively low for that, even if the crowd reacted notably, because they didn't really have much impact beyond that. I don't think they grew the company at all, and as crowd popping midcard segments, low (even awful) ratings are fine.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Your talking pops like Santino got, rated on comedy, and I agree. I'm saying rate it on Sex Appeal. He's not winning nothing legit rated on sex appeal, I don't care how famous he is.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This sort of highlights one of the nuances that TEW doesn't really reflect in wrestling. Segments are not, in reality, based on any one, two, three, four (whatever number) of skills in real life. Two different workers could be booked to do the exact same thing, carry out what they are told to do to the letter, but the crowd would react to different elements of them without the angle needing to be specifically booked for that thing. Bookers can emphasise elements of performers, but they don't decide what segments are being rated on, fans do.</p><p> </p><p> When Kelly Kelly danced, she wasn't just being rated on sex appeal and popularity. She was being judged on those things, but also a degree of charisma, and star quality, maybe even athleticism to an extent, and probably loads of other little things. Maybe someone didn't like her, but they liked her clothes. Maybe someone didn't like her or the clothes, but they really thought it was a nice chair she was dancing around. Every viewer probably shifted their perception of it based on a slightly different range and balance of factors. If Santino did the exact same thing as Kelly, the crowd would react to different elements of it, even if every minute detail of his performance and the booking was the same.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Sorry for the rambling post. I'm off to book Tyson Baine in a bikini contest.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="consortium11" data-cite="consortium11" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48006" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Does it feel somewhat like cheating to look at RAW's roster, realise everyone but Swoop is on handshake deals, realise that their biggest stars can be signed for around $6,000 a month (a tiny amount you normally pay to your openers) on a written deal, realise that no-one has yet said "no" to me asking them to work in the British Isles and thus basically signing RAW's entire main event and upper midcard scene? Yes. Do they all start with popularity 0 in the British Isles and thus I'll have to spend some time building them up? Absolutely.<p> </p><p> But an Aussie invasion (complete of course with wrestling's take on the Ashes and backed by decades of sporting rivalry) is probably the only thing that's really made my imagination get going so far and expanding to Australia is an interesting challenge even if I am handicapping the main opposition by taking their stars. Is it going to be a slow burn process considering you start at 15 popularity over there and your current broadcasting deal only has tiny coverage? Yes. But the three years I have left on the UKB Prime deal (or less if I make enough money to justify a buyout) not only gives me something to aim towards, it also allows Reverie alternative CommPlanet to come into being or, alternatively, me to build up enough of a warchest to setup my own subscription service.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I have to do this.</p><p> </p><p> I promise I won't be thinking entirely about Shane Warne and Glen McGrath ruining my childhood, while I book England to win every Ashes series.</p>

That's a really great idea. Would be brilliant to make you think like a real promoter, having to keep up with audience trends. There was a post in another thread about the idea of products evolving in response to your booking, so your product would automatically change to match how you book to represent crowd's perceptions of the company and what they are actually offering. It would be awesome to combine these two suggestions, and be in a situation where you have to decide whether you want to do things your way and fight against what the audience want in the era, trying to change their minds, or bend to their whims and book in keeping with the eras expectations. Although, on topic, sex appeal is OP enough in real life. For balance, I reckon it's good to nerf it.

Coincidentally, I was working over some questions in my mind that I was going to ask about how certain products in TEW 20 relate to those in TEW 16. Stuff like how 16's "Rated much more on performance/popularity" related to 20's matches being rated 60:40 on popularity vs performance, etc.. Doctor Crunch's comment made me realise that, the fact that I was even thinking about that question, should be taken as a big compliment for the new system. I was planning to ask for something that was vague in 16 to be translated into 20's more specific/precise system. Which I think is a big plus. I was someone who didn't take to TEW 20 immediately. I generally scew on the side of liking games to be easy, and I was worried by a lot of the new specific penalties and "limitations" that I saw in 20. However, I'm increasingly realising that much of what I was worried about was actually in 16, I just didn't see it behind some of the vaguer aspects of the game. I'm also not a programmer here. Couldn't company crowd attributes work the same way as popularity? Have a deathmatch, and the crowd's danger/risk stat goes up. Don't have one for long enough and it starts to go down. Might need some stuff to be preset, as I don't think doing a hundred lucha de apuestas in a row should then result in a special effect, but maybe doing them with hot storylines or legendary masks could? It would be hard to balance, but sounds plausible to a layman. Love the idea, although I'm going insane in lockdown, so I don't know if I can trust what I think.

Hey, hey, hey! Wait a minute. Are you telling me that the good ratings I get are the result of the game giving me points, not my innate brilliance? I thought that the evil game was punishing me unfairly with penalties, and then I (the masterful booker) was overcoming this adversity through sheer force of will, without any bonuses. I'm not certain whether I agree with this. Do you not think that there is a degree of novelty, which makes fans more tolerant of things that they might otherwise reject? Matches regularly being an hour long and this turning away fans, is a very different thing to one match of that length in a year. I'm probably as far towards the casual end of the fan spectrum as it's possible to be while also posting on a forum about a wrestling booking simulator. I generally get pretty bored/restless by longer matches, but every now and again - whether it is quality or novelty - I really enjoy one. Not that my occasional inconsistencies are necessarily representative of a wider fanbase, but I do wonder if there is a less absolute way of doing penalties, which acknowledges rarity as a virtue. Anyway, I'm just throwing ideas out there about tweaks. I am pretty sold on the overall concept of the penalties.

I actually often think about something similar, but not just with T&A or blood. I think TEW reflects lots of aspects of wrestling brilliantly, but the one thing that I'm not sure exactly how it can reflect is the value of novelty, shock, and surprise. As things are, there is no real benefit to holding back performers for big shows. The Undertaker is no more special at Wrestlemania if he hasn't wrestled for months, than if he has been on every TV show. Tommy Cornell walking out to the ring and cutting a promo will get the same rating if he's been in the company for years, or if he's making a shocking epic return to TCW after years away. A TLC match is the same whether it's the company's first one ever, or they're featured on every PPV. I could hold a Royal Rumble every month, and people would get no more bored of it than if I hold one once per year. I know that there are workers who get bonuses on their debut match in a new promotion (or there were in TEW 16), but this is more an individual worker motivation issue than a crowd response. I certainly wouldn't advocate giving bonuses to every debuting worker, or every novelty match type. Heaven knows they can all flop. However, I wonder if - perhaps in TEW 2030 - it might be possible for this to work with some kind of overness requirements, or some way to create a novelty rating. To echo what some posters were saying above, I've gained a lot of happiness from TEW over the years, and TEW 2020 looks to be a great game. However, I'm a selfish, greedy person who can never have enough nice things handed to me - so my mind has already started racing thinking of even more features that I want. My friends and family thank Adam and everyone at GDS for another great game to keep me occupied and stop me bothering them.

I've never watched an episode of Love Island, but I assume that if I hired all the horndogs and used the scripted reality product, I'd be 99% of the way there.

I think this is a really interesting. At the risk of over complicating things, modifying by match style might be interesting. The reason for a high spots match ideally being shorter than some other types of match isn't just that workers run out of stamina quickly - the nature of the match means that it can burn out the crowd quicker. Whereas a more technical slow build match doesn't go longer merely because the wrestlers have the stamina to do so. In reality, the wrestlers (skills and popularity), the context, the type of match, the card placement, etc. all impact how long a crowd will enjoy a match for, and not simply because these things compensate for their dislike of the length. .......................................... On a slightly different note, I was just thinking about the balance between receiving penalties for things you realistically would, and TEW's quite volatile popularity. What I mean by this is, that in previous editions TEW's popularity (both for workers and companies) seems to change quicker than it does in real life, although I can't judge this for TEW 20 yet as I haven't been able to play enough. I like this and think that it makes the game more enjoyable, as it means that your actions as the booker have larger and more immediate consequences. This results in both penalties and successes feeling more punitive or rewarding, as they have more impact on rapidly shifting popularity. Perhaps, for some, this makes penalties seem harder to palate, as they feel that their company is being unduly negatively impacted for a skill point here or a minute there. The flip-side is that positives are also enhanced by this more rapid growth or decline model. However, sometimes people (and by people I mean me) ignore this side of the coin. I know that I see the good grades that I receive because of skilled workers in appropriate matches as being a result of my amazing booking, but then blame the game mechanics when I get penalties, ignoring that fact that somewhere along the line I probably got an equal and opposite reward that just isn't in bright red text.

I wonder how the two-tone lines might look if presented a couple of different ways. The first and most obvious way (which I guess is what everyone has in mind) is to alternate the tones each line. This is perhaps best for focusing the eye and being able to scan across and interpret quickly. An alternative could be to have blocks of each tone alternating by the skills groups. For example Tone 1: all the primary skills. Tone 2: all the mental skills Tone 1 again: the performance skills. and so on. Chunking the information like this could, potentially, make it easier to find the skill that you are looking for at a glance. I'm certainly not a graphic designer, I don't think I ever even completed a computing or art project at school, I just spilled paint allover myself and tried not to break anything. So certainly don't trust my opinion on anything visual. I do work in educational and cognitive research though, and this chunking is something that often works well for helping dyslexic readers. More importantly, this:

I think there are lots of good points on both sides of the debate. I feel a little bit conflicted as to exactly where I stand. I'm probably in agreement with most of the penalties as they are, but what do I know, the game isn't even released yet. The following is mainly about match length and overuse penalties. One one hand, I like that there are certain penalties which are likely to ping lower card matches and differentiate them from the main events which get the time. I'm sure many of us have got real world examples of midcard matches between amazing performers, which were way less entertaining than they could have been due to not getting enough time. There are countless stories of matches (I'm mainly thinking about WWE here) with great potential being too short to make room for lengthy matches elsewhere, and then underwhelming. The match length penalties do represent this. There do need to be ways for the match grade to represent that Tommy Cornell vs Sean McFly in a main event with all the time they want, is an entirely different beast (not just a few points) to them being crammed in a short match on the midcard. TEW 16's less harsh penalties often didn't quite reflect this as well. I wonder, however, whether the penalty should apply equally to all match types. It does seem difficult when certain product types require match types which conflict with length expectations. Could, perhaps, short match length penalties be reduced for "Steal the Show" or even for matches with the "All Out" road agent note, or something of that nature? I also wonder if people feel a little as if they are being punished twice (maybe they should be punished twice?), in certain instances. For example, a less popular worker will already be getting a lower grade due to lower popularity. Then, in some products, they will usually receive an additional penalty for the match being too short or, if the match is long enough to avoid that penalty, for the worker being overused. Now, there is certainly an argument that less popular workers should be receiving these penalties. I certainly wouldn't advocate being able to smash out sensational ratings for every match on every show, and penalties do create this more realistic variety in match grades. That being said, to those who do not like the penalties (aside from the +vs- debate), is it partly because you feel that you are being punished twice for the same thing? The first punishment being that the worker will already be getting a lower grade because of their lower popularity. The second punishment being that, with overuse penalties overlapping (or close to) match length penalties, those workers are then being punished for their lack of popularity a second time by overuse penalties - which are a result of lacking popularity. I'm not entirely sure why I'm getting so into this - given I play with penalties off whenever I feel like it, and don't really care about "getting good" - but I thought I'd put my ideas out there and see if anything resonates. Yeah, well, you know...that's just like...my opinion, man. Edit: Should have mentioned this before I went off on my ramble. Great original post, really detailed an well thought out.

I mostly agree with this. I like having the more detailed double digit numbers available when I want to go into detail in some instances. However, the vast majority of the time I just want to take glance an get a quick impression of a skill. For example, when I'm on the "Workers" screen, I rarely want to go into every little detail about a worker. I usually want to scroll through lots of workers quickly, while glancing at the headline figures. I then like to click into the full profile of the workers that grab my attention. With my (not necessarily representative) play style in mind - there is pretty secure research into the relative speeds of cognition when viewing single and double digit numbers (Martin Fischer at Potsdam does great work in this area). The conclusions are, as you might expect, that humans display significantly quicker and more accurate cognition when viewing single digit numbers. This difference in cognition time - while measured in just a few seconds or less - seems tiny, but really adds up when trying to look over a large number of workers. To be clear, I wouldn't advocate the complete removal of double digit numbers, and I doubt that would be a feasible request. Rather, I would prefer to see them retained in the detailed "Skills" screen within a workers profile, but to have a less detailed single digit number (or letter) visible on the overview (i.e. what you see of the worker on the "Roster" or "Workers" screens). I think that there have been a lot of great upgrades to the interface in TEW 2020 and before that in 2016. However, I do think that the trend has been towards putting more on individual screens, sometimes at the cost of readability. This might save clicking time, but the benefits are often lost because of the additional time it takes to interpret what you are seeing on these more detailed screens. I actually really liked the TEW 2010 "Roster" and "Workers" screens which served as great summaries of the worker you were looking at. They were less detailed but, as such, were more easily absorbable as summaries or overviews (which is what I really want from that first look at a worker).

Thanks for clarifying. Given the limitations, I think that the two tone lines are a solid workaround, and definitely a good touch. Keep up the great work.

Close the thread. It's over now. Someone got the correct answer. Ant-Man. Just Ant-Man. Also, Ant-Man.

These look brilliant. Thanks so much!

On behalf of Big Smackers everywhere - thank you!

This looks absolutely great. I really like the gold borders - they really help me to focus. Maybe I'm just very simple, but before this I was finding it hard to know where to look on TEW 20's new wider display. The borders are really helping to break the screen down into chunks for me. As someone who doesn't know anything about the possibilities and limitations of creating skins for TEW 20, I had a question about the skills section (central in the most recent screenshot). Is there a way of moving the skill names (e.g. "Brawling") closer to it's associated value? With all the blank space in between them, I find that absorbing the information doesn't come naturally to me. At first glance, I just see two unconnected columns - one of words, one of numbers - rather than being able to quickly interpret a workers skills. Is this a limitation of the game, or is it something that could potentially be incorporated into a skin at some point? Thanks for the awesome skin!

This looks amazing! Such great work. The colour coding of the office screen buttons, in particular, is a great touch. In fact, it would be great if the full release of the game allowed for them the buttons to be grouped accordingly.