Spoons

- A figurehead getting a good crowd reaction

I was more talking about the attribute thing than the product one in that instance. For the products, instead of "Morality Wrestling" we could use "Educational Wrestling" or "Sports Edutainment" or something similar to that.

I also feel like a decent amount of this comes from "well there are no products like that in real life, so therefore we shouldn't need that," which is weird when the entire main database the game comes with is a fake one to begin with, and therefore shouldn't reflect reality.

Well yeah, but requesting that the products change entirely and how to do it might count. You never know. 😛

You oughta bring this to the Product Suggestion Thread.

So I'm playing a company with the "Wrestling Nerd Nirvana" style, and it's giving me this message: And I feel like 100% Matches shouldn't be allowed except in a company where that's what the fans expect. You should have to make at least 1 angle in every show of most products. Like, there's that 15% leniency, which I hugely appreciate, but I feel like it should automatically say you'll be penalized if you have 100%, since even when companies with very few angles host a PPV, they almost always still have some, at least. Not to mention that not having any angles after fans see a ton of shows with angles would come off as odd, right?

You could just call it "Family Friendly".

So, I sometimes have the trouble of making someone on my roster an alliance champion, then having them be borrowed by another company on the day of my season finale or something else big. So, I'd like to make the suggestion that you can "reserve" a particular worker to be used on a certain day, that guarantees nobody else uses them on that day. Maybe it works for other alliance title holders, maybe it only works on members of your own roster, maybe it can even work for non-exclusive contracts, I don't know, but I think for sure it should work on your workers who have an alliance title, so that they're not off on a random B-show defending (or not even defending, like one of my previous posts states) their title in a different promotion during one of your biggest shows of the year. If they're a main eventer, or at least high on the card, then that could bring your show rating down significantly, which is why I think this is a good idea.

How about, instead of "Iron Man", we have an entrance order instead? At least for things like Royal Rumble-style Battle Royales, so that you can decide if someone's the iron man by having them enter first and get thrown out second to last or something?

I mean, there might still be some things like that, and if they are they should be changed, but I haven't found any thus far.

Oh yeah, I guess that would be a database problem, rather than a core game problem.

Yeah. I think it happening sometimes is fine, especially with really big names, but it happens more often than I would like, personally, and it happens with all kinds of champions, even ones where it's not them elevating the belt, but the other way around, like if a person with 30 popularity has a 60 pop title. Better put 'em in a random trios match! Some people also have it happen more often than others, for some reason. Like, one guy, I just checked, has had 7 alliance-loaned matches since he won the title. 3 of them were title defenses, the other 4 were just random multi-person matches on whatever show he was on. That is a disproportionate amount of those in favour of non-title matches.

I have a developmental company that I then invite to my alliance, and nobody has a problem with it, though I don't know if you can do it the other way around, I've never tried it. And yeah, WOTI is different that way, it has every version of every company all at once. Every WWE, every WCW, etc. It's really neat, but does make for inconsistencies like this.

I'm mostly just suggesting we change the word "man" to "person". Like, yes, it gets the point across, but it's also outdated wording, and doesn't take women or any other gender into account. It does on the recap screen, but not when booking, which is another weird part, to me, it seems inconsistent.

So, I'm playing War Of The Immortals, where all companies are active at the same time, and WWFA (WWF Attitude) is in a direct war with WCW/nWo (WCW in its nWo era). As you can see here, WWFA recently adopted WCW as a development territory. However, WCW is in an alliance with WCW/nWo, as they're both versions of WCW, and I feel like they shouldn't be able to do that. Like, at the very least WCW should reject the request in order to protect the integrity of the WCW alliance, right? Or at the very, very least, it should act as like a dirty trick. Like "We're a parent company of your alliance member, how do you like that!?"

So the AI keeps bringing the alliance champions into their companies, which is good, that's what they're supposed to do, but sometimes it's not to defend the title, it's just to use them in a match & not put the belt on the line... mostly in a tag or trios match if they're a singles champion, though a few times it's either been that they bring in one member of tag team champions but not the other, or borrow them both and use them on opposite teams (same with trios, apparently, as that second one just happened to me with The Elite. Kenny nowhere to be found, Matt & Nick on opposite sides of the ring on random, ragtag teams). This whole thing is basically just free alliance loans that they can do on the night-of, and I think it should be a little more restrictive, at least for AI companies, so that doesn't happen, since having an alliance with loans turned off shouldn't have this as a makeshift workaround.

So I notice that battle royals are still called "10-Man", "15-Man", "20-Man", etc. Shouldn't it be "10-Person", "15-Person", "20-Person", etc.? I don't know, just a minor suggestion. Maybe we should have a "Minor Suggestions Thread", like the typos thing but for things that would just be like, changing some text on the screen or making some other really simple changes.

Yeah, I can see that. Wrestling companies do still do that, even in today's more lenient society, so I can see an intergender roster still being separated into men and women like it's a high school dance. That's wrestling for you. It's realistic to the real thing, and that's what this game does best. 😛 I do fully agree that a company with almost none of a particular gender should just have a single trainer for everyone, since singling them out would be silly. Maybe also just like, companies that are really small. Like, I can't see a Tiny or Insignificant company having two separate trainers. Hell, most of them I can't even see having *one*. I guess you could just not set them, but having tiny or insignificant-sized companies having only one trainer slot, and maybe fewer Inner Circle slots in general, would make more sense. Because otherwise, if the AI fills those up completely, their entire roster might fit on that one screen if the company's small enough.

Hey, so I've got a suggestion: In promotions that have intergender wrestling, there's no need to separate the men's and women's trainers, is there? So, why not, for those promotions alone, merge them into one just called "trainer"?

I think everything up to 10 vs. 10 would be a fun addition, just for rare occasions when you have a bunch of people left and need an opening match.

Also, speaking of attributes, "Actors" would be a good one too, rather than just "Charismatic Talkers", because charisma isn't everything.

So, to piggyback off the recent suggestion of making "Sex Appeal" a hiring preference, why not do that with a bunch of other factors? Like "menace", "comedy workers", "nepotism" (meaning they'll be more likely to hire people they have a positive relationship with), "in the family" (meaning they'll be more likely to hire family members specifically), "competes against males", "competes against females", "diversity" (meaning they're more likely to hire workers of non-hetero sexualities & trans workers), "multilingual" (more likely to hire workers who can speak multiple languages), or "national" (more likely to hire people from their own game area)? I think these could add something to the game, and overall increase the nuance of things a bit more.

So, in the editor, you can pre-make an alliance with members who'd almost certainly be kicked out or straight-up vetoed by the other members if it were to be made in-game. Like a tiny-sized member in an alliance with medium-sized promotions. I think there should be a higher chance, unless they're set as permanent, for those members to be removed from the alliance in-game, for the sake of consistency. Same thing with companies that have an owner who normally wouldn't be looking to join an alliance, or who has a negative relationship with at least one other company owner in the alliance.

I like the idea of an alliance owner, it can be like owning a company with a child company; you decide who's in control of each of the alliance's companies. That seems a little overpowered, especially if it's a gigantic alliance, but it could be quite fun.

I'd love to have an "auto name" feature for requirements and effects for narratives, it is unnecessarily tedious at the moment to have to name them manually each time. Especially not helped by each one auto-highlighting, so even if you put "Requirement 1" and go to put "Requirement 2", you have to click on the name, then click again to stop the auto-highlighting, then highlight just the 1, then change it (or backspace and replace). It's tedious, and makes narratives with a ton of requirements and effects more of a chore than they're worth.