spiffyone

Someone mentioned this in the gameplay forum, so I've posted it here along with my response because it is indeed a glaring issue: Big problem if you want to do it for a lot but not all of the workers. Because although you can "select all", you then have to go one by one scrolling manually and right click on the workers that you don't want to be part of the mass edit, which is a pain with databases that have a large list of workers. Basic navigation is better using the old style list especially since the scroll bar is smoother and faster in terms of navigation (making searching through a list for say, a group of the workers that you wouldn't want to be part of a mass edit), but if you hit "toggle list" everything you selected will be gone and you can't mass edit. And you can't use the "search" option under the new style lists because that too deactivates "select all" completely. And using the search filter is no big help, because, again, "select all" will be deactivated once resetting the search filter. The only workaround I can give you is use the search filter to select the exact type of folks you want to mass edit, or go company by company, do a "mass" edit on them, then reset the search and do it over again with other searches. And no, it is not optimal. I've taken the liberty of creating a topic in the suggestions forum and quoting your post (it seems to help when there's more than one person who sees the issue) with some suggestions on how to better things. Hopefully it'll be fixed somehow. Is there some way to keep "select all" activated when toggling the list and/or when using the search bar or the filtered search option? Or implementing "mass edit" using the old style list and bringing back the select boxes which made keyboard navigation and selection so much simpler and easier and faster? Or at least making the scrolling using the new style lists as smooth and fast as with the old style lists? We're clicking more than we did in 2016, and navigating much slower. In the database editor, it's making things more of a chore than they should be.

Another way to do it without having to start a multiplayer game would be to create a blank database and then within that database create WWF and NXT, setting the latter up as a child company of the former. Then use the in-game options/settings menu, select "import", and import the NXT data into the game once the time comes. No need to assign an "owner" or booker, as the AI will choose who heads it, etc. Unless that too has changed from 2016. On another note: I didn't mention re-implementing user attribute templates upon starting a new game as a desired change, but just when I thought about it I see that it's back in as of the newest update (#14). Good.

Switching to the classic style list (so you can navigate more using the keyboard)? Yeah. It should be the default option, tbqh. The only issue is that switching to that view takes away the option to do mass edits. You can always switch back to do those, but it is not an optimal solution.

Some things need to be fixed for 20 for it to surpass 16 for classic real world mods (or alternate history mods for that matter), but then again some of the stuff that helped those particular mods in terms of realism that were in 13 were stripped in 16 and now are back in 20 (for example, the contracts with broadcasters splitting costs and revenue, which really helps mimic Vince's early strategy of essentially bribing TV stations to air his shows and not air those of the other companies). That said, I can confidently state that, at least IMHO, 2020 is the better base game for CVerse (and hopefully TVerse...hopefully) and perhaps modern day mods as well. If Adam could fix the UI more here and there (especially in the database editor), add in TV shows having fixed venues as an option, and add in the option for defined "non-compete" contracts with workers (to mimic workers leaving for longer than a few shows for Japan tours but still remaining exclusive in the US to a specific company, or being able to work really small indies on off days but not for similar sized or larger US companies as yours), then there'd be no going back to 2020 other than for product creation/modification modding purposes. On that end, if he could add some more flavor to the product types, that'd be nifty. Better yet would be to, somehow, someway, release a front end to whatever he's doing to add products in...but that seems likely to not happen at this point (but I can still dream).

<p>I've brought up this suggestion as well, and my examples were from classic wrestling. </p><p> </p><p> This would replicate things like, say, some of the Watts UWF (former Mid-South) guys being exclusive to Watts in the US but as part of their contract able to go work Japan if they wanted. Watts was notorious for running injury angles that just happened to coincide with guys getting ready to go on a short tour of Japan. </p><p> </p><p> The loan system doesn't replicate that, because it's only for a few shows. Guys would be gone anywhere from a week or two to a couple of months (or longer even) irl.</p><p> </p><p> And I'd go a step further: it'd be nifty to replicate some of the modern US contracts which sign guys to exclusives...but still allow them to work smaller indies in the US (iirc, some Impact and ROH contracts were like that for a while). Maybe allow us to specify within the contract offer the size of a company the worker can work for in addition to ours <em>and/or</em> regions outside of the home region they can work?</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>There is an entire editor for mods. Many mod makers have said making mods and general editing is a lot easier now after playing around with it.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> "Many"?</p><p> </p><p> We've had a handful of known mod creators who have released their mods to the community ITT. Most have stated that modding and editing are <em>not</em> easier for them.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Product customisation (I cant think of a historical or current promotion who's product wouldnt be covered in the current presets off the top of my head either to be honest).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I can think of a few. When I played with the "search for rl promotion and find product style results that best fit them" and punched in "AWA", I found that, yeah, the products fit AWA during specific points in time. Except the ESPN era, where they absolutely had a bit more "risque" content that did not turn off what was left of their fanbase at all (they had lingerie battle royals and the women wrestlers wearing very, very skimpy outfits especially for that point in time) in addition to the hokey feeling (bless Larry Nelson) and the "respect for wrestling" basis (because Verne wasn't gonna change too much). </p><p> </p><p> I haven't played the latest patch update, but I've found no product that hits that particular product at that particular time.</p><p> </p><p> And that's just one real world example. There are others. I can't see how, say, the original GLOW could actually be simulated as currently stands. Or POWW. </p><p> </p><p> And that's ignoring the not rl possibilities. Someone earlier brought up a hyper realistic MMA clown comedy or something like that as a snide comment against those who want product creation again, but here's the thing: what if someone wants to create the <em>next</em> CVerse (or TVerse) and set it in a fictional world where a product of that sort would have a fanbase? They can't do that now.</p><p> </p><p> Yes, the base game, in terms of playing the game, is by far, even this early in, better than 2016. But the modding capability? Eh...not so much. There's pluses and minuses, and some of those pluses are awesome...but some of those minuses really hurt things.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Bobby Brown" data-cite="Bobby Brown" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>hello!<p> i just found out, that the great feature of putting a fix venue</p><p> to a specific event is not available for the TV shows.</p><p> so, TV shows cannot have a fixed venue.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> What the?!</p><p> </p><p> I just noticed that (as I'm currently playing a non-modded CVerse database using IPW which has no TV shows). How the heck did <em>that</em> happen?!</p><p> </p><p> Having fixed venues only for events and not for TV shows defeats the doggone purpose of fixed venues because wrestling TV shows, not events, have a MUCH higher percentage of examples of being the type of cards set in fixed venues. Some were always taped in TV studios (like Memphis/CWA and Crockett/Mid-Atlantic NWA), some in small arenas or small show venues (AWA at the Showboat Casino, WWF pre-84 when they taped everything in Allentown PA Agricultural Hall and pre-86 when the tapings were moved to NY's Mid-Hudson Civic Center, WCW in the early '90s at Center Stage).</p><p> </p><p> Yeah...someone should've caught that. Definitely needs to be changed.</p>

Sorry, but you didn't actually state that clearly in the original post to which I responded, hence my confusion as to what you were asking. No worries, as you clarified in this post I'm responding to now, however. I've not seen that be an issue on patch 10, and I hadn't seen the issue in previous patches, so it is most likely that it has been fixed.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="consortium11" data-cite="consortium11" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm in favour of giving us the ability to tweak products so don't take this as a condemnation of your overall point but I think one can make the argument that a product being an assured failure, not catching fire and dying quickly can already be effectively stimulated by how you <em>book</em> a company regardless of its product. If I want to do the aforementioned "Sexy Naked Barbed-Wire Deathmatch" company then I could do one with a Risque Adult product and take the lumps from all the dangerous and bloody matches being penalised or one of the Deathmatch products with the eye candy/sex appeal stuff being capped/penalised; if we're simulating failure then then booking matches, characters and angles that upset my fans (whichever way it goes) does exactly that.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I see your point (and I don't take offense to it). I would argue, however, that booking poorly simulates the reaction of whatever fanbase you have that is already interested in your product or who might be interested in your product. It does not, however, simulate a market being largely apathetic to the type of product regardless of booking.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> As an aside, one of my issues with the beta has been fixed with the beta #10 update:</p><p> </p><p> The avatar and company select screens upon starting a new game allow for keyboard arrow navigation!</p>

Pre-booking a show prior to the taping day only impacts the first show that is taped. The subsequent shows are not pre-booked that way. So if you book a match that you leave off the first show taped thinking that you can put it on the second show being taped, it won't work and you'll suffer the penalty for not coming through with the promised match for the first show. You can, however, still pre-book matches for the shows being taped after the first. But you have to do it one by one. For the next show at the taping you can pre-book the match either at the booking screen for the first show being taped or when you run that first show (as you can pre-book matches for the next taping in the order there too). If you have a third show being taped, you have to repeat that process during the second show, and if you have a fourth show at the taping you have to pre-book that during the third show.

I'm not sure I understand your question. If the contract you offered and to which he signed specified that you wanted him to work exclusively as an on-screen personality, he will only work in that role for your company. That's been the case with previous games as well. If you go and ask him to, say, wrestle in a deathmatch, he'll say "no, I'm only signed to be an on-screen personality". His status as an active wrestler within the game world hasn't changed (at least not yet, and if it does it'll be his decision). So if the contract is about to end and is in the negotiation window period, or it's just a handshake deal, or not iron clad, then he's free to sign with another company offering him a contract to be an in-ring worker.

<p>I'm only bringing this up because someone else did, so keep comments about repeating to a minimum please:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="infinitywpi" data-cite="infinitywpi" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Okay, I've been thinking about the whole Product thing for a while now, and I think I've managed to articulate my feelings on it. So here goes.<p> </p><p> This is a sandbox, so you should be able to set your company's product however you like. However, it is also a simulation, so setting your product to be Sexy Naked Barbed-Wire Deathmatches should result in a quick descent into bankruptcy and game over.</p><p> </p><p> Or in other words: Not all products are going to be viable because there's no (or not a big enough) audience for them. Audiences want certain things, and doing things like "It's WWE but with the comedy slider moved down" isn't going to really distinguish them much -- it's still Sports Entertainment. The pre-made products cover everything viable, and some that -might- be viable, given the audience of the world. Anything else won't work. </p><p> </p><p> So as much as a Hyper-Realistic Lucha Comedy company sounds interesting, in practice it's such an unworkable product that it just doesn't exist. And if it was allowed to exist, we'd have countless threads of "Why doesn't my product get anyone coming to events/watching shows/go bankrupt so fast?"</p><p> Sometimes, sandboxes need limits.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Here's the thing:</p><p> </p><p> In mods, one can pretty much create a "desired" game world ("desired" for the purposes of the mod), no matter if that creation would be feasible irl. </p><p> </p><p> Such a game world could indeed have the trends for wrestling products that <em>would</em> make "Sexy Naked Barbed-Wire Deathmatches" or "Hyper-Realistic Lucha Comedy" financially feasible if not highly successful. </p><p> </p><p> Moreover, even if they wouldn't be successful and would be assured failures...so what? The past is littered with pro wrestling product ideas that never really caught fire and died quickly. That's happened before, it will happen again. </p><p> </p><p> If this is supposed to be a simulation, then simulating the failures as well as the successes (however minor or major either are) should be part of the package.</p>

<p>Every time a new beta version is released, I start a new game to see if an issue that absolutely bugs me has been fixed. </p><p> </p><p> It has not.</p><p> </p><p> That issue?</p><p> </p><p> The navigation of the avatar and company select screens. Still can't deselect "enable new style lists" and revert back to arrow navigation as available elsewhere in the game. It's maddening.</p><p> </p><p> As for the whiteboard: It's handy to have it there. It is too wide, however, taking up a large area of the screen. And I can see why some are arguing that it's too "bright". I just turn down my screen brightness or have "night mode" on my computer, but for some neither of those might be solutions. For them a possible solution would be to give the option to invert colors. If that's not possible in VB6, then making it more silvery in tone would possibly help.</p><p> </p><p> I would like to see it resized a bit. Less wide.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="French Connection" data-cite="French Connection" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I really think something has to be done with the contracts. <p> I don't understand to sign a written contract with an exclusivity clause if anyone can go over it!</p><p> </p><p> I tested a real world mod, and I got Moxley to sign with WWE because I did not notice the difference between "Written" and "Exclusive Written". </p><p> </p><p> Also, in some sports, if a company decides to bid above your worker's contract, they have to pay you the contact's value in exchange. </p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Wait...are you stating that you stole Moxely even though he was under a exclusive written contract? That shouldn't happen. Unless that contract was about to end and was in the negotiation window of time, in which case anyone could start bidding for his services.</p><p> </p><p> If not...then that's a problem.</p><p> </p><p> I will piggyback on the exclusive written contract bit and state that it would be nice in a future TEW game if law suits would arise for contract tampering. </p><p> </p><p> Oh, and I think I suggested this when the game was in development, but it would be really great if exclusive contracts could be set on a "worldwide" basis, "per area" basis, and even have options for choosing which type of companies your company would allow a worker to work for when not booked on one of your company's shows. </p><p> </p><p> This could have loads of permutations: </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Your company would be able to have a worker under an exclusive written contract:<br /> <br /></li><li>but only in the US, allowing them to sign for other companies outside of the US.<br /> <br /></li><li>but only blocking companies of the relatively the same size as your company (accounting for one size up and one size down, hence "relatively") from signing him to handshake deals.<br /> <br /></li><li>but allow companies with whom you have relationships with to sign them for "off nights" from your company.<br /></li></ul><p></p>

"Have to"? Anyway, there's other issues peppered in here and there. Most of us who want it re-implemented were moving beyond it ITT, tbqh, for other matters. For my part I've mentioned mostly UI related issues, as that's where my primary concern for the May release lies (I honestly never expected user controlled product creation/modification to be re-implemented by then, hence my stating "in an update down the line" every so often).

Yep. Huge loss. My initial gut choice to take over the booking duties for IPW, as it were, was Karen Killer (in my 2016 save I had her as manager and part of a stable consisting of Aldous Blackfriar and The Night Terrors). But then I took a look at her new profile pic and...wow my darkness cougar did not age very well in four years. Still, it would make sense as she does have booking experience.

That poster and I seem to have hashed things out (I hope) as it seemed to have been a simple matter of us using the same term but with differing definitions (his seemed to be more technical/dev oriented, mine was just the common definition of "preset"). So I'm not going to go back there, because sniping at one another just doesn't add anything IMO. We all want the game, which has a lot of good, to be better.

Thinking about this, if it's something one wants to keep on and they don't mind running an entire OS for one app, a portable Linux distro running on a persistent live USB should do the trick. Boot up from USB into the portable Linux distro, use it's package manager to download WINE onto the same USB as the distro, and then download the TEW2020 beta. It should run fine, provided one has a spare USB of large enough capacity.

Let me just state that I agree with you regarding the whiteboard. It is a lot of empty space, and should be resized, but barring that at the very least the white should be a dimmer color (maybe a light grey or something less jarring). A possible temporary solution for you would be to put on "night' mode in your PC, so that as the sun sets during the day the color temperature of your screen changes to reduce eyestrain. Note that it takes a little while to get used to the first time around, but after a while there's no going back. If you don't have the option on your computer's operating system, you can probably look into a program like f.lux that does the same thing.

I'm not upset with it at all. I'm merely pointing out the reasoning behind it is unsound.

Again, I hate to say "strawman" again, but I never stated that it would be as "simple as just having key feature/heavy/medium/low etc. stuff like it was in 2016". We all know it would not be the same as in 2016 due to the changes in the product system. So please...stop doing that. It's been rampant ITT. And it serves no purpose. If we're going to discuss things, strawmen have to be the no-go zone. As for the topic of our discussion: he's adding custom products, though - the ones that he's adding in. So however it's being done, create tools that allows the end user to do that. It's not going to be as "simple" as 2016 for him or for the end user, no, but I doubt that the latter will complain much.

Why would it? Again, he's putting them in somehow. However he's doing it, make that available to the end user in some fashion. And, mind you, if that wasn't thought through prior to the implementation of the new system, then it should've been. So an issue of differing definitions for same terminology then. I used "preset" simply means "already built in" as per the common definition of the term. Perhaps in coding it can be defined differently. But then again I made no mention of procedural products or anything thereof. Simply "preset".

Why would the mechanic likely need to be revamped? The products already in the game were added somehow. The products being added now per the "product suggestions" topic are being added somehow (if they're "okayed"). Make whatever tool Adam is using to put those in available to the end user or make a menu tool available to do that if none has been made yet.

You're missing the point here to argue minutia that in and of itself is kinda wrong to begin with. The product system is different. They are still preset products, though (that is, they are not user defined or controlled in any way). Moreover, you're still missing the point that re-implementing the user controlled product creation or modification would not necessitate removing the products already in the game nor how they work. At all. Once again, what you stated was a strawman. No one argued for the removal of a feature regarding the products, only the re-implementation of a feature that was in previous games. And you've added another strawman in the post to which I'm responding: I never argued it was "presets using 2016's procedural generation like 2016 had". It uses a different system...still preset though.

Another in a long line of "I don't have an issue, so neither should you". People have mentioned why it's an issue for them. Moreover, the change smacks of appealing to a certain part of the audience for these games at the detriment of the "realism" and "simulation" that it strives for. And that's a really iffy strategy, because historically a lot of culture that is "non-majority" has been glossed over or whitewashed for marketing purposes - and at worst it's insulting, at best it's just misguided. And I state that as someone who works in marketing. You don't need to change culture to appeal to wider audiences. Unless you think "taco","tamale", or "piña colada" (I've thrown that in as something of a curveball, btw) are all English words.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="nerodragomir1" data-cite="nerodragomir1" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Seriously though, I don't want anything with products removed. </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> No one does! No one ever did! Because preset products have been there for ages alongside user controlled creation or modification of products.</p><p> </p><p> That's what's so odd about that poster's statement. No one has advocated removing of a feature, only the re-implementation of a feature that has been removed.</p>