spiffyone

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Doctor Crunch" data-cite="Doctor Crunch" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The problem being that some of the things being cited as "big problems" by the people throwing around insults like the Product system are some of the things that actually work best in 2020. <p> </p><p> It was offputting at first, but 2020's product system actually makes booking for different companies feel really different. 2016 never escaped a certain drear sameyness. In 2020 21CW and SWF feel wildly different in a way that means they need to be learned and studied. </p><p> </p><p> So if we allow only negative feedback what are the chances that we lose that feature so that someone can "set Comedy to medium." Especially when we know that no one has had time to explore all the products yet.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> 1. Who are these posters who when levying complaints about the lack of user controlled product creation or modification did so in an insulting manner?</p><p> </p><p> 2. I'm not the only one who noticed this, but your argument is a strawman. No one who has thus far advocated for the re-implementation of user controlled product creation or modification (whether in-game, in the database editor outside of gameplay, or both) has EVER advocated the removal of the already set products. No one would, because already set products has been a thing that has existed in the series prior to 2020. </p><p> </p><p> On the "we haven't explored all the products yet": there are some of us doing just that, and our complaints remain, because we don't have to try out all the set products in order to voice an opinion regarding the lack of user controlled creation or modification of products that has existed in previous iterations of the series.</p>

This is a great recommendation that I would LOVE to see implemented either in this game in an update or a future release. Because what you're talking about is what old school bookers in the business called "training your audience". And every audience had to be trained over time, with initial pushback before things caught on. Example: a lot of folks seem to think WWF, once Vince took over from his dad, was always "cartoony". But when you look back at the shows from '82 (when Vince took over), they're very much in line with what his dad was doing before him. Slowly, over time, it became "cartoony". But here's the thing: one may think that coincided with "Hulkamania" in WWF...but it didn't. Even after Hogan started that run the product was a bit more "grounded" than it became later when that run transitioned into the early '90s (I'd say it became out and out cartoony by '90/91). Even the in-ring product changed a bit, with the then-new (in '88 or '89 iirc) no blading policy (even Hogan bladed prior to that). Prior to that, fans wouldn't be "shocked" to see blood flow during that era.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Coulter41" data-cite="Coulter41" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>you can change that</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Except it doesn't apply to the avatar and company selection screens when starting a new game.</p><p> </p><p> And in the database editor in order to change it you have to select "toggle list"...but doing that removes the ability to do a mass edit until you toggle it back.</p><p> </p><p> We're still clicking more now, not less - and that defeats the stated intent of the redesigned UI.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="absolutelyridiculous" data-cite="absolutelyridiculous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48445" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I would like it if they switched the "how much money does he make/fire him?" widget, which you have to interact with fairly regularly, with the "latest headlines" on the same screen, which is nice to have but not really a big deal.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, that screen is oddly put together. In the previous game, you clicked on the colored text next to "Contract" on the worker's mini profile in the roster screen. and from there you could release them, negotiate, etc. Hell, it had a quick bit of info regarding the specifics of their contract right there front and center. In the new game the worker's profile on the roster screen has very important information hidden unless specifically toggled to and has far less important information front and center.</p><p> </p><p> And the worker's role is shown via a little picture in an area with a load of empty space when that could be on the top next to their name, age, and status.</p><p> </p><p> There's quite a few layout issues with that screen.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TOTKingNothing" data-cite="TOTKingNothing" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Depends on what you consider "clean."</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Anything less than 20 seconds isn't clean.</p>

There's an in-game editor. What we're discussing is the lack of user defined or editable company products in both the in-game editor and the database editor.

Actually, it does. Because edits to the database wouldn't modify an in-progress game that's been saved (because that save has as its root the database prior to the edits made in the database editor). And edits to the in-game editor wouldn't modify the base database that is being played in (it would only modify the in-game file, not the actual root database). It's not overblown to THEM (those that want it in-game) or to US (those more concerned about it not being in the database editor for mod purposes). YOU don't see it because YOU don't use it in the way they or we do. Look, I get that some people dig the hell out of the game as it stands now. That's fine. But the constant handwaving and patronizing "you're making a big deal out of nothing" or "you guys just haven't really tried it" stuff has got to stop. We've all made a fair attempt to use the current system, but we see issues with it. You may not, but we do. Patronizing comments like "well, you guys haven't really even tried it" are just...please don't do that. It will end up devolving the conversation.

When I state that I am "not personally advocating for it in-game during gameplay" I don't mean that as "I don't think it should be implemented at all" but rather I'm not personally arguing that it should be - nor am I arguing against it for that matter. I'm simply pointing out that I agree with the concept of what that other poster was arguing but that what he was arguing had nothing to do with what I was pointing out. I don't typically use it in-game, but if others do and you guys want it implemented...so be it. I could just safely ignore it as I do most of the time. Doesn't harm me one bit. Wouldn't harm that other poster either, at least as far as I can tell. It's just not the particular hill I'd die on because it isn't in my interest, but I understand why you would and will absolutely back up your right to die on that hill as I do the same on the hill that I will die on: Not having the option to have complete user controlled modifications or creations of company products in the database editor. I "get" (in concept) the argument for not allowing it during gameplay (and, again, I "get" your side too), but I cannot fathom why the option has been removed from the database editor itself. The arguments for why it has been removed just don't make sense at all.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Donners" data-cite="Donners" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Depends on how you look at it. We're not talking about Meltzer star ratings here, it's about segment ratings which are ultimately a tool to boost popularity.<p> </p><p> If a sex appeal match will ultimately draw in more viewers than a traditional wrestling match, should it not rate higher?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Bingo.</p><p> </p><p> Hence my "smark ratings" vs. "more mainstream audience ratings" comment a while back regarding that very topic.</p><p> </p><p> Meltzer and the dirt sheets wouldn't have given such matches top ratings. But <em>viewers at the time</em> did. Hence why those diva matches were higher rated segments than a lot of other matches.</p><p> </p><p> And it's something that doesn't only impact diva matches in Attitude Entertainment style promotions.</p><p> </p><p> Say I want to put the original G.L.O.W in an '80s mod. That entire product had matches that were not very good in terms of "work rate" or in-ring ability but that's not why it was super popular (hell, someone mentioned the Attitude Era being the highest rated era of all time in wrestling, and that is not true as ratings overall in the '80s were higher and in the original Golden Age of Television wrestling ratings were way up there). No, something like G.L.O.W was popular because of the moderate T&A and silly cheeseball tongue-in-cheek comedy hee-haw sketches.</p><p> </p><p> And in some places it aired on Saturday mornings or afternoons, because for all the T&A it was actually kinda kid friendly in a strange way.</p><p> </p><p> Seems like a promotion of that sort would get penalized for existing in the current game.</p><p> </p><p> Oh, and since the comedy match thing was mentioned before, and getting slightly off-topic:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="D16NJD16" data-cite="D16NJD16" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The word your all looking for is kayfabe. It's not a matter of comedy vs non comedy. It's a difference of one was may have been colorful and silly but always kept kayfabe, and the other turns kayfabe on its head and doesn't care about it.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> If I can chime in for a moment here, because this particular side discussion has always interested me:</p><p> </p><p> It's not really about kayfabe. It's about consistency in presentation. Kayfabe was really the attempt to perpetuate and push the idea of pro wrestling being on the up and up in order to heighten suspension of disbelief (and, mind you, suspension of disbelief is not the same as kayfabe, only something that kayfabe was enacted to strengthen to the point where, they hoped, suspension of disbelief would be overtaken by complete belief).</p><p> </p><p> Consistency of presentation is really what was being discussed, though. Doink "fit" New Generation WWF because the gimmick and the presentation thereof (including via in-ring work) was <em>consistent</em> with the company's overall product at the time. Doink, however, would be a bit <em>inconsistent</em> within the '70s WWWF product, and he would <em>really</em> be inconsistent with some of the contemporary promotions of the WWF during the New Generation era.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Bull" data-cite="Bull" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Maybe I'm wrong but I remember lot's of complaints from mod makers about how much of a pain it was to create products in the old games, but I may be remembering wrong. It wasn't so much a creative thing to do as it was mod makers having to tweak and tweak because people would disagree on their view of a product. .<p> </p><p> Anyway my point on the first half was that it wasn't changed out of malice to curb creativity but to simplify a needlessly complicated process. .</p><p> </p><p> Again if it could be added back for the folks who want it I'm not trying to argue against it I want that to be clear. Just from my experience with it, I don't see it as the handicap everyone arguing against it are making it out to be, and it just seems to me that they look at a product see the limitations listed and immediately think they can't do those things without even trying it out and playing with the system as it exists. . </p><p> </p><p> Barring a few exceptions that probably need some changes, most of the penalties aren't gonna ruin a card or even the matches or angles they are attached to. I look at it as they are more there to let you know that this isn't the focal point of the product, you can still utilize them but they aren't gonna be the best things on the card. not to avoid them entirely. .</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I agree.</p><p> </p><p> That still has NOTHING to do with allowing it in the database editor, though. What you're pointing out is <em>in-game during gameplay</em>. Mind you, I understand that some folks may want that available in gameplay because of the more casual approach they have to the game, but I'm not personally advocating for giving the end user the tools for more in-depth product editing, creation, etc. other than within the database editor itself.</p><p> </p><p> And mods never really thought it was "too much of a pain" to create company products. Rather, they actually seemed to have wanted <em>more</em> detail as to how their choices would impact the products they modified or created because some things were vague and some things couldn't be modified without changing the product more drastically than desired.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TeemuFoundation" data-cite="TeemuFoundation" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That'd be so dope. I wish it'd be possible to have this enabled as the default. I would urge you to make this suggestion in the suggestion forum.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Just did. Also added in the bit about being able to cycle through and select the buttons usually clicked on via tab and enter. Again, don't know if that's even possible, but if it is it would be a godsend for folks like myself who are used to total keybard control on databases.</p>

<p>I mentioned this in the public beta reaction topic, and a couple of others seemed to have thought it a good suggestion, so I'll quote what I stated there in this topic in the hopes that it'll be implemented:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48430" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What I'd really like to see as far as a basic control implementation would be to have more keyboard oriented control as an option, if possible. It's way easier and faster for me to cycle through options in such a database using the tab and arrow keys (would be awesome to be able to select options by hitting enter, but IIRC that might be impossible).<p> </p><p> Someone mentioned it earlier: I'm finding that the lack of sliders for inputting points (say, on worker skills) is sorely missed. Right now I end up actually clicking more than I did when those were in the game and taking more time to input things. In order to change the numbers I have to highlight each number using the trackpad or mouse, then enter in the new number. Seems simple enough - except I usually play on a laptop. So...it actually takes longer to do that than with the sliders, as I used to just be able to cycle through the different attributes by hitting the tab key, sliding the sliders using the arrow keys, and rinse, lather, repeat with the only time I needed to click anything with the mouse being to get into that menu or save (or exit) out of it (which I have to do now regardless).</p><p> </p><p> Just messing around, I've found that if I highlight each number already in each box I can then tab through and each number to be edited will remain highlighted, making it easier to just cycle through with tab and enter the numbers. I wonder if there's any way to have that enabled in the database without my having to do it manually.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That last part intrigued a couple of folks in the other topic. Is there any way to set things so that the numbers (usually "0") already in the worker skill point boxes are already highlighted? That way when cycling through the different skills by hitting the tab key we can just punch in the numbers, and then do the same for each of the different skills.</p><p> </p><p> And, again, I don't know if it's possible but if it is: is there any way to implement the cycling of the menu buttons using the tab key and selecting thereof using the enter key (using the worker skill window as an example: the "create" button that one would usually mouseclick to activate would also be activated via tab and enter). For some of us, total keyboard only control is way faster than kb/mouse or (especially for those of us using laptops) kb/trackpad.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="kito333" data-cite="kito333" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48334" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Agreed on this. I would like to see a company to be able to buy alliance titles too. Maybe if its inactive or if all other members leave the alliance.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Or have the company buy the alliance outright (or something like it) and do it that way. For a historical example of this almost happening: Jim Crockett Promotions (the company later bought by Turner to form WCW) essentially "owned" the NWA by 1987. Crockett had bought out promotions not already bought out by McMahon, and Crockett also had Ric Flair (the NWA World Champion) under an exclusive contract which he used to change Flair from a traveling champion who would put the title up in any and every territory of the NWA to a company champion - that is, JCP's champion. JCP became synonymous with NWA at that point with the other American territories (save for WWC in Puerto Rico) dropping out of the alliance over the course of that year and the year prior (when Mid-South dropped out and became UWF).</p><p> </p><p> I would love to see that sort of thing implemented, as it adds a bit of risk-reward to the business strategy end of things. Do you stick around, do you just up and leave, or do you try to take over the alliance outright and become the alliance yourself? I do think it only really works if the top belt in the alliance is NOT the one that you can simply buy or take with you if you leave, as that would most likely be the most prestigious one. So if you leave, you run the risk of not having the prestige that that belt carries. If you stick around, you have it but have to share it...unless you just take over.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TOTKingNothing" data-cite="TOTKingNothing" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm having trouble replicating this, can you explain it like... step by step as though I were a five year old?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Okay.</p><p> </p><p> In the database editor, start creating a new worker. Within the "worker" window for the newly "created" worker, select "Skills". Now, in every box where there's a number, highlight the number by holding left click while passing over it or, if you're using a trackpad like me, double tapping the pad and holding on the second tap, swiping over the number. Do it for a few of the numbers in the boxes (you don't have to do it for all of them for the purpose of this test). Now, click in a box that you <em>haven't</em> highlighted, and hit the tab key and keep doing it so it cycles through the boxes with the numbers you've highlighted previously. You'll find that those previously highlighted numbers remain highlighted; those that you didn't highlight remain as they were (sans highlighting). And if they're highlighted, all you have to do to change them is just enter whatever value you want and hit tab to cycle to the next box.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Historian" data-cite="Historian" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I’m going to go ahead and step in and say we should probably move away from the back and forth about products (not because it’s getting out of hand, I think people are by and large being respectful and having an honest discussion) but I also think that at this time all sides have been heard and I want to make sure nothing gets buried in the thread for Adam to see as well as moving past it while it’s still respectful and good disagreement before it devolves.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Fair enough, though I do hope the resolution to the issue is the re-implementation (down the road as an update, perhaps) of the more user specified product creation - if only in the database editor rather than both it and the in-game editor.</p><p> </p><p> Moving past that:</p><p> </p><p> What I'd really like to see as far as a basic control implementation would be to have more keyboard oriented control as an option, if possible. It's way easier and faster for me to cycle through options in such a database using the tab and arrow keys (would be awesome to be able to select options by hitting enter, but IIRC that might be impossible). </p><p> </p><p> Someone mentioned it earlier: I'm finding that the lack of sliders for inputting points (say, on worker skills) is sorely missed. Right now I end up actually clicking <em>more</em> than I did when those were in the game and taking more time to input things. In order to change the numbers I have to highlight each number using the trackpad or mouse, then enter in the new number. Seems simple enough - except I usually play on a laptop. So...it actually takes longer to do that than with the sliders, as I used to just be able to cycle through the different attributes by hitting the tab key, sliding the sliders using the arrow keys, and rinse, lather, repeat with the only time I needed to click anything with the mouse being to get into that menu or save (or exit) out of it (which I have to do now regardless). </p><p> </p><p> Just messing around, I've found that if I highlight each number already in each box I can then tab through and each number to be edited will remain highlighted, making it easier to just cycle through with tab and enter the numbers. I wonder if there's any way to have that enabled in the database without my having to do it manually.</p><p> </p><p> Oh, and the old style lists need to be standard, IMHO.</p>

Let me stop you right there: You want to know why I haven't inundated that topic with suggested products? Because that type of "gate keeping" is the antithesis of what TEW offered in the past. Because it is the antithesis of what I would actually like to see implemented (and I don't think I'm alone with that line of thinking). And also because there's promotional types, whether "most 'random' combination of styles I can think of" or slighter modifications and twists here and there that I haven't even thought of yet but would like to have the freedom to implement if and when I do. Previous games in the series afforded us that. The current one, as it stands now, does not. And you can continue to poo-poo about people bringing it up because you personally don't see the issue but we do. So instead of handwaving it as a non-issue, how about you at the very least accept that it is an issue for some of us that cannot be handwaved and is not something that we just haven't thought through. We've thought it through. For the way in which some of us play, it's an issue. I don't play that way (that is, changing company product in-game), but I can at least accept that it is an issue for those that do. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that not having the option to have user defined product creation or modification is an issue for those of us who use the database editor (not the in-game database editor, mind you) for modding whether for community releases or personal use?

Whether they wish to spend time doing so should be up to them. Right now, with the system as it stands, they may have their creativity curtailed because rather than making their own decisions for products they have to fit company products into the hard and fast defined parameters. Again, you're going on about in-game during gameplay. I am specifically pointing out mod creation or editing. I understand what you're arguing with regards to "dodging penalties" in-game, but it has NOTHING to do with what I'm pointing out. At all. Hell, I even stated that I agree that gaming the system in-game should be avoided. However, that has NOTHING to do with allowing for more in depth user defined product creation or modification within the database editor (not the in-game editor).

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BrokenCycle" data-cite="BrokenCycle" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The complaints from players about Products is just theory crafting at this point. It's impossible to tell from the 2 months in-game if the new Product system is good or not. <p> </p><p> This is a massive risk for the game, and I am willing to give it a shot because its flaws are rather obvious, and the positives, I think, could be very good. </p><p> </p><p> The best thing is that every promotion feels unique and has stuff you like or maybe not like as much about it and are forced to do. This is, in my opinion, great. Literally EVERY single promotion I played in TEW 2016 was booked the same with some very minor differences, mainly regarding things like having to put match aims on. My template for a show was the same across the board. </p><p> </p><p> Now, try booking TCW, a company that likes long matches and doesn't care how long angles are, to a company like USPW that yawns at every thing you do. It's great.</p><p> </p><p> I totally get all the reservations mod makers have about this.</p><p> </p><p> The product system in 2016 was kinda dumb. RatedRKO brought up the dumbest part of it-- you just change Comedy from low to very low to get a product that doesn't have something that doesn't perfectly line up with what you want, smile, and start bookin' away. This system has a lot of nuance, and I get that people love customization options, but sometimes it is fun being forced into things.</p><p> </p><p> That said... I do think something will be added in to customize the products. I don't think Adam realizes how much of a pain in the ass it will be dealing with it down the line.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> What you're talking about is in-game, though. I get that gaming the system in such a way that doesn't force (for lack of better phrasing) you to think through your booking for a particular product is indeed not really playing the game but "gaming the game". I agree. </p><p> </p><p> What does that have to do with creating mods, though? What does that have to do with allowing for deeper production creation/modification within the database editor outside of the in-game?</p><p> </p><p> A solution would've been to "lock" the user out of truly freely editing/modifying (or creating as the case may be) the products in-game (that is, during a game) but allowing them to do so if they edit the databases.</p><p> </p><p> And, yeah, it's kinda strange to you for such a thing to be done for those that want to modify things but...here's the thing: the mods are one of the primary drivers of the games in the series even selling to begin with. So why cut their shins off?</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="steev42" data-cite="steev42" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I believe (though I'm not certain) that this has been removed for two reasons. First, the Young Lions/Loyalty that was previously tied to an area is now tied to the federations, so that wasn't needed. Secondly, regional importance has been removed (and seems to be tied to certain Locations in each region?). Industry Level and Economy Level can be found in the Database Details, the button at the bottom of the editor. Community Size is the only thing I can't find...and I'm not sure how used that was to begin with.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Ah, I see Industry and Economy Level now. But, again, if the whole idea of the UI redesign was designing so end users click <em>less</em>, why am I now clicking <em>more</em> for certain menu options?</p><p> </p><p> In 2016, every option we're now discussing was under "Game World". Now with 2020 there's some over here in "Database Details", some over there in "Eras", and within the latter what's left of "Trends" is not even user definable but now, like with company products, is a "choice" of set defined options.</p><p> </p><p> That makes for less options when modding, quite frankly, whether for the community or for personal use (as I sometimes modify mods that have been released to the community for such purposes).</p><p> </p><p> As for "Community Size", this was actually pretty damned vital for my own personal use real world mod edits (mods of mods?) because that was really the only way to mimic eras wherein the general audiences for pro wrestling shrunk to a niche or caught fire with much broader audiences.</p><p> </p><p> I've said it before, but there's making things more user friendly, and then there's dumbing down. When the database editor has less overall options for deeper user modification than the previous iteration of the series, that's just dumbing things down.</p>

Wrestling-titles.com and Cagematch.net are the two better sources for title histories out there, IMO. https://www.wrestling-titles.com/us/pr/wwc/ https://www.cagematch.net/?id=8&nr=52&page=9 And, when in doubt...there's always wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wrestling_Council#Championships

Where in the database editor? The only thing that's close to it is now under "Eras", but the options available are dealing with generated worker types, habits, sexuality, etc. which were themselves a relatively minor part of the old Game World menu. And there's nothing there regarding starting area economy or industry level, worker loyalty, etc.

Sweet logo. IIRC, you posted an earlier version a while back after someone pointed out the issues with that flag and also that Kentucky wasn't actually part of the Confederacy. Also looking forward to an update of the TVerse.

Wait...what? *checks in the database editor* Holy hell...I didn't even think to, well...think that the area setup would be completely removed. Why? Just...why? I just came back to this topic to kinda jokingly suggest a modification "Other TV Shows" in the default database because the Stanley Cup Finals does indeed have something of an impact on US viewership and because this baseball fan is baffled by the complete lack of MLB's World Series there. But now I'm actually miffed. Why would the area setup be removed? Maybe it's in another menu item... *checks again* Nope. Not there. And, hell...the entire Game World part of the database has been removed. The only thing that's still kinda sorta there is industry trends (within "Eras") but its another example of user specified fine tuning options being removed for canned choices.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="stonecold285" data-cite="stonecold285" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I was going to suggest the following: via the options menu under preferences, untick the enable new-style coloured lists. After you hit the save button you'll be asked if you want to keep those prefences as your default settings to be used when starting a new game, which you answer with yes.<p> </p><p> But, helas, you still need to go throught the Avatars and promotions by clicking on them -.-</p><p> </p><p> However, AFTER the game has been started you can use the arrow keys a whole lotta more, which at least should damp your problem with that issue a little <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> On a side note I need to admit that it's pretty annoying not being able not to access the options menu via the main screen when you launch TEW <img alt=":(" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/frown.png.e6b571745a30fe6a6f2e918994141a47.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Oh, I know about the disabling the new-style coloured lists working once the game started (and, btw, I think folks didn't realize about that option because there's nothing in the label "new-style coloured lists" that even makes one think "let me scroll through things as I kinda sorta did before"). But thank you for pointing that out. There's still a minor issue there in the in-game promotions screen, though, as it takes three clicks of "tab" to get to scroll through the promotions themselves as the submenu therein for the workers for each promotion is the highlighted window (another click of tab is needed to get to scroll through the promotions one-by-one). </p><p> </p><p> And I agree with your annoyance, particularly since the sort of arrow navigation I'm looking for isn't really much of an option within the database editor itself.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Skummy" data-cite="Skummy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If you can find me an "Eye Candy" match between two workers that, in-game, would have "100" for Sex Appeal that gets as strong and sustained a crowd response as a match between two Entertainers/Brawlers that would have close to 100 in those stats, then maybe I would agree you. But it doesn't happen. A match rated on "Eye Candy"/"Sex Appeal" will always necessarily be restricted, both in-game and in real life, unless you're running a promotion where that's your <em>sole </em>focus.<p> </p><p> Penalised doesn't mean that the match is rejected outright, just that you're working against expectation. There's a reason those matches were called "piss break matches".</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'd agree with you if not for the fact that quite a few of those matches from that product during that era were the segments with <em>higher ratings</em> (actual viewers, not dirtsheet ratings) than quite a few of the matches with damned good brawlers.</p><p> </p><p> I think the issue is that the ratings in-game, as it were, are based on what I would term "smark"/dirtsheet numbers but are used as indicators, in-game, of <em>mainstream</em> numbers when the former up until more current times was <em>never</em> an indicator of what the broader fanbase actually enjoyed or what was in any way popular with any segment outside of the very small, highly niche smark fanbase. But, of course, that was a common somewhat minor complaint I've had with the series since I first played TEW 2005 because I understand at least some of the development issues it would cause to change that.</p><p> </p><p> BTW, I never argued this:</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>So much of the criticism of <strong>not being "able" to book certain matches</strong> I honestly feel comes down to people overestimating what constitutes a segment being "penalised".</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> My complaint is that while I am able to book those matches, I am penalized for doing so within a product where there really should not be a penalty for doing so. I mean, hell, that was an era where <em>Sable</em> got more cheers <em>during her "matches"</em> than a lot of the actual <em>good</em> brawlers during theirs (like, say, Farooq pre-ABA taking off).</p><p> </p><p> Regardless, though, it really all comes down to this:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="southside_hitmen" data-cite="southside_hitmen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Now, you get ONLY that product that someone else made. One that both, one, or none of you agree with.</p><p> </p><p> And you can’t change it. But you can put a request in...</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This doesn't only negatively impact people who make mods, but every player.</p>