Gimmic ratings

[takertitan]

I think the idea of assigning a set grade value to each gimmic is rather dumb and should change for 08. The only grades i would tell the user is risk, and EFFECTIVENESS. The way i see it, a lot of the gimmics in the game could really work for some and not for others, no matter what gimmic it is. But the way the game is set up, gimmics always have the same "goodness" rating to them.

[brat99]

True, the gimmicks stay relatively the same throughout any given game, but they do grade out differently (gimmick rating) depending on who is using the gimmick. Some workers just cannot perform certain gimmicks, thus the rating tanks. A couple of real life examples: Mankind was a very cool gimmick and Mick Foley performed it well, but put Hornswoggle in a Mankind gimmick (unless we're talking a midget joke angle) and it wouldn't be well recieved. Same for any of the guys that have had a Vampire gimmick (Gangrel, Vampiro, Kevin Thorn to name a few). It worked for these guys, but i shudder to think of someone like say Duane Gill as a vampire. The gimmicks stayed more or less the same (especially the vampires), but the workers and how they played it were all different. Unless I am totally mistaken, this is how things work in game. Some workers are much better suited to certain gimmicks and the ratings reflect that because it's not the gimmick truly being rated but the worker's performance of that gimmick.

[takertitan]

but its a general class, and within that general class, some gimmics still have a base rating of F-.

[praguepride]

That's just how the crowd receives it. A lot of it is based on your product. If you play a jokey, gimmicky product then having a line up full of porn stars and vampires is perfectly fine (like WWE) If you play a more realistic or hard edge product then people don't want to see a bunch of alien costumes come down to the stage. Product is a big factor into gimmicks that I know I didn't realize until someone pointed it out to me. Since then I've gotten much better gimmick ratings once I know what my audience is asking for.

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=takertitan;360816]but its a general class, and within that general class, some gimmics still have a base rating of F-.[/QUOTE] Because the worker in question CANNOT believably perform that kind of gimmick. Seriously, this isn't discriminatory or "wrong". It's reality. Mark Henry could not do a Wholesome gimmick. COULD NOT. No one would buy it. You seem to want to make it so anyone could try any gimmick. Fine, then think of a way of penalizing workers for trying gimmicks they have no business doing. Mark Calloway doing a Tecnico gimmick should be laughed out of the arena. The Great Khali trying a Unique Charismatic gimmick should get the same result. Val Venis as the "Next Big Thing"? Yup, same deal. Product plays a big role in what category of angle works best. But a worker's ability to pull of an angle also plays a big role. The above examples are in WWE's product, which makes simple, easy to understand gimmicks rule. Thus, "giants" get Brute type gimmicks and it works because the only thing that matters is the worker's physical size. But in another product, the size bit might not matter at all. I think it's DDT who has an extremely popular Undertaker character who is a 7 year old girl (President Ramu). How? Product. I think gimmicks that a worker is capable of performing well (say, C+ or better rating in the category) should be graded a bit differently, giving a bit more shine since a worker is working to their strengths. But I don't think every worker should be given a free pass to work every gimmick type. If it bothers you so much, try moving gimmicks to the Unique or Realistic category, which should be rated solely on the worker's ability to perform it (their stats), lessening the effect of product and category rating (i.e. there is no 'realistic' or 'unique' gimmick category rating in the worker profile).

[takertitan]

you all missed what i was saying, so i shall explain it for a third time. Yes, the current class system we have is good. i am not fighting this. i am guessing you all stopped reading after EFFECTIVENESS. the idea is that having gimmics inside of each class they are always set to F- or A no matter what the product is results in stupid broken gameplay. If i know i am going to get a better rating out of MMA star(A+ face) than street fighter(B+ face), i am going to use the MMA 1. And since it has no effect on how i book my storylines, it wont matter. My idea is that each gimmic inside the classes are rated on the product, not a general pre set value. IE WWE could use the deadman gimmic(low risk/subtle) but ROH could not because of the product settings. The whole guessing game with promo's is a pain. I gave up on a DAVE game cause anyone i signed got F- in gimmics because i had no idea subtle had to be high for it to work. so let me break it down, for you. [B]CURRENT SYSTEM EXAMPLE[/B](NICE BIG WRITING) MMA star=A+ gimmic rating Luchadoor = A+ gimmic rating [B]NEW SYSTEM IN AN AMERICAN FED[/B] MMA star= A+ gimmic rating Luchadoor = B rating

[Thomnipotent]

[QUOTE=takertitan;360926] [B]CURRENT SYSTEM EXAMPLE[/B](NICE BIG WRITING) [/QUOTE] Is this really necessary? Some ideas, such as this one, can be difficult to communicate correctly. Please try to be more polite; when you are, everyone wins. :D

[brat99]

[QUOTE=takertitan;360926]you all missed what i was saying, so i shall explain it for a third time. Yes, the current class system we have is good. i am not fighting this. i am guessing you all stopped reading after EFFECTIVENESS. the idea is that having gimmics inside of each class they are always set to F- or A no matter what the product is results in stupid broken gameplay. If i know i am going to get a better rating out of MMA star(A+ face) than street fighter(B+ face), i am going to use the MMA 1. And since it has no effect on how i book my storylines, it wont matter. My idea is that each gimmic inside the classes are rated on the product, not a general pre set value. IE WWE could use the deadman gimmic(low risk/subtle) but ROH could not because of the product settings. The whole guessing game with promo's is a pain. I gave up on a DAVE game cause anyone i signed got F- in gimmics because i had no idea subtle had to be high for it to work. so let me break it down, for you. [B]CURRENT SYSTEM EXAMPLE[/B](NICE BIG WRITING) MMA star=A+ gimmic rating Luchadoor = A+ gimmic rating [B]NEW SYSTEM IN AN AMERICAN FED[/B] MMA star= A+ gimmic rating Luchadoor = B rating[/QUOTE] I did read your enitre post, and if the "rating" you are speaking of is the one I think it is then it will always start as F- until the worker has had a chance to perform with that new gimmick and the rating [B][U]WILL[/U][/B] change based on their performance. Only in the contract editor is an effectiveness rating pre-set, and this setting is subjective based on who makes the mod. I looked through the editor, and nowhere other than on the contract screen is anything set in stone as to how effective a gimmick will always work. Learning which gimmicks work in certain product settings is a part of the game that each player must figure out. To use your example of MMA Star and Luchador, it would be just as inaccurate to say MMA Star would always be A+ and Luchador always B in an American promotion (I think many would agree that Rey Mysterio amongst many others have done fairly well with thay type of gimmick). Please do not think that any who have responded are in any way attacking you, as you say it may be that all of us are thinking about gimmick ratings in a different way. The one thing I am sure of is that the in-game effectivness of any gimmick will always be a fluid rating depending on many factors (gimmick settings, promotion product settings, worker performance ratings, and their face/heel alignment to name a few).

[CJ_S]

[QUOTE=takertitan;360926]you all missed what i was saying, so i shall explain it for a third time. Yes, the current class system we have is good. i am not fighting this. i am guessing you all stopped reading after EFFECTIVENESS. the idea is that having gimmics inside of each class they are always set to F- or A no matter what the product is results in stupid broken gameplay. If i know i am going to get a better rating out of MMA star(A+ face) than street fighter(B+ face), i am going to use the MMA 1. And since it has no effect on how i book my storylines, it wont matter. My idea is that each gimmic inside the classes are rated on the product, not a general pre set value. IE WWE could use the deadman gimmic(low risk/subtle) but ROH could not because of the product settings. The whole guessing game with promo's is a pain. I gave up on a DAVE game cause anyone i signed got F- in gimmics because i had no idea subtle had to be high for it to work. so let me break it down, for you. [B]CURRENT SYSTEM EXAMPLE[/B](NICE BIG WRITING) MMA star=A+ gimmic rating Luchadoor = A+ gimmic rating [B]NEW SYSTEM IN AN AMERICAN FED[/B] MMA star= A+ gimmic rating Luchadoor = B rating[/QUOTE] :confused: :confused: Sorry, I've just read over this thread three times and I still have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't mean to be rude, i just don't get it. Why would an MMA star always have an A+ gimmick? The words 'Abbot' and 'Tank' spring to my mind :rolleyes:

[praguepride]

Yeah I read it through again and it sounds like he's just describing the current system, where a product settings determines the strength or failure of a gimmick. I don't understand how having gimmick "classes" would change anything. It really sounds like you just want simpler gimmick ratings.

[Lt. Lucrativo]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I think I understand what takertitan was talking about: When you go into the gimmick change screen, each gimmick is given 5 ratings: "babyfaces," "heels," "risk," "difficulty," and "subtlety." These ratings describe the gimmick itself independently of how any character is performing it. His point, I think, is that if you are assigning a gimmick to a heel character, you will always tend to assign a gimmick that is rated an A for heel characters, thus making those gimmicks that are obviously designed for heels but have a lower "heels" rating less worth using. An example: The Movie Director gimmick is rated a D for babyfaces and a B for heels. Thus, it obviously works better for heels. The Lawyer gimmick is rated an E- for babyfaces and an A for heels. Thus, it too is also clearly designed to be used by heel characters, but is notably better for heels than the Movie Director gimmick. Takertitan's question (I think) is this: If you are looking to assign a character a new gimmick, why would you ever assign that character a Movie Director gimmick when the gimmick is suboptimal for heels and flat out poor for faces? Additionally, many gimmicks (Lumberjack, Hillbilly, etc.) are rated D+ for both babyfaces and heels. Are these gimmicks less useful or desirable? The problem, for takertitan, is that these independent "babyface" and "heel" gimmick ratings do not take into account the type of promotion in which the gimmick is to be used--they are the same for all promotions. That's what I think he wants to change. According to his proposed system, as I understand it, the Movie Director gimmick might be given a B heel rating in a traditional promotion, but an A heel rating in a sports entertainment promotion. How, or if, the game could do this, I don't know. Personally, I don't know whether the proposed system would be any improvement over the current system. As has been pointed out, the game already simulates that some gimmicks will work better in certain types of promotions than others--that seems to be the one of the points of the final three gimmick ratings--risk, difficulty, and subtlety. Whether it needs to simulate that some gimmicks will work better for heels in certain types of promotion than others, I don't know. And I don't really know exactly how a gimmick's "babyfaces" or "heels" rating actually contributes to the success (or lack of success) of any particular character using that gimmick. But anyway, I think that I at least understand the original suggestion.

[Remianen]

Before I start, I'd like to ask everyone to give me a pass this time. What I'm thinking might probably be construed as 'having a go' at someone but it's not intended maliciously. takertitan, I read your post and understood part of it. Your beef is with a gimmick's face or heel rating. Fine. But then you go and cut your throat (figuratively speaking) by admitting that the problem isn't with the game, it's with [B][I]YOU[/I][/B]. Should I point out where you did just that? [QUOTE=takertitan;360926]because i had no idea subtle had to be high for it to work.[/QUOTE] let's key on the part that creates this problem, shall we? [QUOTE=takertitan;360926][B][I]because i had no idea[/I][/B][/QUOTE] You had no idea that certain gimmicks work better than others in a product that almost mirrors that of (real) ECW? No clue at all? Are you not familiar with a worker who goes by the name of Raven? Who used the same gimmick in ECW as he later did in WWF? How well would Hulk Hogan's gimmick go over in NOAH? I don't know what dataset you're using but the one I use has gimmicks that span several different ratings ranges for disposition. Again, if you don't like the gimmicks you see or have in a particular game, there's an editor that comes with the game specifically to alleviate that particular problem. Besides, your example is so overly simplistic, it makes no sense. American fed, eh? What about JAPW and CHIKARA? They're American feds. ROH? CZW? PWG? American feds. Do they have the same product? You want to use a 'one size fits all' type of system....to FIX a 'one size fits all' "problem"? The solution is to educate yourself, not change the game to fit your perspective. Some people don't know exactly what Face/Heel Divide is. Should we then ask Adam to change all promotions in America to 'None' as a result? And remember, the onus isn't on the reader to understand you. It's on you, the writer, to make yourself understood. Rather than implying folks are idiots (Nice Big Writing), maybe a peek in a mirror or a quick read through what you wrote might indicate otherwise.

[Phantom Stranger]

[QUOTE=takertitan;360926]If i know i am going to get a better rating out of MMA star(A+ face) than street fighter(B+ face), i am going to use the MMA 1. And since it has no effect on how i book my storylines, it wont matter. My idea is that each gimmic inside the classes are rated on the product, not a general pre set value. IE WWE could use the deadman gimmic(low risk/subtle) but ROH could not because of the product settings.[/QUOTE] See, right here you're admitting that the risk and subtlety scores affect that Face rating. Which, right there, tells you that for some promotions and some performers, the B+ will actually produce a better result from the crowd than the A+. Put simply, you've got what you're asking for.

[oldskool]

[QUOTE=Phantom Stranger;361590]See, right here you're admitting that the risk and subtlety scores affect that Face rating. Which, right there, tells you that for some promotions and some performers, the B+ will actually produce a better result from the crowd than the A+. Put simply, you've got what you're asking for.[/QUOTE] Um, no he doesn't. You're quoting his suggestion as if it's in the game, when it's not. An example goes as follows: Take Bret Hart's anti-USA gimmick during his last years in the WWF. In America, trashing the US and promoting how great Canada is makes him a white-hot heel that everybody hates. In Canada, though, Bret's a hometown hero and that exact same gimmick (Canada's better than the US) makes him a massive face. In TEW this isn't possible because the gimmicks don't take location into account; this anti-USA gimmick is a heel gimmick (mainly because America is the 'baseline' for most scenarios), so Bret would be booed in Canada for saying that Canada rules and the US sucks. All the gimmick editor needs is a "Location reaction" dropdown for all the countries, that has face, heel and neutral as its options. In the spirit of the actual suggestion, though, it needs a Promotion Product Type dropdown as well, because...well, to use another example, look at the original ECW and WWE. A sports entertainment product is going to have a lot of gimmicked wrestlers, and their fans aren't going to mind it that much because it's what they've come to expect. Give them a 'pure' wrestler without a gimmick like Lance Storm, and they give a 'boring' chant (albeit with some prompting from Sheriff Austin) in response. Conversely, Storm would get a respectable reaction from the ECW fanbase (check ONS 05 for what he got) because they've come to expect good, quality wrestlers without goofy gimmicks getting in the way; throw them, say, The Zombie (from WWECW's debut) and they're going to boo the snot out of him because he's nothing but a goofy gimmick. Apparently this isn't so in TEW at present; if a gimmick has a good rating it will garner good results no matter what fed it's in. (Imagine Bill Watts pushing Doink the Clown to the moon because the Clown gimmick had an A rating in that scenario...)

[brat99]

[QUOTE=oldskool;361690]Apparently this isn't so in TEW at present; if a gimmick has a good rating it will garner good results no matter what fed it's in. (Imagine Bill Watts pushing Doink the Clown to the moon because the Clown gimmick had an A rating in that scenario...)[/QUOTE] I'd have to disagree with you on this note. If you don't believe me, try getting the Underwater Union over in ROF or MOSC.

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=oldskool;361690]Apparently this isn't so in TEW at present; if a gimmick has a good rating it will garner good results no matter what fed it's in. (Imagine Bill Watts pushing Doink the Clown to the moon because the Clown gimmick had an A rating in that scenario...)[/QUOTE] As brat99 pointed out, this absolutely is in.

[Michael Wayne]

I've had people get over with F, E, and D rating gimmicks and become main eventers with as low as C to as high as A* overness. And yet I've had people with C and B rated gimmicks be fortunate to break the midcard role. Gimmicks are not the end of the world.

[Phantom Stranger]

[QUOTE=oldskool;361690]Um, no he doesn't. You're quoting his suggestion as if it's in the game, when it's not. [/QUOTE] His complaint is that one rating tells you everything about how successful a gimmick will be, which he then qualified by pointing out that three of the other four ratings modify that result. It's in the game.

[KeyserSoze]

I will give my toughts in the subject, but in a general approach. For me this has to be a question of modifiers. Let me explain with an example. Imagine we want to make Kane a "Deadman". The Deadman gimmick has a base value of 7 (over 10). Kane has the characteristics to play a good deadman, so we put a modifier of +2. The WWE can use efectively the Deadman gimmicks, so lets put a modifier of +1. Kane is a Face, so lets put a modifier of 0. There is another Deadman in the company, so it will make Kane less atractive. Modifier of -2. A randon modifier of -2 So we have a end "gimmick value" of 6. I don't know if this can be programmed, but I think that using base values plus the modifiers, we can add all the relevant information (style of the company, interaction of the worker and the gimmick, if there are more similar gimmicks) and add also a lever of randomness. The second idea is that you won't know as player the "gimmick value". In the moment of the change, the booking team and the worker will give you an opinion, about it. This opinion is like "scouting" it could depend of the relation with the worker, how egomaniac he is, how good the bookers are. etc.... For me this way have some advantages. It allows to include all the relevant information, it rewards the good decisions but it has enough uncertainty to be challenging. Well, my ideas.

[praguepride]

[QUOTE=oldskool;361690]Um, no he doesn't. You're quoting his suggestion as if it's in the game, when it's not. An example goes as follows: Take Bret Hart's anti-USA gimmick during his last years in the WWF. In America, trashing the US and promoting how great Canada is makes him a white-hot heel that everybody hates. In Canada, though, Bret's a hometown hero and that exact same gimmick (Canada's better than the US) makes him a massive face. In TEW this isn't possible because the gimmicks don't take location into account; this anti-USA gimmick is a heel gimmick (mainly because America is the 'baseline' for most scenarios), so Bret would be booed in Canada for saying that Canada rules and the US sucks. All the gimmick editor needs is a "Location reaction" dropdown for all the countries, that has face, heel and neutral as its options. In the spirit of the actual suggestion, though, it needs a Promotion Product Type dropdown as well, because...well, to use another example, look at the original ECW and WWE. A sports entertainment product is going to have a lot of gimmicked wrestlers, and their fans aren't going to mind it that much because it's what they've come to expect. Give them a 'pure' wrestler without a gimmick like Lance Storm, and they give a 'boring' chant (albeit with some prompting from Sheriff Austin) in response. Conversely, Storm would get a respectable reaction from the ECW fanbase (check ONS 05 for what he got) because they've come to expect good, quality wrestlers without goofy gimmicks getting in the way; throw them, say, The Zombie (from WWECW's debut) and they're going to boo the snot out of him because he's nothing but a goofy gimmick. Apparently this isn't so in TEW at present; if a gimmick has a good rating it will garner good results no matter what fed it's in. (Imagine Bill Watts pushing Doink the Clown to the moon because the Clown gimmick had an A rating in that scenario...)[/QUOTE] Unecessary, it's already in the game. Workers can have different gimmicks for different promotions. TEW makes a basic assumption that a character is EITHER a face or a heel. If you want to be both you need to set the kayfabe to weak or none. Next, they don't have location specific gimmicks in the default database. If you're using a T-ZONE then whoever wrote that wrote it improperly. You do have "hometown hero" and "turncoat" or "foreigner." So in your example in a US promotion Bret Hart would have a "foreigner" heel gimmick and in a Canadian Promotion he would have a "patriot" or "hometown hero" face gimmick. Seems simple enough. TEW doesn't support the idea of a roaming promotion. Each promotion has a very clear and distinct HQ, which is why even if you're doing a Japan tour you can't hire Japanese workers. It's just the nature of the game.