Journal discussion thread

[James Casey]

Totally agree with this - I was getting a bit frustrated that gimmick duration seemed unconnected to gimmick success. Having to ditch Greg Guage's 'A' gimmicks every few months while Evil Spirit chugs along with 'D' was a source of annoyance.

[gazwefc83]

ye me to 5 months into my 1989 mod i had to change Honky Tonk Mans gimmick (what other gimmick can this guy hav, hes a legend)

[Corey_Vandal]

I love the new gimmick system. One thing I'd like to ask, what is the frequency of A* gimmicks. Is it like Hogan or Austin where only 2-3 come by every few years, or is it more frequent than that?

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=Corey_Vandal;410107]I love the new gimmick system. One thing I'd like to ask, what is the frequency of A* gimmicks. Is it like Hogan or Austin where only 2-3 come by every few years, or is it more frequent than that?[/QUOTE] IT's tied into the destiny stat, so I believe it will probably be up to the Mod's somewhat. I remember in EWR a person would change to "Unigue" on their own, sometimes, and that would happen only every so often.

[gazwefc83]

what is the destiny stat??

[Ping von Erich]

[QUOTE=gazwefc83;410127]what is the destiny stat??[/QUOTE] Its been talked about at length in several threads, including Adam's journal and is one of the most anticipated new features in '08.. how can you not have heard about it seeing as you're a mod-er?

[gazwefc83]

ok i know now iv just been refereing to it as potential sorry

[Adam Ryland]

Potential and Destiny are two entirely different things. Potential is what has been talked about in the journal, a measure of how good someone can be, Destiny is the hidden stat that effects things like chemistry, physical peaks, age of death, etc.

[gazwefc83]

thanks Adam thats cleared things up for me

[Eisen-verse]

I love the new feature as it really brings the database to life in a sense. In the past you could develop a true superstar out of anyone if given the time... Now, with the new gimmick situation... It's cool that only a small select will be perfect enough to garner an A*. That way you know you have something special going on (a la Undertaker or Austin)

[soundsofsilver]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;409802]I don't see this as being a valid argument. It took a matter of hours to create this feature, so it's not like it was a huge effort that will impact the time I have to write other features. Furthermore, it's easily avoidable if you don't like the feature. [/quote] I see what you're saying Adam... I'm not saying that you SHOULDN'T have programmed the feature, because obviously there is high demand for it, people want it a lot, and it will probably help you sell more copies of the game. From your perspective, it was the right decision to make, you were listening to your customers, and made the appropriate programming decision. I'm just disappointed that there was such demand for this feature; you have addressed in the past why there weren't B shows, and I wish that people would have thought "Oh, he's right, I don't want B shows." So again, you made the right decision based on the demand... I just wish there hadn't have been such demand. [quote] Again, if you disagree with the feature, you can quite easily avoid it entirely and never have to deal with it whatsoever. Personally I don't plan on using it either as I like to incorporate my lower-level guys into my main shows, but if other people want to use it they have the option - it's win\win. [/quote] Agreed. [quote] I realise this will probably come across as a dickish remark, it's not meant to, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it - if you're that bothered by the above, why keep doing it? From the way you phrased it you're sitting there running the same matches over and over again boring yourself - irrespective of whether the game should or should not block you, surely you could try running other matches and taking bigger risks in your booking by your own volition, rather than wanting to be forced to do it? [/quote] Agreed- I don't do it. However, it WOULD be in my self-interest to run Wrestlemania-type shows every week, especially given the new National Battle feature. I would like a challenge, but the way the game is right now, I feel like I'm manufacturing my own challenge; I'm restraining myself, when at any point I could just produce out-of-this-world shows every week and put the AI to rest. I would like to be able to fully use the game without thinking I'm holding myself back. Obviously, many people play the game for different reasons, and I play it hoping for a challenging experience as a national promotion competing with another national promotion. As the game works now, it is in my interest to do things thats no rational booker who wanted his product to be sustained for a long time would do- I could just run the same type of feuds with the same type of matches involving the same stars. I already book like this. I think to myself, "Well, I really want to highlight the feud between my top two guys at A* overness coming up in a few months, so right now, I'm going to have by A* overness Champion take on the B+ overness challenger who has been on quite the winning streak." However, the way I play doesn't make any sense in the confines of the game- especially with the National Battle feature- when I could just be having my A* overness stars taking on each other all the time. [quote] It's seems counter-productive to just keep doing it solely because you've found a flaw to expose. [/quote] Agreed. But at the same time, I would like to be in a situation where I'm struggling with National Battle, and NEED to require creative solutions to that. The way it is now, I'd have to think to myself, "I'm losing, but only because I'm handicapping myself; I COULD just throw Hogan vs. Andre the next 8 TV main events." Indeed, I understand the argument of, "If you don't like it, don't do it." But when the game revolves around my success as a booker, and I know that the best way to succeed as a booker would to have a card that looks like this every week: A* vs. A* overness A vs. A A vs. B+ B+ vs. B+ Knowing that that isn't what would REALLY make the best wrestling product in the long term, but it would make the most sense for the game, is a struggle. Because then I constantly am second-guessing myself, "Have I been abusing the system lately by including too many top stars in each show every week? Have I been running this feud too long?" It would be nice if there was something in the game that recognized those things.

[cyberkitten01]

Love the new feature :)

[BuddyGarner]

To avoid the same matches over and over problem maybe the match hype can be used from WMMA. People won't want to see a match between a guy whose 15-0 against that opponent. Will Tommy Cornell versus Sean McFly have the same hype the fiftieth time they've seen it? Since WMMA uses the 2/3 system maybe TEW 2008 could use a 4/7 system or a 5 out of 9 system. Fans wouldn't care if the wrestlers fought each other before in different feds. And you could still put the match together after the best of 7 series but it would suffer a penalty, not as severe as that of WMMA but enough to encourage variety.

[Phantom Stranger]

[QUOTE=BuddyGarner;410237]To avoid the same matches over and over problem maybe the match hype can be used from WMMA. People won't want to see a match between a guy whose 15-0 against that opponent. Will Tommy Cornell versus Sean McFly have the same hype the fiftieth time they've seen it? Since WMMA uses the 2/3 system maybe TEW 2008 could use a 4/7 system or a 5 out of 9 system. Fans wouldn't care if the wrestlers fought each other before in different feds. And you could still put the match together after the best of 7 series but it would suffer a penalty, not as severe as that of WMMA but enough to encourage variety.[/QUOTE] Thing is, people also get pushed differently. And some pairings people actually do want to see lock up as many times as possible. There's need to be some way to reset it.

[Arrows]

Some type of cool-down period perhaps. Enough time for the fans to forget all the things that happened the last time, and lets them start to look forward to it again.

[mvargus]

[QUOTE=Arrows;410239]Some type of cool-down period perhaps. Enough time for the fans to forget all the things that happened the last time, and lets them start to look forward to it again.[/QUOTE] The problem is that in wrestling sometimes you want 2 wrestlers to face each other often to help build a feud or continue a story line. the regular use of the "Best of 7" series storyline is a great example. This gets pulled out at least once every other year and tends to be a huge crowdpleaser. Another key is that a well built storyline can have 2 wrestlers facing off for months, although rarely in the ring itself. The WWE has more than once started a feud at or before The Royal Rumble in January and managed to keep that feud running through Summer Slam. run-ins, forced tag team pairings, handicap matches, nughts were one of the feuding partners gets to be manager of the WWE all help keep the crowd happy. So while there should be some fatigue from people seeing Austin face Rock in match after match every week, its hard to gauge just how to set this up. does it kick in after 7 matches in a year? Does it look for open storylines including both wrestlers? What if the promotion is moving often, so that new fans are seeing this match up each week? How do you make it work? I'm sure Adam has seen that this happens, but I'm equally sure that its only a problem when you have players who aren't willing to experiment and take chances. For me games like TEW are only fun if I'm struggling just a little, so I'm not the type to have 2 wrestlers keep facing off again and again outside of a storyline. And as Adam pointed out, no one forces you to make Austin face Rock for 30 weeks straight.

[BuddyGarner]

Well the feature has to be added eventually. After it's added then the Tommy Dreamer/Raven exceptions can be added. It could also be a part of the game world options setting. Like a fans get sick of seeing the same wrestlers face each other in singles on/off.

[Gigas]

Im a little confused, and probably misread something. Can wrestlers grow into their gimmicks? Is a D gimmick always going to be a D gimmick? If an A gimmick starts to get old, can it drop? This would allow more realism, as would a non static Face/Heel performance. It seems dumb to me that in TEW, Randy Orton/Edge wouldnt get an improvement in heel performance while they both have showed real improvements in the roll the last few months. If all this has been addressed, feel free to call me an idiot. Point me to where it was said though please.

[crayon]

[quote]Well the feature has to be added eventually. After it's added then the Tommy Dreamer/Raven exceptions can be added. It could also be a part of the game world options setting. Like a fans get sick of seeing the same wrestlers face each other in singles on/off.[/quote] I guess this is all deviating a bit off topic, but I'll ad my two cents in that perhaps any kind of varety/staleness feature with certain match ups would need to use the worker's overness/chemistry as a some kind of multiplier... so while you may want to see HHH and Austin face off lots, you're not really going to want to see a couple of jobbers do it over and over again. Other stats may need to be incorporated, to account for people who may not necessarily be that over, but can just put on killer matches (but then product definition may account for that in their overness anyway) And the longer you play the same thing out, the longer the cool-off time would be.. so do you continue the same tactic and benefit immediately but know you'll have to wait longer to get the audience warm to it again, or do you give them enough space in between so you can effectively keep it going for a long time, but know that you'll have to sporadically suck up some rough nights here? Match types could keep things fresh as well? All in all, it'd be a pretty complex mechanic I think. [quote]This would allow more realism, as would a non static Face/Heel performance. It seems dumb to me that in TEW, Randy Orton/Edge wouldnt get an improvement in heel performance while they both have showed real improvements in the roll the last few months.[/quote] Likewise agreed. The improvements probably shouldn't be boundless, but it would be nice to see their babyface/heel performance improve over time. I'm thinking as their acting/microphone goes up, it'd slightly bump up their face/heel. Perhaps one more than the other, depending what alignment you have them at at the time. Come to think of it.. heel should probably easier to improve upon than face.

[djthefunkchris]

Seems to me like Hardy and MVP been going at it forever... and ever. I can't wait to see them lock up again though.

[soundsofsilver]

Interesting Chris, I get VERY sick of seeing the same matches more than a couple times. Edit: It's different with lower card guys, however. To me, there's a magic around the World Title match, and seeing the same two guys continually battling in the SAME matches definitely makes it lose its magic. That is true to a certain degree for me for midcard matches, but not nearly as much. For me, the most exciting main events are matches that have never happened before, or haven't happened in a long time. The Edge vs. John Cena feud, for instance, was less interesting to me because I felt like they wrestled all the time and that kind of killed the magic. There are a lot of feuds where wrestlers face each other a lot- Rock vs. Mankind, Dreamer vs. Raven, Booker T vs. Benoit in WCW, etc... but to me, those aren't as special as the feuds where there's just one or a couple big matchups. For instance, Hogan vs. Andre, Hogan vs. Warrior, Hogan vs. Sting, Austin vs. Rock, etc. were such huge draws in part because they weren't matches that we had seen a lot before, especially anytime before the event. So maybe that's a bit more feasible? In 2001, Rock and Austin appeared a number of times in the Main Event of Raw leading up to WrestleMania, but they were always tag matches and six man tag matches, etc. The fact that it was their first one-on-one match since 1999 made it much more significant. I feel like, with two major stars, if it's their first meeting in quite some time, and there's a lot of hype behind it, it's a much bigger deal than if they had met three times in the last 2 months. An effective feud builds to a climactic match and can't (except in rare circumstances) just have the same thing over and over again. Even if the feud is the type of feud where the audience is intrigued to see match after match between the two of them, there is still a limit to how long they can go before the feud gets stale. So maybe there should be an added bonus for something like that? I mean, if I have two MAJOR stars, I might intentionally make sure they avoid a one-on-one match until my major PPV. I feel that in real life, that would be a great way to emphasize the importance of that PPV and sell more, but in the game, there is no benefit really. I feel part of the challenge of the game should be coming up with creative main events each week, rather than just throwing your top stars together. The truth is, the matches I listed above, and countless others, would not have been as big of draws if they had just met recently on television in a clean one-on-one match, and I feel like that should be reflected in the game.

[Michael Wayne]

[QUOTE=BuddyGarner;410237] Will Tommy Cornell versus Sean McFly have the same hype the fiftieth time they've seen it? Fans wouldn't care if the wrestlers fought each other before in different feds. [/QUOTE] Midnight Express and Rock n Roll Express would disagree with you

[soundsofsilver]

[QUOTE=Michael Wayne;410452]Midnight Express and Rock n Roll Express would disagree with you[/QUOTE] Like I said, there's exceptions... but they're never LIMITLESS. Even teams with great chemistry, like Edge/Christian vs. the Hardys, would lose a bit of magic in the eyes of the audience if it happened week in and week out. It's hard for me to believe that people contend with this. One of the main challenges of booking is coming up with fresh, creative matches that keep the audience interested, but this is not properly represented in the game.

[crayon]

This is why I'm thinking that if the calculations took into account the worker's chemistry and/or overness, it could emulate the exceptions. Sound Of Silver's suggestion of having a bonus for first time big match-ups is interesting.. even if no staleness feature was introduced, if there was a bonus for (certain) new matchups it could convince people to be more creative with their booking

[Adam Ryland]

Please keep the thread about features that have been announced. There's more than enough room elsewhere for suggestions.