Suggestions to Curb Stale Booking

[soundsofsilver]

As someone who is on the fence for buying TEW2008, there is one thing that can win me over for sure. The main thing that bothers me, at this point, is the lack of difficulty in booking a good product (in Entertainment-related products, at least). From week to week, I just need to throw my top guys together (so long as they don't have bad chemistry and are talented), and I have a very good show. I can recycle the same main events week in and week out, and there's not much of a penalty. I can have the same main event at my biggest PPV of the year as I had the previous 4 TV shows, and it will still be a big seller with a high rating. Those are obviously extreme examples, but it applies on the small scale as well. As it stands, let's say I am the WWE, I can have the same main event at the Royal Rumble, No Way Out, the last Raw in March, and at WrestleMania, and the WrestleMania match will still be a big hit. There is no incentive to put together creative main events: Why risk it when I can just throw my top guys together in a half-assed feud and get great ratings? (Posted in the Journal Discussion thread)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. (/End repeat posting) There are a number of ways I feel like this could be better... 1. Diversity in storylines: In EWR, I feel like feud heat went down after a match between the two wrestlers, and went down even more after a clean finish between two wrestlers. I feel like something like this could be included: A good feud will have a mix of tag, six man, etc. matches, rather than just one-on-one matches with clean finishes. A well set-up feud, where the tension is high to FINALLY see the two men square off one-on-one, could end up with ENORMOUS heat, like Rock vs. Austin in 2001. A feud that is made up of rematch after rematch can still have fairly successful, as there is no ONE way to put together a feud, but the ratings should be scaled back in comparison to a feud that culminates in a one-on-one match that everybody is dying to buy. 2. On that note, perhaps a bonus for huge matches which have not been seen in a long time. Taking another real life example, Hogan vs. Andre at Wrestlemania III was a HUGE draw as it has not happened in the last seven years. It was monumental, a guaranteed A* match based on the draw alone, even with a very mediocre match itself. The subsequent rematches, WrestleFest, SNME, were good, but not nearly up to the caliber of that WrestleMania match. I feel like in TEW, since they both would have been A* overness, each match would probably ended up around a A*, even though the WrestleMania match was clearly worlds ahead of the others in terms of its drawing power. So again, perhaps a bonus draw for matches which haven't been seen any time recently? 3. There are exceptions here, which makes this one especially tricky, but perhaps some kind of penalty on redundancy? Now, I know there are "Best Out of 7" series which are often loved, but there's a certain understanding there, and the wrestling fan knows what's going on. Match 2 is not going to be as big of a draw as match 6 or 7. In addition, depending on the product, fans would get sick of too many best out of 7 series. I feel like in TEW, you can always be runnin best out of 7 series, and each match will get high ratings, but if the WWE tried that, it would not go over so well. Maybe it would in other products, I'm not sure. My point is, fans might appreciate a couple workers wrestling over and over for a time, but they would also require the rest of the card to have some variability in it. So... 3a. Redundancy in cards: If too many matches from one PPV or TV show are the same as those in the next, there could be some kind of penalty. 3b. Redundancy in matches: Perhaps we COULD have best out of 7 series, but there would be several consequences. At the end of that series, there needs to be a cooling off period, they can't be at it again immediately. The crowd will want something new. By match 13, they will be pretty tired of it, I imagine. Perhaps there could be some kind of storyline option where it is understood that two wrestlers are in some kind of series, that the middle matches are less significant, and that matches after the series are no longer as significant. I shouldn't be able to put those two guys in a main event 3 weeks later and expect big ratings. I would like to see something that calculates the significance of a match based on recent meetings between those two wrestlers. If Worker A just defeated Worker B cleanly in Weeks 1 and 2, I start a feud Week 3 and have a few hype angles, the match in Week 5 should not have higher ratings just because it is in a feud, it should have lower ratings because the crowd has already seen two clean finishes recently of that same match. I realize that some of my points may not be the best I could have made, but overall, I would just like something in the game that makes me feel more like I'm succeeding when booking a real product. As it is now, I book six man tag main events involving my top workers (who are feuding) and some other guys, and the match gets lower ratings than if I just booked my top two workers every week, which is unrealistic. There should be an incentive to make booking creative/realistic, rather than just giving the highest ratings/biggest draws to the most simplistic booking. There should be a reward to having a well-booked feud and a pay-off when two top workers FINALLY meet in a huge match. I'm also trying to prevent having the same workers have the same A* matches to the same audiences every week. There should be reasons to book creatively, and penalties to booking the same matches over and over again.

[1PWfan]

I can sort of see where you're coming, and certainly something like this should apply to the bigger companies, or those with TV deals. But I think forcing this onto the smaller entertainment-based companies would be a sure-fire way to drive them out of business. Take NYCW, for instance. In TEW2007, the only way to ensure success for them, allowing for standard money and product settings etc., was to use Grandmaster Phunk every show for the first few months (bearing in mind that they run monthly shows), and with a strong heel/face divide you basically had a choice of maybe three main events you could run successfully. Punishing them for having a small roster (pretty much a necessity at their level) seems unduly harsh.

[Togg]

First off TEW 2008 is a must in my opinion. You wont find a wrestling booker 1% as good as the TEW series. Now onto point 1, The match’s between Hogan and Andre, Hogan and Warrior and so on were in the 80’s and early 90’s when the wrestling world were totally different. WWE was more of a cult and was more built to big events. Where as these days its about TV shows and big ratings. If it was Hogan vs Andre in 2008 you would see lots of confrontation. Now its about a story, Then it was about overness and size. Big Show vs Khali in 1988 = Match of the year. Big Show vs Khali in 2008 = A Match How you would restrict this today or govern it in anyway would just limit the art of being a booker and doing what you wanted to do. Just because we see the same match’s on raw for 3 weeks in a row, yeah it might drag in the sense of where does the story go for this. But the match’s in theory should get better with them working together. If you so wish to keep them till the PPV then you should as it is your way of booking and building up a match. But a few unsettled 1on1 match’s on Raw would just add to the drama. Response 1. Diversity in storylines:. A clean finnish between two workers would not decrease the hype of a storyline. Is some cases it might but in others it would lead to bigger and better things, rematch’s and stipulated matches. When superstar 1 beats superstar 2, superstar 2 will drop in momentum, which is sufficient enough in my beliefs Response 2: Just because you have two of the most over stars in a match against eachother does not mean the match should be an automatic A*. the Advance booking Hype should be A* but not the match. The match should be basted on the skills shown in the ring and not the hype surrounding it. Response 3A+B: if you were to book the same show 2 weeks in a row then this is where I am kind of with you. But yet again momentum will act for you in this instance. I have booked Taker vs HHH for 5 weeks in a row in a best of 5 series match for the World championship. 5 match’s in a row I have noticed will lower the hype (advance booking) but the match’s come out good. Not matter how many times you see a match if you’re a true wrestling fan its just good to watch. HHH vs Taker 5 weeks in a row with the the exact line up of moves in a row and so on would be boring, but each match is new so people will watch Last point “I'm also trying to prevent having the same workers have the same A* matches to the same audiences every week.” A match is based on what goes on in the ring, if it’s a great match it will be scored with high marks if it’s a bad match it will score low. I don’t see a reason to how you mean it should not be A*. I think the part that should suffer would be the hype and not the match [FONT="]Lastly, remember booking is about [U][B]user control:D[/B][/U][/FONT]

[Phantom Stranger]

As 1PWFan says, this could kill small promotions. And to be honest - if the talent is talented enough, if creative give them enough slack to use whatever moves they use, that main event match will be different every time.

[TeflonBilly]

I see the point that's being made about repetitive matches. An interesting solution for the future would be a new product setting, something along the lines of Predictability. Predictability could cover things like the same matches getting stale, as well as how frequently the crowd expexts title changes to take place. With high predictability, your fans will understand title changes and big heel/face turns are only going to happen on your PPVs. Conversely, if you bill your fed as unpredictable, your weekly shows better deliver the occasional surprise.

[soundsofsilver]

I agree with the others regarding small promotions. This was really only with National/Global promotions in mind, and to a lesser degree cult. Looking at ECW cards from 95-97 for instance, they were great, but there was a lot of variety from card to card. [QUOTE=Togg;411899]First off TEW 2008 is a must in my opinion. You wont find a wrestling booker 1% as good as the TEW series. [/quote] That's true, it is the best out there, but I found myself disappointed with TEW 2007 for two reasons. The first has been address with the National Battle feature, and this is the second. If I'm in a National Battle, I want to have the possibility of losing, without feeling like the only reason I'm losing is because I'm choosing to hold myself back and not book a Wrestlemania show every week. [quote] Now onto point 1, The match’s between Hogan and Andre, Hogan and Warrior and so on were in the 80’s and early 90’s when the wrestling world were totally different. WWE was more of a cult and was more built to big events. Where as these days its about TV shows and big ratings. If it was Hogan vs Andre in 2008 you would see lots of confrontation. Now its about a story, Then it was about overness and size. [/quote] I disagree with this on many points, particularly your thought that 1980's wrestling was about size, rather than story, while today's wrestling is vice versa, but regardless... the same example could be used with a match as successful as Rock vs. Austin in 2001, which was a huge deal as a singles matchup because it was their first singles match since 1999. The WWF consciously kept them out of singles matches against each other since Austin returned, knowing that it would be a huge draw when they finally met one-on-one, and it was. In TEW, there would be no incentive to save that singles match until WrestleMania to get the biggest draw possible, because you would be equally successful if you ran that match a handful of times in the months prior on television. The same goes for Undertaker vs. Edge this year; there's a reason why they weren't wrestling each other in singles match after singles match leading up to WrestleMania. [quote] How you would restrict this today or govern it in anyway would just limit the art of being a booker and doing what you wanted to do. Just because we see the same match’s on raw for 3 weeks in a row, yeah it might drag in the sense of where does the story go for this. But the match’s in theory should get better with them working together. [/quote] Right, but part of the enjoyment for a match (for me, anyway) is it being something new. If I keep saying the same match, it gets a bit boring. I HATE seeing the same match on Raw several weeks in a row. [quote] If you so wish to keep them till the PPV then you should as it is your way of booking and building up a match. But a few unsettled 1on1 match’s on Raw would just add to the drama. [/quote] And I feel like wrestlers facing off several weeks in a row will decrease the life of the feud... you can't have a 9-month feud when they're wrestling every week; you need to have some breaks between their matches. [quote] Response 1. Diversity in storylines:. A clean finnish between two workers would not decrease the hype of a storyline. Is some cases it might but in others it would lead to bigger and better things, rematch’s and stipulated matches. When superstar 1 beats superstar 2, superstar 2 will drop in momentum, which is sufficient enough in my beliefs [/quote] That momentum factor doesn't seem to do enough, though, in my estimation. For instance, every time I had Hulk Hogan and Ricky Steamboat match up in my DOTT game, it was an A* match. I could have used that for all 12 PPVs and it wouldn't have made a difference. In real life, the audience would get sick of seeing that same main event 12 PPVs in a row; but I have no such incentive on the game to be any more creative. [quote] Response 2: Just because you have two of the most over stars in a match against eachother does not mean the match should be an automatic A*. the Advance booking Hype should be A* but not the match. The match should be basted on the skills shown in the ring and not the hype surrounding it. [/quote] But my point is... the Advance Booking Hype should not ALWAYS be A* just because I announce my two top stars are going at it. If there is no proper build, or if the storyline has been done sloppily, or if the audience has seen it too many times recently, there won't be as much hype there. And I feel like, for the most part, those matches DO end up A* rated in the end. [quote] Response 3A+B: I have booked Taker vs HHH for 5 weeks in a row in a best of 5 series match for the World championship. 5 match’s in a row I have noticed will lower the hype (advance booking) but the match’s come out good. Not matter how many times you see a match if you’re a true wrestling fan its just good to watch. HHH vs Taker 5 weeks in a row with the the exact line up of moves in a row and so on would be boring, but each match is new so people will watch [/quote] This is exactly my point. I would HATE to see HHH vs. Undertaker 5 weeks in a row; I would especially hate it if it was done more than once in a 7-year span. I could understand doing it once; some fans might like it. But me, the excitement of a big Championship main event is seeing two wrestlers who are the hottest in the company and can't seem to lose, going at it. That excitement is taken away when the match is booked ad nauseum. I completely disagree with your premise, "Not [sic] matter how many times you see a match[,] if you're a true wrestling fan[,] it[']s just good to watch." By the 5th time it happens in a short span of time, it's usually not as good as the first, except in rare circumstances (which are fine, so long as they're rare, and not commonplace). [quote] Last point “I'm also trying to prevent having the same workers have the same A* matches to the same audiences every week.” A match is based on what goes on in the ring, if it’s a great match it will be scored with high marks if it’s a bad match it will score low. I don’t see a reason to how you mean it should not be A*. I think the part that should suffer would be the hype and not the match[/quote] Because a random match with no significance, not built up to, lasting 8 minutes between two stars, is not as good as a match with months of build that goes on for 25 minutes. A* is something special, not just something that wrestlers can churn out because they're really over and we can make them go "all out" every time. Perhaps that's part of the problem... that we can have the same match go "all out" time after time. If two workers have gone "all out", the crowd has pretty much seen it all between them, and eventually they won't be as interested to see those two wrestlers square off. [quote] [FONT="]Lastly, remember booking is about [U][B]user control:D[/B][/U][/FONT][/QUOTE] Part of the disagreement is probably that I don't believe that. I've been playing booker sims between TNM and EW for most of the last 9 years; I've had enough of just user control, I'd like a bit of a challenge. But of course, you raise a good point, which is part of the problem... good booking is subjective. What one fan may like, another may dislike. You may think it's great if the WWE gave you Undertaker vs. HHH 5 weeks in a row, I would think, "This is horrible booking; matches this monumental shouldn't just be given to the fans week in and week out on free TV (unless it's a special occasion)." Since fans have different ideas of what makes a good product, it makes creating guidelines for booking difficult, which is perhaps why TEW doesn't go any further than skills/overness/storyline/a tad of luck when determining how good a match is... because fans will disagree on "how well it was booked". But my idea still stands, and I still think that when looking over great feuds, like Raven vs. Tommy Dreamer or Sandman, Austin vs. Rock, Austin vs. Hart, Undertaker vs. Kane, etc. they won't non-stop singles bouts between those wrestlers, there needed to be some variety or some time between their matchups in order to emphasize them.

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=soundsofsilver;412048]Right, but part of the enjoyment for a match (for me, anyway) is it being something new. If I keep saying the same match, it gets a bit boring. I HATE seeing the same match on Raw several weeks in a row.[/QUOTE] Okay, tell me something. One of the most highly regarded feuds in (American) wrestling history is considered to be Flair-Steamboat, yes? How many times did they meet in singles matches? Keep in mind, Flair himself said it in his book. Many times, they faced each other in arenas 30 mins apart in distance. By your estimation, you would "hate" seeing that, but was that the case in reality? Another example that comes to mind is Megumi Kudo vs Shark Tsuchiya. Now, you might not be familiar with this particular pair, but their feud was extremely highly regarded. They faced each other like a dozen times in about 18 months, in various matches that MEN would be afraid of (exploding barbed wire match?). All in the same promotion. So your suggestion would preclude anyone from trying to reproduce these feuds and/or storylines. And for what? [QUOTE=soundsofsilver;412048]And I feel like wrestlers facing off several weeks in a row will decrease the life of the feud... you can't have a 9-month feud when they're wrestling every week; you need to have some breaks between their matches.[/QUOTE] And again, history disproves you in this regard. [QUOTE=soundsofsilver;412048]That momentum factor doesn't seem to do enough, though, in my estimation. For instance, every time I had Hulk Hogan and Ricky Steamboat match up in my DOTT game, it was an A* match. I could have used that for all 12 PPVs and it wouldn't have made a difference. In real life, the audience would get sick of seeing that same main event 12 PPVs in a row; but I have no such incentive on the game to be any more creative.[/QUOTE] So you want to add a game mechanism to prevent this from being effective. Oh, only for National and above....and maybe Cult. Oh and except 'best of 7' type storylines. Oh, and except.... [QUOTE=soundsofsilver;412048]But my point is... the Advance Booking Hype should not ALWAYS be A* just because I announce my two top stars are going at it. If there is no proper build, or if the storyline has been done sloppily, or if the audience has seen it too many times recently, there won't be as much hype there. And I feel like, [B][I]for the most part[/I][/B], those matches DO end up A* rated in the end.[/QUOTE] Look at the part I bolded. That sentence reads to me like "those matches do end up A* rated in the end.....except when they don't". There are no guarantees in TEW, it might only rate A. One of the workers could be off their game and make the match rate lower. [QUOTE=soundsofsilver;412048]This is exactly my point. [B][I]I would HATE[/I][/B] to see HHH vs. Undertaker 5 weeks in a row; [B][I]I would especially hate it[/I][/B] if it was done more than once in a 7-year span. I could understand doing it once; some fans might like it. [B][I]But me[/I][/B], the excitement of a big Championship main event is seeing two wrestlers who are the hottest in the company and can't seem to lose, going at it. That excitement is taken away when the match is booked ad nauseum. I completely disagree with your premise, "Not [sic] matter how many times you see a match[,] if you're a true wrestling fan[,] it[']s just good to watch." By the 5th time it happens in a short span of time, it's usually not as good as the first, except in rare circumstances (which are fine, so long as they're rare, and not commonplace).[/QUOTE] I bolded those parts to try to show how your suggestion basically imposes your will on people who might not agree with your line of thinking. I've already cited examples where what you don't like has occurred, to great acclaim, despite your dislike. As you yourself admitted, good booking is wholly subjective. Like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. So removing choice from a game whose primary selling point is its openness, seems like a spiteful, knee jerk reaction. "I don't like this booking style, so add penalties so that it's not viable". Sounds kinda petulant and self-centered when put like that, doesn't it? Here's what's funny: I agree with you, to a certain extent. But designing a feature like you suggest with a bunch of exceptions, makes the feature so watered down, it might as well not even exist. Plus, half of those exceptions then constitute HUGE loopholes. If you allow 'best of 7' storylines to exist outside the penalty, what stops people who want to book these kinds of matches from just putting the workers involved in a best of 7 storyline and evolving it repeatedly? There are no best of 7 unchained storylines so the user no longer has a choice on what kind of storyline they want to use. So you're taking away choice and leaving gaping holes in its place. To some people, repeatedly putting on the same match over and over to milk its rating is like cheating. Okay then, so let's eradicate all of the various things people see as cheating....because one (or two or thirty) people don't like it. No ingame editor (after you start a save, that's that. No editing). Your suggested feature as well. No changing event dates after they're created because some people "cheat" by changing dates so they have certain workers available. See where that goes? Where does it end? Also, where do the exceptions end? How long do workers have to go without facing each other to remove the penalty? Do we go by your desires and make the penalty period once in 7 years? Considering many people's games don't even SEE 7 years, that basically means two workers can only meet each other in a singles match [B][I]once per game[/I][/B]. Does that not sound ludicrous to you? I notice the feud examples you give are both relatively recent and all from 'entertainment' based promotions. What about non-mainstream promotions? Do puro promotions get the same penalty as a WWE would? Does a garbage fed? Lucharesu? Given the fact that these styles of promotions value sometimes wildly differing things, how do you create the feature in an equitable way? Or do you just apply it to promotions with large amounts of mainstream in their products? In the latter instance, you further disadvantage entertainment promotions when they're already behind at levels below National. As you probably know, it's FAR easier to find workers who can "go" in the ring than it is to find workers with tons of overness. Thus, promotions with an in-ring performance emphasis experience better growth than promotions with a popularity emphasis. Anyway, as I said, I agree with you to a point. Repetitive matches can be a problem sometimes. But then think about it, who cares? Why do you care that Joey wants to play his game and run Austin-Rock or Cena-Triple H for a full year? If you take away his ability to do that, what do you give him to replace that? And how do you implement the feature without screwing those people trying to recreate or reproduce classic feuds?

[crayon]

[quote="Togg"]Where as these days its about TV shows and low ratings[/quote] Fixed for you ;) I think a big issue is exactly what Remi touched on, and the difference between one fan getting off on 9 matches in a row between the same workers and another fan getting bored of it is all about the type of product you're running and who you're trying to appeal to. Obviously OMGWORKRATE~! guys care mainly about what's going on in the ring first and foremost, whereas your Entertainment based casual fan (perhaps the wrong term but whatever), is just as much--if not moreso--into the build up and backstory as what's going on in the ring. I think it is an issue that would do well being addressed (and like everything, I believe IS possible to simulate), but the question is just how much elbow grease would it take to implement yet cover all your bases?

[gonvick]

[QUOTE=Remianen;412080]Okay, tell me something. One of the most highly regarded feuds in (American) wrestling history is considered to be Flair-Steamboat, yes? How many times did they meet in singles matches? Keep in mind, Flair himself said it in his book. Many times, they faced each other in arenas 30 mins apart in distance. By your estimation, you would "hate" seeing that, but was that the case in reality?[/QUOTE] Are you saying that because the arenas were sometimes 30 minutes apart that they consisted of largely the same audience? Because when it comes to repetitiveness, the question is how often did they wrestle in front of the same audience. I would note that they didn't wrestle every week on the television shows so it would seem that the bookers at the time probably thought repetitively booking their best feud would be bad for business. [QUOTE]Another example that comes to mind is Megumi Kudo vs Shark Tsuchiya. Now, you might not be familiar with this particular pair, but their feud was extremely highly regarded. They faced each other like a dozen times in about 18 months, in various matches that MEN would be afraid of (exploding barbed wire match?). All in the same promotion. So your suggestion would preclude anyone from trying to reproduce these feuds and/or storylines. And for what?[/QUOTE] Admittedly I'm not very familiar with the Japanese scene so maybe it works a bit differently, I don't know. Were those dozen matches seen by the same audience for the most part? But I notice you mention that there were various matches, including exploding barbed wire. It would seem to me that there would be no reason to risk exploding barbed wire matches if you expect that another straight singles match will draw just as effectively. So I would suspect that there are the same issues with repetitiveness in Japan, but the cultural differences may have an effect on it in some way. [QUOTE]As you yourself admitted, good booking is wholly subjective. Like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. So removing choice from a game whose primary selling point is its openness, seems like a spiteful, knee jerk reaction. "I don't like this booking style, so add penalties so that it's not viable". Sounds kinda petulant and self-centered when put like that, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] But then, the game already offers similar restrictions on what it recognizes as bad booking. You can try booking shows that are similar to the old Saturday Night's Main Event with the big world title match in the middle followed by mid card tag matches and filler, but you'll be penalized for doing so. This suggestion is no different. The game isn't entirely about freedom, so you'd at least have to point out why this restriction is different than the others. That said, while I like this suggestion on a conceptual level, I don't know how exactly to implement it. There are a lot of variables to account for. But I think it's clearly laid out throughout wrestling history that variety is vital to long term success.

[soundsofsilver]

[QUOTE=Remianen;412080]Okay, tell me something. One of the most highly regarded feuds in (American) wrestling history is considered to be Flair-Steamboat, yes? How many times did they meet in singles matches? Keep in mind, Flair himself said it in his book. Many times, they faced each other in arenas 30 mins apart in distance. By your estimation, you would "hate" seeing that, but was that the case in reality? [/quote] The NWA house show circuit is not what TEW simulates, however. Steamboat and Flair would not have wrestled throwaway matches every week on television; that would have been poor booking. Bret and Owen Hart wrestled each other at dozens of WWF house shows, but it wasn't a weekly occurrence on Raw. (Nor would it be even in today's setting) [quote]Another example that comes to mind is Megumi Kudo vs Shark Tsuchiya. Now, you might not be familiar with this particular pair, but their feud was extremely highly regarded. They faced each other like a dozen times in about 18 months, in various matches that MEN would be afraid of (exploding barbed wire match?). All in the same promotion. So your suggestion would preclude anyone from trying to reproduce these feuds and/or storylines.[/quote] A dozen times in 18 months is perfectly acceptable for a rare, amazing feud... a dozen times in 6 months, on the other hand, is pushing redundancy. [quote] And again, history disproves you in this regard. [/quote] Really? When has a great feud taken place that involved two main eventers going at it in all-out matches that ended in clean finishes every week on television? [quote]So you want to add a game mechanism to prevent this from being effective. Oh, only for National and above....and maybe Cult. Oh and except 'best of 7' type storylines. Oh, and except.... [/quote] Every booking element has its exceptions; this is really no different than "gimmicks" in that regard. *Most* wrestlers with fit gimmicks will end up in the B area, but some great ones will end up in the A-A* area. What I'm proposing in terms of storylines and matches is no different, some matches with great chemistry will be able to used more often and still have a great effect, but others will lose their excitement from overuse. [quote]Look at the part I bolded. That sentence reads to me like "those matches do end up A* rated in the end.....except when they don't". There are no guarantees in TEW, it might only rate A. One of the workers could be off their game and make the match rate lower. [/quote] An A is still a great rating, no? My point is, in real life, you can't just throw two very talented, very over workers into a match with no backstory, week after week, and expect it to be an A match. It might work once or twice, but it will lose its effect with overuse. [quote]I bolded those parts to try to show how your suggestion basically imposes your will on people who might not agree with your line of thinking. I've already cited examples where what you don't like has occurred, to great acclaim, despite your dislike. [/quote] Like I said, there are exceptions, and I'm not suggesting anything be hard-coded to prevent long-winded feuds with a lot of matches from ever occurring; I'm just suggesting that we shouldn't be able to do that with every feud, whenever we want to. I don't feel like there are exceptions to EVERY rule. Over-exposure will hurt a feud, even when they have amazing chemistry like Flair and Steamboat. At some point, there is a climax to the feud, where it gets to the highest point it can get, and if the feud is forced after that, the ratings will start dropping, and there needs to be a cooling off period. [quote]As you yourself admitted, good booking is wholly subjective. [Like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. [/quote] I didn't quite admit that. I said it's subjective to an extent- two people may disagree. However, certain booking tactics will result in a larger fanbase over time than other booking tactics; that is objective. If Undertaker vs. HHH every week would result in the largest fanbase the WWE could have, they would do it, but since that is nowhere near the best booking tactic, they don't do it. [quote]So removing choice from a game whose [B]primary selling point is its openness[/B], seems like a spiteful, knee jerk reaction. [/quote] Really? That's the primary selling point? Isn't that the point of a game like TNM7? I presume the primary selling point of TEW is to have a challenging experience as a booker of a wrestling company. [quote]"I don't like this booking style, so add penalties so that it's not viable". Sounds kinda petulant and self-centered when put like that, doesn't it? [/quote] I was just drawing contrast to the ONE other poster. I think there are certain booking styles that aren't as successful over the long haul; there is always a point where over-exposure and redundancy starts to become a problem. I don't see why that would be that difficult to implement- have a reward for a match that has been really built to well, and have a certain point beyond which the crowd starts becoming less interested in matches between two workers for a while (and it would vary from feud to feud, much like chemistry or destiny). [quote] But designing a feature like you suggest with a bunch of exceptions, makes the feature so watered down, it might as well not even exist. [/quote] But, of course there are exceptions in booking. But there are also things that the crowd will get sick of. Unfortunately, in TEW, the crowd will never get sick of it. I imagine this feature working so that each feud is different, you need to take more things into consideration with feuds, there are exceptions and great feuds that can have more matches, and there are rewards for huge matches that you've teased for a long time and then finally give the crowd. [quote] Plus, half of those exceptions then constitute HUGE loopholes. If you allow 'best of 7' storylines to exist outside the penalty, what stops people who want to book these kinds of matches from just putting the workers involved in a best of 7 storyline and evolving it repeatedly? [/quote] Like I said, there would be different thresholds like chemistry levels for different feuds. Also, the crowd could be interested in "best of 7" series a certain number of times, before they don't want to see one for a while, and that could be something that has to do with product maybe? [quote]putting on the same match over and over to milk its rating is like cheating. [/quote] It's not just that, it's more like... in a competitive game like National Battle, I want to try my hardest to win, but what would constitute trying my hardest as a real booker and trying my hardest within the game's confines don't line up. I would LOVE to do a multiplayer National Battle game, but why do that when the way to win would be to book unrealistically? And, you may say "restrict yourselves- don't book unrealistically", but then we need to start drawing our own arbitrary lines... it would be much better if those type of mechanisms were in the game... "Ok, I can get higher TV ratings if I do Joe vs. Angle on Impact, but I'll be sacrificing PPV buyrates as well." [quote]No ingame editor (after you start a save, that's that. No editing). [/quote] I assume most people use the ingame editor to edit things to keep the game world more realistic, not to help their own workers... [quote]See where that goes? Where does it end? Also, where do the exceptions end? How long do workers have to go without facing each other to remove the penalty? Do we go by your desires and make the penalty period once in 7 years? Considering many people's games don't even SEE 7 years, that basically means two workers can only meet each other in a singles match [B][I]once per game[/I][/B]. Does that not sound ludicrous to you? [/quote] Especially since you completely misunderstood my suggestion there, yes, that does sound ludicrous. :) I don't even know where you got that from, of COURSE wrestlers should be able to wrestle more than once every seven years. They just shouldn't always be able to wrestle 20 times in one year with equal success every match. [quote]I notice the feud examples you give are both relatively recent and all from 'entertainment' based promotions. What about non-mainstream promotions? Do puro promotions get the same penalty as a WWE would? Does a garbage fed? Lucharesu? Given the fact that these styles of promotions value sometimes wildly differing things, how do you create the feature in an equitable way? Or do you just apply it to promotions with large amounts of mainstream in their products? [/quote] I'm not sure how booking is handled in other styles, mine is more a suggestion for a couple styles, most specifically Entertainment, not all of them. More broadly, I feel like each style should have different things that work in terms of booking, based on real life. [quote]In the latter instance, you further disadvantage entertainment promotions when they're already behind at levels below National. [/quote] Of course, I'm only talking about promotions with constant exposure to the same audience, ie national promotions with a TV deal, or a certain cult promotion having monthly shows at the ECW Arena. Also, it need not be a DISADVANTAGE, because there can be an advantage to building up to big climaxes in feuds. [quote]Anyway, as I said, I agree with you to a point. Repetitive matches can be a problem sometimes. But then think about it, who cares? Why do you care that Joey wants to play his game and run Austin-Rock or Cena-Triple H for a full year? If you take away his ability to do that, what do you give him to replace that? And how do you implement the feature without screwing those people trying to recreate or reproduce classic feuds?[/QUOTE] I think I've addressed these questions in this post already. 1. Multiplayer validity 2. Variability within booking restrictions If the point of the game is to be a successful booker, shouldn't it try to emulate that?

[soundsofsilver]

[QUOTE=gonvick;412100]That said, while I like this suggestion on a conceptual level, I don't know how exactly to implement it. There are a lot of variables to account for. But I think it's clearly laid out throughout wrestling history that variety is vital to long term success.[/QUOTE] I agree, and that's why I'm just trying to start a conversation about it, as there are both good and bad ways it could be implemented, and I'm seeing what people's ideas generally are there. I'm also interested in seeing what kind of interest/demand there is in this type of mechanism. My interest has mainly been risen because of the addition of B shows, a feature which I felt was opposed by Adam, in a similar situation as restrictions on booking repetition, but added due to popular demand. So, I wonder what type of interest there might be in this feature. If I'm the only one, it's probably not worth my $35 to include it, and I'll just hope it's in a future version and pass on this one. But I'm hoping there's more interest.

[hakk99]

Just because the OP hasn't written out the code and explained every detail doesn't mean the suggestion isn't worth discussing. I agree that booking does grow stale. I also agree that the hardest part of coding a booking sim must be dealing with the very subjectivity and variety of the business. Still, I would hope that the latter doesn't preclude attempts at fixing the former. Adam did take the time to penalize repetitive matches in WMMA (and I realize they are totally different games and "sports"). What if Joey wants to book the same main event in all his WMMA matches? Why should we get in the way of his fun? Obviously it is much harder to integrate into a wrestling sim for the reasons mentioned above, but I don't think the OP wants to simply deny other people from booking Wrestlemania level matches over and over again. All he is asking is that some mechanism in the game reward him for being creative with his main event scene. A request I second. A simple solution would seem to be that there not be any penalty to booking matches too often, but that there would be a huge potential payoff for once-in-a-lifetime matches. Now the booker can put his two stars together again and again and reap the benefits of surefire high end matches or he can forego the immediate reward and hold out for a few years. The second strategy results in having to be more creative with the main event scene but rewards the booker with one glorious match for the ages (unless they end up having terrible chemistry, which would be hilarious). Something simple like this would keep me playing for "years" just so I could see those two stars finally meet in a megamatch.

[hakk99]

[QUOTE=soundsofsilver;412102] "Ok, I can get higher TV ratings if I do Joe vs. Angle on Impact, but I'll be sacrificing PPV buyrates as well." [/QUOTE] This, for me, encapsulates one of the most interesting aspects of wrestling booking that is not represented in TEW. You make big money in wrestling largely by selling your PPVs. You sell your PPVs by putting on good television shows. But if your television shows, which are free, are TOO good, then no one has much incentive to pay for the PPV. It's a fine line that must be walked. When the National Battle feature was announced I was very excited. Finally, I would have to make some tough decisions. Do I give away some of my best matches for free in order to help win the National Battle (WCW?) or do I do the financially conservative thing and tease the fans each Monday night in order to get them to pay for the PPV? Now that I've looked closer at the feature it looks like it will not change my booking at all. It will give me some pleasure as I tear down the other companies, but it won't force me to strategize any differently than I do now in my little wrestling vacuum. The Regional battle actually looks a bit more interesting as it will affect which regions I book in, I think, especially if I am only running one show a month. For every feature in TEW 08 and all future iterations of the game, my main criteria is whether or not it forces me to make difficult decisions with different risks and rewards and potential payoffs to consider, none of which should ever be clearly right or wrong. So I would oppose a mechanism that forced me to always make major matches a rare thing, but I would embrace a feature that gave me a choice between low risk/low reward and high risk/high reward.

[takertitan]

i just find it stupid how i can do the same shows week in week out and get A+ ratings. my shows for the past 6 months are: Champion and #1 contender argument Match, draw. match, draw Hype match, over workers w/ good charisma match, draw match, draw Taunt, more over workers w/ good charisma match, draw match, draw hype for main event again match, draw match, draw hype for next week, more over workers main event, draw and in the end, since everyone is half decent, i gain popularity for my company and workers and the show is labled as an A+ show. So, who would watch that? who would want to see 10 draws in a night? who wants that for the next 6 months of RAW?

[Michael Wayne]

the main thing that the OP is missing in citing WWE as his example, is that most of the main event scene is getting up there in age. You HAVE to develop talent otherwise if the focus is soley on your ME scene, when they retire, you have no stars. So there is a challenge. And if you've played with T-Zone, you know that taking (esp if you mass sign the indy scene) people with F- popularity across the board and turning them into stars without sacrificing your show ratings IS a challenge. Sure doing what you suggested works. But it works for the short term. And if you're not prepared for when Shawn Michaels, Taker, hhh, and anyone above 45 retires, you'll surely suffer with card ratings, fall to cult, and spend years getting out. Esp with the default industry/economy settings which pretty much have most of the world set on the downward spiral.

[Adam Ryland]

I don't really see the point of this thread. With the release being just around the corner, common sense alone would indicate that a feature of this magnitude isn't going to get added out of the blue, which only leaves two possibilities: 1 - It's already been added and will be in one of the remaining 29 journal entries or 2 - It's not a feature in TEW08 So making a thread about it (especially going into heavy detail) seems incredibly perverse; possibility #1 would make the thread completely irrelevant, possibility #2 would make the thread pointless as anything but a suggestion for a sequel. Either way, common sense means that the thread - and any lengthy debate it generates - is utterly pointless and only has negative results (either wasted effort if the feature is in, or disappointment if it isn't).

[Hurrikane]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;412126]I don't really see the point of this thread. With the release being just around the corner, common sense alone would indicate that a feature of this magnitude isn't going to get added out of the blue, which only leaves two possibilities: 1 - It's already been added and will be in one of the remaining 29 journal entries or 2 - It's not a feature in TEW08 So making a thread about it (especially going into heavy detail) seems incredibly perverse; possibility #1 would make the thread completely irrelevant, possibility #2 would make the thread pointless as anything but a suggestion for a sequel. Either way, common sense means that the thread - and any lengthy debate it generates - is utterly pointless and only has negative results (either wasted effort if the feature is in, or disappointment if it isn't).[/QUOTE] No offence Adam as I'm sure it's not intentional, but sometimes you come across as having a real contempt for your customers. It's great that there is an interactive forum here, and yes it is unique to be able to directly communicate with the maker of the game, but with the way you sometimes respond to people, it's as if we're a nuisance as opposed to a customer. The game hasn't been released yet, so it's surely expected that people will be starting threads that either speculate or suggest features that would or could be included. Surely it's a compliment that people are actively thinking about it, and are offering ways that would encourage them to pay money to buy.

[Adam Ryland]

I don't have contempt for him or his idea; he's put it forward in a coherent and logical manner which is a refreshing change. My point is that his timing is awful - the best case scenario is that the thread is irrelevant because I've already addressed it, the worst case scenario is that he's spent a lot of time and energy, and built his hopes and expectations up, for nothing. Either way, it's a lot of wasted effort, and I don't like to see people wasting their time unnecessarily. Contempt would have been not to say anything and let people continue to put effort into something that has no value.

[Hurrikane]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;412152]I don't have contempt for him or his idea; he's put it forward in a coherent and logical manner which is a refreshing change. My point is that his timing is awful - the best case scenario is that the thread is irrelevant because I've already addressed it, the worst case scenario is that he's spent a lot of time and energy, and built his hopes and expectations up, for nothing. Either way, it's a lot of wasted effort, and I don't like to see people wasting their time unnecessarily. Contempt would have been not to say anything and let people continue to put effort into something that has no value.[/QUOTE] I don't disagree with the timing issue, just the way you put that across. You said yourself that it was a coherent and logical post, which is why I thought your tone was a bit contemptuous. Maybe something like: "Unfortunately it's a bit late to be taking on suggestions for the game, although I remind you that there are still plenty of features to be announced in the Developer's journal. An interesting suggestion though, even if the timing is a bit off! Lots of Love Adam" Okay, the sign off was a joke, but hopefully you see my point that there is a nicer way of telling someone that their thread is pointless! Especially, when that person likely helps you make a living.

[Adam Ryland]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree! I'm afraid that the way you suggested made me cringe, it sounds incredibly fake and unnatural, personally I'd find that sort of soulless "I have no interest in what you're saying but I'm going to pretend that I do so that I can get your money" sort of BS to show far more contempt to the customer that what I said. The fact that I don't sugar-coat my answers may not be to everyone's tastes, but at least you are getting a straight answer and know where you stand.

[Hurrikane]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;412173]I think we'll have to agree to disagree! I'm afraid that the way you suggested made me cringe, it sounds incredibly fake and unnatural, personally I'd find that sort of soulless "I have no interest in what you're saying but I'm going to pretend that I do so that I can get your money" sort of BS to show far more contempt to the customer that what I said. The fact that I don't sugar-coat my answers may not be to everyone's tastes, but at least you are getting a straight answer and know where you stand.[/QUOTE] Ha, well it was unnatural because I'm not in your position to respond to the question, and I think I deliberately over-emphasised the showing of appreciation to the person making a suggestion for effect. I don't know if you've just admitted that you had no interest in what the poster was saying, or if that was just an unfortunate way of making your point, but I was going on the assumption that you did care and so wanted to point out that it didn't come across that way. I hope this isn't interpreted as squabble by any means as it certainly wasn't my intention, but my general point was that you could be a bit more consumer friendly when personally responding to posts. The constant updates on a games progress, as well as the user support on released games is top notch, but I occasionally take exception to how you respond to people. Better than not responding, yes, but just a suggestion all the same (too late for this year maybe:p ) .

[soundsofsilver]

I at least appreciate the content of the honest reply, even if it did sound a tad frustrated. I thought that my timing may be off, but, as I said, I hadn't really considered it a possibility until you included B Shows, another idea you had been opposed to in the past. I think there is some good discussion in this thread, and I especially like hak's point about how in wrestling, your goal is to make money at the PPV, which is by putting on good (but not too good) TV shows. I'll remain on the fence for 08, but would definitely purchase any future version that included something like that.

[Greyhound]

I'd say that the fact that you can book constant draws, DQs, and other screwy finishes constantly without fans caring at all would be great to have changed in future renditions.

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=Hurrikane;412176]I don't know if you've just admitted that you had no interest in what the poster was saying, or if that was just an unfortunate way of making your point, but I was going on the assumption that you did care and so wanted to point out that it didn't come across that way.[/QUOTE] That was sort of my point though - my interest in it [I]is[/I] limited. That's not because I'm being rude to him, it's because the game is going to be out pretty soon so making detailed suggestions isn't really conductive to anything. Either the feature he wants is already in, in which case what he's written is fairly academic anyway, or it's not in, in which case his post will be very interesting - just not until it comes time to think about a possible sequel. Either way the thread is pretty redundant. The one and only point I'm trying to make is that it's not really worth having a lengthy debate about this feature [U]at this moment in time[/U]. The idea is fine, the presentation is fine, the timing isn't.

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=soundsofsilver;412178]I thought that my timing may be off, but, as I said, I hadn't really considered it a possibility until you included B Shows, another idea you had been opposed to in the past.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, but it's worth highlighting again that the journal isn't "live" as such - although it was only revealed recently, that doesn't mean B Shows only came into existence recently, that could be a feature that has been in for months already. It's purely coincidence that a couple of features have been announced just after they've been mentioned on the board by posters, I'm not adding things based upon what people are talking about.