Question about Repeat Booking

[DreamGoddessLindsey]

Well, this is mainly about mods such as Death of the Territories that have a weekly untelevised show, but can be applied to anyone who decides to run such shows. When running a weekly show that's more than a house show but less than a big show, does Repeat Booking still take effect? Like say I cycle through regions, putting on the same show but for different audiences each time. No TV or PPV involved, just events. Would the Repeat Booking still modify things, or would it be ignored since it would be a different audience each time? Like back in the 80s.

[Adam Ryland]

It still applies. The feature is there to stop lazy repetitive booking, there's no reason why that shouldn't apply to people just because they run weekly rather than monthly events.

[Kovic]

I have a another question about the same feature.. Does dark time matches count?

[Adam Ryland]

Yes. It wouldn't make sense not to take them into account given that non-televised matches on the main card are.

[rajde]

Will there be anything in the analysis saying this or do we have to keep track by ourself?

[Rams]

[QUOTE=rajde;415612]Will there be anything in the analysis saying this or do we have to keep track by ourself?[/QUOTE] I assume you will just have to look for yourself before booking the match though it would be nice if a message popped up like it does when a worker complains about the match.

[edenborn]

[QUOTE=Rams;415771]I assume you will just have to look for yourself before booking the match though it would be nice if a message popped up like it does when a worker complains about the match.[/QUOTE] I'd appreciate a warning message like that--it could save a lot of time fishing through match histories.

[cappyboy]

You know, this thread has created some reservations for me as far as this feature goes. While it will be a good thing and encourage people's creative juices in the modern era, this could dampen the spirit of territorial age mods like DOTT and CVerse 75. The feature's heart is in the right place. But I don't know if the full consequence has been considered by those who lobbied for it.

[Irish Wolf]

I've been trying to not run the same matches more than a few times now using CGC as a test case since they have a TV show and monthly events. SO far I've only runn three matches more than once in three months. A tag match I've run twice and two singles matches one which has been run three time and one which has been run four. The four match was the last of a small series between Nathan Black and Thomas Morgan and the last match was a Submission match to add a little oomph (although even without the feature in 2007 it kept the same match rating as all the other matches). My biggest issue is I've been trying to get the most out of my shows while trying to stay within the bounds of the requirements for what will be the new feature and I just can't seem to do well. CGC has a B+ in British Columbia and C+ in Ontario I believe and I think D ot D+ across the board in the rest of Canada. I think I can average a C+ show and I've had two B- shows but I've also managed to get a string of C- which dropped my popularity and I've knocked down to a B in BC and a C in Ont. So I know the feature isn't in and this was just a test but I think it's doable. CGC doesn't have a huge roster and below their Main event scene mostly sucks but I've managed to stay afloat and keep things interesting. Also I'm apparently really bad at SE type feds so that could have skewed my show results. I'll give it a try with CZCW next and see how I do.

[rajde]

[QUOTE=cappyboy;415799]You know, this thread has created some reservations for me as far as this feature goes. While it will be a good thing and encourage people's creative juices in the modern era, this could dampen the spirit of territorial age mods like DOTT and CVerse 75. The feature's heart is in the right place. But I don't know if the full consequence has been considered by those who lobbied for it.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be hard to get around it just do 3 ways and a add a different 3rd guy into the match. Or do tag matches more often. I think this also makes the match between the two more important so, you have to make it a huge payoff rather then having it on every show.

[djthefunkchris]

I already have it in my head how I'm going to do this...... First I'll have them argue/debate. Then have the heel ruin a match, causing the face to lose, or just disqualifying his opponant (many different things I can do), then have the face get even in a similar matter, setting up the obvious tag match. This is all to set up the first PPV/big show, where they meet head to head for the first time in a normal match.... OF course the Heel is going to worm out of losing the strap, or win by countout (if the Face has the title). This will set up my normal show's where I will have maybe a third get involved (Big Threeway). You get the drift..> You can keep these two guys feuding for whatever it is they are feuding for... and it can go a whole year without them actually facing each other head to head more then three times. I don't think it's hard to book like that. My main concern has always been the storylines that are already made... The things like Best of seven, and so forth. We will have to change them to include other participants or something. However, the biggest thing I see happening is that Unchained storylines being able to be progressed through. I don't know if I will ever use a normal storyline again with that feature (Just kidding). Seriously though, there are too many advantages in realism, that makes this feature kick butt really.... Imagine you have a best of seven storyline anyways... And they keep getting better and better as they square off... You might get through it without falling into any traps (if I'm reading all of the information that's out about it right). You might fall into a trap on match 3... but then, that makes me think of how realistic it can be with this.... "No one wants to see this, it's boring, move on".

[cappyboy]

[QUOTE=rajde;415825]It shouldn't be hard to get around it just do 3 ways and a add a different 3rd guy into the match. Or do tag matches more often. I think this also makes the match between the two more important so, you have to make it a huge payoff rather then having it on every show.[/QUOTE] All well and good in the modern period but the nature of the territories was rather repetitive at times. As Lindsey noted, there was a bit of "Okay so what if St. Paul, Duluth, Bemidji and Appleton have all seen Bockwinkel face Hogan in the last month? Madison hasn't yet." Often if you had a TV show it was either on a regional station or in syndication. So stuff that might have been old close to HQ would be new again the further out on the loop you got. The repeat booking that might be deemed a rut now was part of standard operating procedure in territorial times. With the old system having been dead for a good 20 years or so now, folks either tend to forget that or not know it to begin with. The fact we seem to be getting a feature to circumvent the spirit of that era is a little disconcerting considering it's the setting for two of the game's most popular mods.

[DreamGoddessLindsey]

[QUOTE=cappyboy;415891]All well and good in the modern period but the nature of the territories was rather repetitive at times. As Lindsey noted, there was a bit of "Okay so what if St. Paul, Duluth, Bemidji and Appleton have all seen Bockwinkel face Hogan in the last month? Madison hasn't yet." Often if you had a TV show it was either on a regional station or in syndication. So stuff that might have been old close to HQ would be new again the further out on the loop you got. The repeat booking that might be deemed a rut now was part of standard operating procedure in territorial times. With the old system having been dead for a good 20 years or so now, folks either tend to forget that or not know it to begin with. The fact we seem to be getting a feature to circumvent the spirit of that era is a little disconcerting considering it's the setting for two of the game's most popular mods.[/QUOTE] Yeah, this makes it to where weekly events from the old days are undoable really without adding thigns in that wouldn't have happened back then. All the legendary series of matches like Flair/Race or Flair/Steamboat, they're now pretty much impossible.

[Irish Wolf]

[QUOTE=cappyboy;415891]All well and good in the modern period but the nature of the territories was rather repetitive at times. As Lindsey noted, there was a bit of "Okay so what if St. Paul, Duluth, Bemidji and Appleton have all seen Bockwinkel face Hogan in the last month? Madison hasn't yet." Often if you had a TV show it was either on a regional station or in syndication. So stuff that might have been old close to HQ would be new again the further out on the loop you got. The repeat booking that might be deemed a rut now was part of standard operating procedure in territorial times. With the old system having been dead for a good 20 years or so now, folks either tend to forget that or not know it to begin with. The fact we seem to be getting a feature to circumvent the spirit of that era is a little disconcerting considering it's the setting for two of the game's most popular mods.[/QUOTE] I was having the same issue with it when it was first put out there but if I understand as Adam explained it smaller feds (I'd assume regional and under) will have the repeat booking as a lesser or different effect as will touring feds. My issue was it seems fairly easy to not have the same to guys meet in one on one matches with a SE or story based fed but with wrestling based feds especially ones that don't do a lot of 3 ways and 4 ways the job becomes exceedingly harder.

[cappyboy]

[QUOTE=DreamGoddessLindsey;415900]Yeah, this makes it to where weekly events from the old days are undoable really without adding thigns in that wouldn't have happened back then. All the legendary series of matches like Flair/Race or Flair/Steamboat, they're now pretty much impossible.[/QUOTE] Now that I've backed you up and noted I tend to agree with you, allow me to play devil's advocate here for a moment. One of the best DOTT games I ever had essentially mangled realistic history. Was back on TEW 04 so it would be two whole new versions before the notion of putting a historical block on PPV came up. In this particular game, I was the AWA and the industry was going down the tubes and lack of general market interest in the product was causing my ratings to tank. So when I lost my TV show, what did I do? I took the AWA down the early TNA route and became a weekly PPV fed. This allowed me to maximize my profit on the shrinking audience and ride things out until market interest started to get healthy again. At which point I ended the PPV thing and got my TV show back. Let's do remember that whenever we play with real world data we are essentially altering history within our game. If I hadn't gotten creative with cable history there, I was at the stage of my TEW playing I would most likely have thrown that game out in frustration. Rather than having the fun of playing through my vision for that game's version of the AWA. However, that devil advocated, this kind of historical revision is most fun when it's done by choice. When external forces make you switch horses in the middle of the stream and alter history for you. Well, you and I are apparently there.

[gazwefc83]

i think lindseys question hits the spot perfectly and for this addition to be a success adam needs to look into what lindsey has said, adam replied saying this is to stop lazy booking but adam told me this was going to be more realistic seems to me unless there are some changes to this addition lazy programming rather than lazy booking will be or main concern

[D. Boons Ghost]

[QUOTE=gazwefc83;416324]... unless there are some changes to this addition lazy programming rather than lazy booking will be or main concern[/QUOTE] Speak for yourself. Lazy programming is the least of my concerns from Adam. Wow.

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=gazwefc83;416324]i think lindseys question hits the spot perfectly and for this addition to be a success adam needs to look into what lindsey has said, adam replied saying this is to stop lazy booking but adam told me this was going to be more realistic seems to me unless there are some changes to this addition lazy programming rather than lazy booking will be or main concern[/QUOTE] Which bit are you saying is unrealistic? So far all I've heard is that "you can't do the Flair Steamboat series" - while they had hundreds of matches, they were almost exclusively on what would be considered house shows. Same goes for the WWF shows of that era - while they repeated the same matches up and down the country, they too were on house shows. You don't book house shows in TEW, so that doesn't clash with the new system. The only way I could see there being a clash is if you are suggesting that back in the 80s promotions used to do big events on a weekly basis that ran the same matches over and over again. To my knowledge, that never happened in reality, and therefore by definition cannot be unrealistic. Perhaps you could supply some evidence to back up your point? Maybe a real world example of these weekly events that repeated the same matches? I'd be happy to consider tweaking the system if you have anything. Or maybe I won't, what with me being lazy. :rolleyes:

[Hurrikane]

People should really wait and see how this works before criticizing. I think some are forgetting that if the matches get better each time (if you book as effectively as you think you do) then you won't suffer these penalties.

[Michael Wayne]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;415610]Yes. It wouldn't make sense not to take them into account given that non-televised matches on the main card are.[/QUOTE] here's a question no one has bothered to ask.. What if you book a match with a "special guest referee"? Is having such ignored? Because from real world experience, fans don't treat Bret Hart vs The Undertaker the same way they treat Bret Hart vs The Undertaker with Shawn Michaels as a special guest ref.

[Adam Ryland]

No, it wouldn't be any different. If the stipulations don't effect it, the addition of a referee certainly wouldn't.

[lazorbeak]

[QUOTE=gazwefc83;416324]i think lindseys question hits the spot perfectly and for this addition to be a success adam needs to look into what lindsey has said, adam replied saying this is to stop lazy booking but adam told me this was going to be more realistic seems to me unless there are some changes to this addition lazy programming rather than lazy booking will be or main concern[/QUOTE] Seriously? You're really going to argue that this is unrealistic and lazy on the part of the programmer? How in love with the idea of booking your top two guys again and again and again? I just can't wrap my brain around it. How is it fun to book the same match again and again? I love the level of hyperbole and whining in this thread. Flair/Steamboat is "impossible"? What is anyone basing this on? And Wayne, fans DO consider a guest referee match as another match in a series. Just like a gimmick match. What's the point of the rule if it gives you an out to book the same match 52 weeks in a row as long as you have a rotating referee? Now, if it's a triple threat, you're talking about a horse of a different color. Edit: I'm starting to feel like a tool for agreeing with Adam all the time, but it's like running into a brick wall again and again: think about the purpose of the rule, then think about the application. Common sense should dictate. "Will hell in a cell matches count?" Yes. "What about ladder matches?" Yes. "What about dark matches?" Yes. And keep in mind, the game isn't going to completely block you from booking two guys in a 100 match series, if that's your heart's content. It's just not going to reward you anymore.

[Irish Wolf]

I had a lot of problems with this feature to begin with and I'm not saying it's going to be easy to keep straight how many times you've booked a match, but I think I'm into these feature now. First off because you won't always get a reduction in rating from the match for booking the same match more than three times. Some one in the journal discussion thread posted a good example what you would have to do from hitting all three traps. SO yes as long as you keep an escalation of good matches with each being better than the last then you can keep a feud going for a year (well as long as they only rally meet one on one at each big monthly event). Now I haven't seen how the feature works yet totally so maybe I'll change my mind back again to not liking it. But as it's been explained thus far I think it'll make things work and keep the booking fresh for your shows.

[gazwefc83]

in adams deffence here im sure i read that there would be something in the roadagents notes to help us keep track, i just don't like the fact that if we run untelevised shows across america that this still counts (lyndseys point exactly how can it be repetative to a crowd how havn't seen the match before)

[rajde]

What about my question is there any notification of this or do I have to keep track? I understand the point for either just wondering.