Question about Repeat Booking

[gazwefc83]

read they post above yours im sure adam said there would be road agent notes to help us keep track

[mvargus]

[QUOTE=rajde;416524]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.[/QUOTE] Adam stated in the Journal Discussion thread that you would be informed in the post match report that you had encountered a negative reaction due to booking the same match too often.

[cappyboy]

[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] I'm with D Boon on your post, dude. While Lindsey's question is a great one, I don't see lazy programming at all being a problem we need to worry about with Adam. However, there have been times I've felt Adam might underappreciate certain features or approaches to using features. Like the scaling back of the booking committee and roster communication in the last couple games for example. A move made to eliminate fluff and not handhold the player has proven to take away from the immersion within the game world. Thankfully he seems to appreciate the immersive side more this time around as evidenced by some of the features that have been in the developer's journal. There have been times I questioned Adam's perspective on this or that feature but never have I felt he was prone to lazy programming. Adam's as far removed from that particular issue as we'll likely ever see.

[Bucky Sinister]

Out of all the new features announced so far, this is the first one I've actively disliked. It just doesn't sound fun. That said, it also doesn't sound that bad. The effects of the traps won't be felt very badly unless you're seriously over-booking a match-up. For storylines, in fact, I think it's fine. I might have made the trigger four matches rather than three; it's not that hard to sustain audience attention for a three-match/three-month feud. That's why it's a McMahon standard. But if the penalty at three matches is only 1%, I can live with it. Beyond that, you can generally give the match ratings a boost by booking the on-going showdowns in matches with ever-greater prestige. I'm more worried about setting off the traps accidentally. I often play WWE with no brand split, which leaves me booking nine shows a month, or 54 shows over a period of six months, with the same roster, and much of my undercard booked on the fly. Because I don't devote scads of time to playing, six months might take me four months to play out in real life. And in that time, I could very easily book the same match three times without even realizing it. Of course, again, if the initial penalty is so small, I might not even notice. The Steamboat/Flair example from the DOTT question does make me wonder about something I've never really considered before: do wrestlers get better at fighting each other over time? I mean, if I told my road agents to book Steamboat and Flair against each other at house shows, would the matches I book with them get better? And if I actively book them against each other for a long time, would that make their matches better, too? I've just realized that I have no idea.

[Irish Wolf]

[QUOTE=gazwefc83;416462]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)[/QUOTE] If you look through the Journal Discussion fed you'll see Adam replied to one of my original comments by saying smaller untelevised feds are less but not totally unaffected by this feature as are touring feds. So this shouldn't be as big a problem for smaller feds as people are thinking, which was honestly my biggest complaint about the feature.

[Rick Arnold]

I don't see the huge problem. First of all, it's only in a six-month period. If you spaced it out and built the feud up right, then you could have them facing off bi-monthly without a huge problem. My big question is that if there's a cutoff somewhere. Like Lower Midcarders and down are unaffected. I mean, a S.D. Jones vs. King Kong Bundy series isn't going to be big ratings irregardless. But even that isn't that horrible. It just forces a promotion to keep a constant flux of wrestlers moving through to keep the fresh matchups.

[Wallbanger]

Listening to the different perspectives going back and forth, a couple of observations come to mind. Let me lay out three scenarios: 1) Local size company with no TV or PPV deal runs monthly show in the same game region. Month one, run show with my two main singles guys. Month two run show with same guys. Month three, run show with same guys. Traps start kicking in. This is understandable, since we haven't changed game regions or even venues. If I've been in the audience for all three shows, I've seen this match three shows in a row -- boo. 2) Regional size company with no TV or PPV deal is focusing on three game regions, rotating weekly -- let's say Tri-State, Mid Atlantic, and South East. Week one, run show in Tri State with my two main singles guys. Week two, run show in Mid-Atlantic with same two guys. Week three, run show in South East with same two guys. As I understand the game mechanic, traps start hitting that match. However, the audience in the South East hasn't seen that match before -- why would they respond any less favorably than the Tri-State audience two weeks earlier? 3) Cult size company with two weekly TV shows (for example, on Access West Coast and East Coast Today) and a monthly PPV (for example, on American Option). Week 1, run show on AWC taping with my two main singles guys. Week 2, run show on ECT taping with same two guys. Week 3, run PPV show with same two guys. The traps kick in, but no audience has seen the same matchup three times, at most they've seen two, the TV taping in their area, and the PPV, which has national coverage. What I'm saying is while I understand the intent of the feature in decreasing repetitive booking, it seems to me that it treats every show as if the whole world has seen it, regardless of where the show is held or whether it's on TV/PPV or not, and [I]that[/I] part doesn't seem right to me. If you can simulate the effect of the same [I]audience[/I] (and in this context audience=game region) seeing the same match three times and triggering traps, while allowing you to show the same match in a short timeframe to different audiences without triggering traps, then I think you've got something everyone can work with. It also adds the benefit of the player having to adapt his booking strategy as his company grows. Hopefully that makes sense.

[djthefunkchris]

I will say this. You will never EVER here me say that there is lazy developing going on with TEW.... Look around GDS here, who is doing most the developing (Nothing against the other developer's, DO NOT TAKE THAT WRONG). Adam is putting out at least one game a year, and he already worked VERY Hard on TEW... and even though he says different, I guarrentee you with the all the different bugs and stuff he is working out with his team of tester's..> He's still adding things into the game. There will be things added to the game AFTER RELEASE if it seems like a must have feature (something that was overlooked).... Look at your NEW WORKER importer in TEW07 for an example of that. We get feedback on a daily basis (Sometimes more)... At least six days a week, if he's available... It's like a daily thing for him. He does it while working, I BET. Just because you don't like something, which is even understandable in some case's..> Please realise that your just not in aggreement. It has nothing to do with laziness... He put this in as a feature because it was asked for.... How is that lazy? This is NOT meant to be the rant I think it turned out to be. I do not wish to harrass anymore then was already done, and I tried hard not to post at all.. I just want it seen in the right light. These feedbacks are great for productive and constructive critism. No harm in that. Just realise the difference between Productive and NON-Productive. And read what is asked for. If you can find what the Developer is looking for as an example, he will reconsider (anything). I've seen him do so. The thing is, you probably won't because he knows his wrestling, lol. I would venture to say he's at the very least 95% correct, when debated with. You have to be a fan to make such a great game. It's not like he is uninformed, and going just by our input.

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=Wallbanger;416870] What I'm saying is while I understand the intent of the feature in decreasing repetitive booking,[B] it seems to me that it treats every show as if the whole world has seen it, regardless of where the show is held or whether it's on TV/PPV or not, and [I]that[/I] part doesn't seem right to me.[/B] If you can simulate the effect of the same [I]audience[/I] [U](and in this context audience=game region[/U]) seeing the same match three times and triggering traps, while allowing you to show the same match in a short timeframe to different audiences without triggering traps, then I think you've got something everyone can work with. It also adds the benefit of the player having to adapt his booking strategy as his company grows. Hopefully that makes sense.[/QUOTE] I am respectfully going to dissagree. Don't get me wrong, this is not one of my highly "looking forward to" features, but I think Adam is making some sense here. You MIGHT Not have been there with that show.. However, the magazines and such would have covered it. The fans that are very loyal, will travel with you, you can't ignore that. All I'm saying, is just because it's not on TV, doesn't mean your main shows in the week can be repetitive. Sure, house shows ran like that. There are a few exceptions I'm sure we are overlooking, but all in all.. its not going to be the same two people going at it show after show. There is a problem that I can't put my finger on though, but I can add to what your saying bassically. Quite a few times when your startin' out with nothing (or very little), you tend to have "BIG SHOWS" as your main show, and "Little shows" as if they were house shows. Without being able to have "House Shows" as a small promotion, we do this to try and get bigger faster... weekly shows that are more like house shows. So instead of asking for a way to get out of this, maybe we should be looking for a way to do what we want to do (Hold house shows, even book them, as small or Media absent promotions).

[Wallbanger]

[quote=djthefunkchris;416875]You MIGHT Not have been there with that show.. However, the magazines and such would have covered it. The fans that are very loyal, will travel with you, you can't ignore that. All I'm saying, is just because it's not on TV, doesn't mean your main shows in the week can be repetitive.[/quote] On the East Coast that is plausible -- taking the train from Boston (New England) to New York City (Tri-State) or Washington DC (Mid-Atlantic) to go see a show every other week? Sure, I can see that. Where I grew up and live, in the Midwest? Nope. Look at the major cities -- Minneapolis, Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston. In most cases you are talking about a 6 hour plus drive. Now look at it from a game perspective -- will a significant number of fans from Minneapolis (Mid West) drive 16 hours to Dallas (Mid South) for a show on a regular basis? To your point about the magazines -- I guess I don't see how reading about a match in a magazine is a comparable experience to seeing the same match live. For me, reading about a match made me want to see it more, not hope they wouldn't do it when they came to town since they'd done it already.

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=Wallbanger;416882]On the East Coast that is plausible -- taking the train from Boston (New England) to New York City (Tri-State) or Washington DC (Mid-Atlantic) to go see a show every other week? Sure, I can see that. Where I grew up and live, in the Midwest? Nope. Look at the major cities -- Minneapolis, Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston. In most cases you are talking about a 6 hour plus drive. Now look at it from a game perspective -- will a significant number of fans from Minneapolis (Mid West) drive 16 hours to Dallas (Mid South) for a show on a regular basis? To your point about the magazines -- I guess I don't see how reading about a match in a magazine is a comparable experience to seeing the same match live. For me, reading about a match made me want to see it more, not hope they wouldn't do it when they came to town since they'd done it already.[/QUOTE] I can see your point, I really do. I'm just saying that quite a few of the promotions back then were more regional, then national.. They would stick to a certain area (Tri-State, Mid-West), or whatever. We do that different in the game though, because we want all these area's to gain popularity as fast as possible... For example, I might just start out with nothing in the game, but tour the whole US, as if I'm national, that way I grow faster (if I can afford it). Another way, is doing just a couple of regions, because you influence other area's in between sometimes (leak over popularity). I don't know of this happening with small promotions normally though. Most seem to be almost stationary, with the exception of a few of the more cultish type ones. I do see what your saying though. Gamewise especially.

[masterded]

[QUOTE=Wallbanger;416882]On the East Coast that is plausible -- taking the train from Boston (New England) to New York City (Tri-State) or Washington DC (Mid-Atlantic) to go see a show every other week? Sure, I can see that. Where I grew up and live, in the Midwest? Nope. Look at the major cities -- Minneapolis, Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston. In most cases you are talking about a 6 hour plus drive. Now look at it from a game perspective -- will a significant number of fans from Minneapolis (Mid West) drive 16 hours to Dallas (Mid South) for a show on a regular basis? To your point about the magazines -- I guess I don't see how reading about a match in a magazine is a comparable experience to seeing the same match live. For me, reading about a match made me want to see it more, not hope they wouldn't do it when they came to town since they'd done it already.[/QUOTE] I understand what you mean about the mid-west thing. Heck I have never even been to Chicago, though I am thinking of taking a train there to see an ROH show. Which takes me to the point I was about to make. In reality any multi region promotion in this day and age sells DVD’s, which a large portion of their smaller audience buys. So a large number of people would have seen the other shows. (Though they also don't run weakly shows)

[Wallbanger]

Re: DVD's -- While I agree that DVD distribution allows for better exposure for smaller companies, I don't think has a game effect other than income (though I might be wrong on that). Conversely, I could choose internet distribution which gains you pop in all regions, in which case I would say that repetitive booking traps can and should apply.

[djthefunkchris]

Yeah, now your thinking about everything. I think what we want is something for smaller promotions... one's that can't do the automatic house show thing mainly. If we could have it where we booked a "Type" of house show, where it could help popularity, but not count as a real show. That's where my mind is. Too late for this game, but it's something to think about, and get it down into a reasonable request later. Like I said before.. I know what it is, it's just hard to come up with something reasonable, No one want's to have to book house shows when your dealing with TV, PPV, etc. However, if your dealing with a small promotion, maybe their can be a different type of show you can book for, called "House Show" or something similar, which just means that your doing the booking for a small show that's not "cannon", but to just help gain popularity in smaller chunks.. Meaning, if you go that route, you would only gain maybe 50% or 25% of what a "Normal" show would gain, although all other stats should be able to go as normal. I remember when dealing with DOTT (D. Boon's Ghost or someone else that was doing the "real" work, could give you a more accurate example), trying to figure out how to simulate the house shows, was pretty hard. I think the settled with regular small show's done without TV. So there is something that is needed, but like I said, putting it into a reasonable request doesn't seem to be very easy.

[DreamGoddessLindsey]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;416409]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:[/QUOTE] The point of evidence I would make would probably be that hosue shows were [I]much[/I] more important and bigger back then because PPV hadn't come around much yet and TV was still a very minor part of the promotions booking strategy. So yes, while they were hosue shows, they were bigger than what we see as house shows today, because the era was different. That, and in TEW, you need written contracts to run house shows, so Regional and Cult promotions of the territory days would not be able to have them at all. That's really the only point I can come up with regarding it. The only tweak I would suggest is making the repeat booking based on the audience seeing it. If they saw it in New England only, then people in the South East have no idea and so would like to see it themselves. Something like that. Make it so that repeat booking only takes effect when the same audience sees it over and over. EDIT: I'd like to add that there is no laziness on the programmer's part here. That was just out of line in my opinion. So while I think some tweaks would be nice for this particular feature, being rude to the programmer about it really makes no sense. Even if this feature is left as is, and we don't like it all that much, compare this game to Smackdown versus Raw. Seriously. Lazy programming? Look at [i]their[/i] crap for that. TEW in any form beats the everliving snot out of any wrestling game put out by any other company, hands-down. Also, given how many [i]awesome[/i] new features are going into TEW2008, one not-so-great feature is not going to make the game any worse. So yeah, no need to bash here, at least Adam listens to his fanbase unlike the tools that make those video games. EDIT 2: I also agree that if you use internet or DVDs to distribute to other regions, the traps should start to trigger. The only time I propose the traps not trigger is if another region did not see the show in any way.

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=DreamGoddessLindsey;416918]That's really the only point I can come up with regarding it. The only tweak I would suggest is making the repeat booking based on the audience seeing it. If they saw it in New England only, then people in the South East have no idea and so would like to see it themselves. Something like that. Make it so that repeat booking only takes effect when the same audience sees it over and over.[/QUOTE] The problem with that is, you're completely invalidating the feature simply for the benefit of what, two mods? If you insert that humongous loophole (and really, it's about as wide as the Mid Atlantic Trench is deep), there's no point in even having the mechanic because it's so easy to get around. Also, consider how the spillover mechanic plays into this. It would have to be totally removed because, how do people in New England know about a worker who only works in the Tri-State? Just as you say people in one region may not have seen a particular match put on in another region, how do people know about workers (or promotions) who don't work in their area? I see your point and it's a valid one. But the only way I see making this work for older scenarios is to have it "come on" at a certain year (like pay per view does). But I have no earthly idea if this is possible or feasible to code in at this juncture. Probably not, given Adam's laziness. :rolleyes: (Yeah, I agree that was out of line. I have a vague idea of how much hump is being busted to make this TEW version the most awesome ever. Laziness was probably the worst choice of words that could be used to describe the process).

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=Remianen;416920]The problem with that is, you're completely invalidating the feature simply for the benefit of what, [B]two mods[/B]? [/QUOTE] I'm partial (as well as many of us old schooler's here) to those two mods. Fun stuff! But yeah, your whole post is about what's being said or trying to be said. I would look in a different direction for answer's.

[DreamGoddessLindsey]

The only other way I could see it being done would be to have a second type of house show, not sure what to call it, but they would be much bigger than modern house shows but smaller than true events. They would work like house shows, except you could gain small amounts of popularity from them and not need written contracts to book on them. The catch would be that they could only be done at Cult size or smaller and only if there is no PPV deal in place or internet distribution. Something like that. Obviously my idea would need tweaks of its own, but I think it would be nice for something to be in place that can help simulate mods from yesteryear a bit more accurately. Not sure what else there could be, but I'm sure there's something.

[foolinc]

The only thing I am not getting is why dark matches count (unless I misread Adam's post). The whole point of them is that people DON'T see them.

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=foolinc;416943]The only thing I am not getting is why dark matches count (unless I misread Adam's post). The whole point of them is that people DON'T see them.[/QUOTE] Because the primary reason for the feature is [I]to stop people booking lazily and exploiting bad booking practice[/I]. Running one of your best workers vs. some rookie a hundred times in dark matches until his skills max out is still a cheap shot, and should still be dealt with.

[Rob4590]

I have to say I feel that all those complaining about this feature are over-reacting totally. Why? Because you haven't seen this feature actually working in the game, and so have no clue how triggering these penalties will actually affect the match ratings. Every complaint about this feature seems to assume that a match which rates as an A for the first 2 matches, is suddenly going to be rated as a C when the penalties kick in. Is that realistic? No, not at all, IMO - given that this feature is put in to make the game more realistic, do you really think that Adam would put such a ridiculous penalty to running the match again? Now obviously I haven't seen this in action either, but I'm guessing that the penalties are going to be fairly small, maybe 2-3% off the match rating for each of the penalties that are triggered. This would mean that the rating would go from an A to a B/B+ if all threee penalties are triggered. Now does that seem realistic? Yes of course it is - given that the match rating is not only based on the quality of the match, but also the crowd reactions to it. If the crowd are bored with a match, then a one grade drop would seem sensible to me. What also seems to be being forgotten is that even if there is that big drop (A to C), then this will do two things with regard to future matches in that "series" - it will lower the average grade of the series - so that it will be easier to avoid one (or even two) of the traps the next time, and it will also (obviously) mean that the C grade match is the lowest rated match in the series - so avoiding the third trap in the next matchup, since the base grade for that match would still be >B ! My advice - just relax about this feature - you've already had Remi, D Lyrium and Derek B saying that they are all in favour of this feature - and they are all (I believe) on the testing team and so HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN IT IN USE. If they don't see it as a problem, then the chances are, it isn't going to be a problem - well, unless your entire booking strategy is best of sevens!!!! :p

[foolinc]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;416945]Because the primary reason for the feature is [I]to stop people booking lazily and exploiting bad booking practice[/I]. Running one of your best workers vs. some rookie a hundred times in dark matches until his skills max out is still a cheap shot, and should still be dealt with.[/QUOTE] Couldn't you get around this by running three way matches with Vet1 vs. Rookie vs. Rotating Wrestler?

[Irish Wolf]

[QUOTE=Rob4590;416958]My advice - just relax about this feature - you've already had Remi, D Lyrium and Derek B saying that they are all in favour of this feature - and they are all (I believe) on the testing team and so[B] HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN IT IN USE.[/B] If they don't see it as a problem, then the chances are, it isn't going to be a problem - well, unless your entire booking strategy is best of sevens!!!! :p[/QUOTE] Although I've gotten over my fear of the feature but the problem with waiting to actually see the feature in use i the demo lasts one month and the feature will take at least six months to start taking affect. Like I said I've since changed my tune but other people obviously have not and their opinions of whether this is a deal breaker for them are just as valid as those people who like the feature. And with the demo at it normal length (which usually is fine) you'll never get to see the feature in use before buying.

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=Apupunchau@optonline;416979]Although I've gotten over my fear of the feature but the problem with waiting to actually see the feature in use i the demo lasts one month and the feature will take at least six months to start taking affect. Like I said I've since changed my tune but other people obviously have not and their opinions of whether this is a deal breaker for them are just as valid as those people who like the feature. And with the demo at it normal length (which usually is fine) you'll never get to see the feature in use before buying.[/QUOTE] I think you've misread or misunderstood the feature, but what you've written is incorrect - you don't have to wait six months for it to kick in, that's just the length of time that is checked. If you play the trial with a promotion that has a weekly TV show and a big event that's easily a potential five repeated matches if you do the same one every show, and therefore a trigger for the feature. So it definitely isn't a case that you won't get to see the feature in action before you buy.

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=foolinc;416960]Couldn't you get around this by running three way matches with Vet1 vs. Rookie vs. Rotating Wrestler?[/QUOTE] Yeah....but that wouldn't trigger the repetitive booking penalty at any point in the show anyway? That's pretty much what we've been discussing for the past few days, about how you can use tag team matches and multi-man matches to avoid repetition, the way they do in real life.