Question about Repeat Booking

[Jay Lethal]

If the crowd understands what you're doing they'll be bored anyway. Another question, will this be taken to the next level, considering the workers matches in other promotions? Like when little indys take matches that have been over done in other promotions, will that count? Imagine that TNA is making a series between Petey Williams and Alex Shelley, an indy may choose to make that match and the crowd may just think "eh, I've already saw that". Also, a turn or gimmick change could take away the repetitive factor. Danielson vs McGuinness was done too many times, but McGuinness turning heel at the ROH's 6th anniversary show gave the match an extra vibe. And I guess that good workers should be able to do diferent matches with each other, being that way able to entertain the crowd dispite the repetitive booking (but I'll make a sugestion about how I think this should be made later) Other thing I'd like to see would be a 'nostalgia factor'. If a series of 2 workers matches has happen in the past and you re-make it 5 years after their last match, then people could be extra hyped to see it (if the series was good) because they liked it and would like to see it again. Comes to mind series like Super Dragon vs Taro in PWG or American Kickboxer vs Tarek the Great in IWA-MS that were sucessefully re-done.

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=Jay Lethal;416989]If the crowd understands what you're doing they'll be bored anyway.[/QUOTE] Obviously, but there has to be a balance with game play too. Going to that extent seems overkill. [QUOTE]Other thing I'd like to see would be a 'nostalgia factor'. If a series of 2 workers matches has happen in the past and you re-make it 5 years after their last match, then people could be extra hyped to see it (if the series was good) because they liked it and would like to see it again. Comes to mind series like Super Dragon vs Taro in PWG or American Kickboxer vs Tarek the Great in IWA-MS that were sucessefully re-done.[/QUOTE] Searching back through the records for every match that is held would add a heck of a lot to the loading times, it's not worth it for a feature of such minimal worth.

[Jay Lethal]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;416993] Searching back through the records for every match that is held would add a heck of a lot to the loading times, it's not worth it for a feature of such minimal worth.[/QUOTE] Oh, I see The only thing I could sugest is that some feuds/match series could get a legendary status (allways in porpotion, in a backyard fed having D quality matches could reach this status. If needed, only in most prestige promotions this would work) and only those series would be available to be re-done with an extra 'nostalgia' hype. Don't know how much that would take from the loading. I see how it can be seen as a freature of minimal worth but in a game like TEW little things can make the game. of course, when I make sugestions I'm never in no way criticizing you're work, as I can't judge how they afect the programing, etc.

[Wallbanger]

[quote=Remianen;416920]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?[/quote] Factoring spillover in makes sense -- basically then we're saying that any game region that the company's popularity can be impacted (whether by audience attendence, internet viewing, or TV/PPV) should count as that show's 'audience'. It's a little less realistic when you get out of the Northeast (see my previous comments on the subject) but from a gameplay perspective it's balanced. And honestly, hyperbole aside, what I'm suggesting doesn't invalidate the feature. [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] That's not bad booking, that's training. You should be able to do things in a dark match that you wouldn't consider doing on the main show. A dark match doesn't impact a show's ratings and is seen by no one outside of the arena (unless the game considers dark matches as potentially internet-distributable, ala WWE Heat). All this does is discourages the player from taking on developmental projects, from what I can see. [quote=Rob4590;416958]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[/quote] OK, for the record, I like the feature. I think it's overbalanced for the reasons I've previously stated, but I think the idea is a solid one. If we knew what the actual percentages for each of the penalties were (Adam?) and what their cumulative stacked impact was, I think that would go a long way towards helping me determine if the balance is right. If the traps are only 1-3% each, then I can make a judgement as to if I can book a series that works. [quote=Adam Ryland;416983]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.[/quote] Wait a minute, clarify something for me. Scenario: Match 1: Tommy Cornell vs RDJ vs Liberty Match 2: Tommy Cornell vs RDJ vs Wolf Hawkins Match 3: Tommy Cornell vs RDJ vs Troy Tornado Match 4: Tommy Cornell vs RDJ vs Rick Law Do traps kick in or not? What you've said above seems to imply that they do, which seems contradictory to what you've said in the past.

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=Wallbanger;417028]That's not bad booking, that's training.[/QUOTE] I disagree, I think it's cheating. Having someone be properly trained via the development facility is acceptable. Having them work dark matches to improve their skills is acceptable. Using the fact that you've gotten lucky and found an opponent who has great chemistry and mindlessly running the same match before every show just so you can boost their stats at a massively exaggerated rate is not acceptable. Bottom line - proper, realistic training is simulated. Exploiting a loophole to train your workers quickly is blocked. That's the way it should be. TEW certainly doesn't discourage training people up, it just makes you do it in a more realistic way. [QUOTE]Wait a minute, clarify something for me. Scenario: Match 1: Tommy Cornell vs RDJ vs Liberty Match 2: Tommy Cornell vs RDJ vs Wolf Hawkins Match 3: Tommy Cornell vs RDJ vs Troy Tornado Match 4: Tommy Cornell vs RDJ vs Rick Law Do traps kick in or not? What you've said above seems to imply that they do, which seems contradictory to what you've said in the past.[/QUOTE] I can't really see how what I wrote could imply that that booking would trigger the traps? I specifically said that multi-man matches are a way to avoid repetition.

[benjacko]

I like the fact we as the players are being made to work for our ratings, I for one have used the great chemistry in a singles match far too much and if it was real life, if I was a fan of my promotion then I'd soon get bored of the same match being used all the time. All it'll take is some thought being put into how you run storylines or a series of matches. I think the people that don't like the idea should wait and play first, i'm sure we'll all get quickly used to it.

[eayragt]

[QUOTE=Wallbanger;417028]That's not bad booking, that's training.[/QUOTE] It's training, yes. I won't enter the debate about whether it's bad booking or not. But you can still do it, over and over again if you want. This feature doesn't block this. The audience will just be mind numbingly bored that there's the same dark match as they've seen every other time they've watched this promotion.

[Wallbanger]

[quote=Adam Ryland;417029]I can't really see how what I wrote could imply that that booking would trigger the traps? I specifically said that multi-man matches are a way to avoid repetition.[/quote] Argh -- dyslexic am I. I saw: [QUOTE]Yeah....but [B][I]that wouldn't trigger[/I][/B] the repetitive booking penalty at any point in the show anyway?[/QUOTE] and somehow thought: [QUOTE]Yeah....but [B][I]wouldn't that trigger[/I][/B] the repetitive booking penalty at any point in the show anyway?[/QUOTE] So on that point, nevermind. :o

[foolinc]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;417029]I disagree, I think it's cheating. Having someone be properly trained via the development facility is acceptable. Having them work dark matches to improve their skills is acceptable. Using the fact that you've gotten lucky and found an opponent who has great chemistry and mindlessly running the same match before every show just so you can boost their stats at a massively exaggerated rate is not acceptable. Bottom line - proper, realistic training is simulated. Exploiting a loophole to train your workers quickly is blocked. That's the way it should be. TEW certainly doesn't discourage training people up, it just makes you do it in a more realistic way. [/QUOTE] Since all of the features haven't been stated I can't say it isn't, but how is simulated in promotions that aren't big enough to has a development system or run house shows (where the Val Venuses of the world give in ring training to green workers)?

[Wallbanger]

[quote=eayragt;417063]It's training, yes. I won't enter the debate about whether it's bad booking or not. But you can still do it, over and over again if you want. This feature doesn't block this. [B]The audience will just be mind numbingly bored that there's the same dark match as they've seen every other time they've watched this promotion.[/B][/quote] That goes back to my original point -- how should you define 'audience'? I would agree with this statement if we were running that show in the same game region and venue over and over. But in this case we're talking about a dark match that no one outside of that arena is going to see. So if I run that dark match three times in a row in different game regions ouside of each regions' spillover area (say British Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Mid South), who, exactly, is "mind numbingly bored" at having seen that match? Look, no worries, I've made the best case I can and it is apparently unpersuasive. I'm glad to have had the discussion and that Adam's willing to listen.

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=foolinc;417067]Since all of the features haven't been stated I can't say it isn't, but how is simulated in promotions that aren't big enough to has a development system or run house shows (where the Val Venuses of the world give in ring training to green workers)?[/QUOTE] The same way they do in real life, by working independent shows, opening matches for bigger promotions, and via training.

[foolinc]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;417074]The same way they do in real life, by working independent shows, opening matches for bigger promotions, and via training.[/QUOTE] Does this mean that National+ promotions will employ indy wrestlers to short PPA contracts for their dark matches?

[Astil]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;417074]The same way they do in real life, by working independent shows, opening matches for bigger promotions, and via training.[/QUOTE] Perhaps working a 'B' show?