Supporting Role, what is the f'in point?

[wilts]

Seriously, what is the point of supporting roles in storylines?

I haven't bothered with them before, but needed to use a character in 2 storylines now so had him as supporting in 1, but what is the point, having him and another character from the story in a segment/match together doesn't progress the storyline (unchained), so I can see no benefit to this what-so-ever!

So much fuss was made about this when the game was in development, yet it is probably the biggest non-feature of the game.

 

Seriously, for the next installment of TEW whenever it may be, some SERIOUS work needs to be done with storylines and angles because they are really letting the side down at the moment.

 

EDIT: OK, re-reading this it is may be a tad over the top, I had just been building a storyline for ages in the game,gets to 1 of the key angles and zilch happens because the character is only a supporting role. Little things like that can get annoying. Appologies for the language and nature of this post.

[James Casey]

Calm down, it's only a game...

 

But seriously, don't supporting roles allow a worker to gain momentum/overness from their role in a storyline?

[Adam Ryland]

They are there because there was an obvious gap - there was no way to have a worker appear in the commentary to perform a minor role and also have an appropriately minor impact on the ratings. The supporting role allows this to happen, which is ideal for when people want bodyguards, valets, etc, involved.

 

--

 

Consider this your final warning about your language on these forums BTW. Not only is it uncalled for (you had to swear three times because you have a minor gripe with a storyline role???) and against the rules, but it reflects very badly on you as it makes it seem that you're unable to make a point without profanity. You seem like a fairly articulate guy in most of your posts, which makes it all the more baffling that you'd choose to come across like a teenager who's just discovered the F word and still thinks it's edgy and cool. Do yourself a favour and leave out the swearing.

[wilts]

They are there because there was an obvious gap - there was no way to have a worker appear in the commentary to perform a minor role and also have an appropriately minor impact on the ratings. The supporting role allows this to happen, which is ideal for when people want bodyguards, valets, etc, involved.

Would it not make sense for this to progress the storyline though, but with the same minor impact on the ratings?

[Bigpapa42]

Personally, I find them very very useful. My storylines tends to "cross over", and the supporting role allows that perfectly. So I usually have 3 or 4 main storylines that are all interconneted. I find it works very well.

[Adam Ryland]

Would it not make sense for this to progress the storyline though, but with the same minor impact on the ratings?

 

By definition, a supporting character isn't all that important to the story - having it move along because of some minor interaction doesn't seem right. If they're important enough to be moving the story along, they should really be under a different definition.

[wilts]

By definition, a supporting character isn't all that important to the story - having it move along because of some minor interaction doesn't seem right. If they're important enough to be moving the story along, they should really be under a different definition.

 

I can understand it from that point, but on the other hand 1 of the benefits was to be able to use someone in 2 storylines, so if I have a title feud storyline I may want an Authority Figure involved at some point, and in some situations he may only be in a segment with 1 other worker. At the same time I may have a power struggle storyline going on with the previous authority figure involved where again he may be involved in segments with only 1 other worker.

At the moment it is not possible to have both storlyines running simulatneously.

For future it may be worth considering 3 roles. keep the 2 current roles as they are and add Minor roles, which would have the same ratings impact as the Supporting role but would also allow the storyline to progress and for a worker set as Minor to be involved in another storyline.

[infinitywpi]

By definition, a supporting character isn't all that important to the story - having it move along because of some minor interaction doesn't seem right. If they're important enough to be moving the story along, they should really be under a different definition.

 

I have to disagree -- how many times has Law and Order, CSI, House, etc, had a case move along -- or even a solution found -- by interracting with someone who only appears for one scene? Or a background character who doesn't really do anything until one short conversation with the main characters?

 

By definition, a supporting character provides support for the story -- this usually means having an important role, wether plot-wise or character-wise. If they weren't important to the story, they'd be cameo roles or simply there to add 'flavor' to a scene. This is why the Oscars have categories for Best Supporting Actor and Actress -- if they weren't important to the story, they wouldn't be worth having awards to. You don't see an Oscar for 'Best Extra' or 'Best Cameo'.

[djthefunkchris]

I have to disagree -- how many times has Law and Order, CSI, House, etc, had a case move along -- or even a solution found -- by interracting with someone who only appears for one scene? Or a background character who doesn't really do anything until one short conversation with the main characters?

 

By definition, a supporting character provides support for the story -- this usually means having an important role, wether plot-wise or character-wise. If they weren't important to the story, they'd be cameo roles or simply there to add 'flavor' to a scene. This is why the Oscars have categories for Best Supporting Actor and Actress -- if they weren't important to the story, they wouldn't be worth having awards to. You don't see an Oscar for 'Best Extra' or 'Best Cameo'.

 

IN Tew though, it is plainly the case that minor character's only get the rub from the storyline, but aren't included as a part of "moving the story along".

 

The reason for them is for cameo/extra's so that they might get a rub off the major characters of the story. So you can have a new worker as a manager for example, get a bit of a rub, so that when you debut them as a wrestler, people will know exactly who they are, and who they rubbed shoulders with..

 

That is TEW terms... Not that it means it's the correct lable or not. The system currently in effect is in my opinion miles ahead of the system used before, where you bassically had to be somewhat of a writer to know how to utilize the roles right. I don't want to have to think that hard.

 

Also, if you change these titles and such, the storylines we have now will all have to be re-written to fit the newer format. Something I would hate to see happen, for all modder's sakes.

 

I think this is the best way to figure out things though... Do something you find out that's wrong, and post about it (even though you might be aggrevated), so that other's may be able to avoid making the same mistakes. It's explained well enough to me in the game, but other's like the OP might not understand them till too late. Posting their mistake is the best way to help other's not make the same mistake.

 

I've also been thinking that a specific "Sticky" thread, for things like storylines might be worth thinking about under the General Discussions area for TEW (This area). A "How To" possibly, or "How to use Storylines" guide. Similar to the "Book our first Show" in the help files.

[Scorpio3060]

If you want the storyline to move along with a supporting character, try using something other than an unchained storyline.

[djthefunkchris]

If you want the storyline to move along with a supporting character, try using something other than an unchained storyline.

 

Forgot, that works as well. If you can write out your story (or use one already there) then all points of the story move along, no matter how many are in it.

[crayon]

It only just occurred to me.. but why is a character able to be major in only one storyline at a time? Theoretically, there should be no reason why they couldn't be in more.

 

The only thing I could think of, gamewise, is people abusing the system by sticking their most over guy in every single storyline.. If that is the case, it could be tempered by the more storylines someone is participating in, the less their effect has as their "special'ness" is diluted (although even that is a bit of a limiting fix.. ideal would be keeping track how often they have appeared lately in multiple storylines, and lessening their effect from there.. which would allow someone to take a break from one storyline to concentrate on another with and not be penalized)

 

... plus there's always the "audience got sick of seeing X Worker" mechanic in place.

[djthefunkchris]

It only just occurred to me.. but why is a character able to be major in only one storyline at a time? Theoretically, there should be no reason why they couldn't be in more.

 

The only thing I could think of, gamewise, is people abusing the system by sticking their most over guy in every single storyline.. If that is the case, it could be tempered by the more storylines someone is participating in, the less their effect has as their "special'ness" is diluted (although even that is a bit of a limiting fix.. ideal would be keeping track how often they have appeared lately in multiple storylines, and lessening their effect from there.. which would allow someone to take a break from one storyline to concentrate on another with and not be penalized)

 

... plus there's always the "audience got sick of seeing X Worker" mechanic in place.

 

Don't you think it would be a bit much to have the same guy in several storylines as major characters? You can utilize them in more then one storyline, as long as they are a minor character..

 

Now.. I backed and really fought for the ability to have a worker in more then one storyline at once, and I think what we got was great. I hate to rehash this, and make it more "complicated" then it has to be. I find it totally realistic the way it is.

 

I don't see a worker in several storylines in any promotion (yet) that is playing a main character for that story. Sure other's pop in and out of their unique story, and they intermingle in other's, but for the most part, there are ussually two workers (Or three, in Legacy's case) that are telling a story, with the other's working around them as minor roles.

[crayon]

I'm not saying that it wouldn't neccessarily be overkill or that it's not usually the case.. but from a creative standpoint, where someone may want to do such a thing, it's restrictive. Now, it may be restrictive for purely good reasons such as game breaking issues or programming hurdles, but it is restrictive.

 

On the contrary I actually think allowing a character to play whatever role he likes in as many storylines as he wants could make it less complicated (from a booking point of view, certainly not coding), as people could book with freedom (but not without impunity).

 

After all, in real life the booking dictates the role a worker plays in a storyline, whereas here the role dictates the booking. (and I realize concessions must be made with a game, just mentioning it since the term "realistic" was brought up).

 

And y'know, I'm not even saying that this is an important thing that needs to be addressed (because, yes, it does work as it is now, you're right).. just that I found it curious why the limitation was built into the game in the first place.

[djthefunkchris]

I'm not saying that it wouldn't neccessarily be overkill or that it's not usually the case.. but from a creative standpoint, where someone may want to do such a thing, it's restrictive. Now, it may be restrictive for purely good reasons such as game breaking issues or programming hurdles, but it is restrictive.

 

On the contrary I actually think allowing a character to play whatever role he likes in as many storylines as he wants could make it less complicated (from a booking point of view, certainly not coding), as people could book with freedom (but not without impunity).

 

After all, in real life the booking dictates the role a worker plays in a storyline, whereas here the role dictates the booking. (and I realize concessions must be made with a game, just mentioning it since the term "realistic" was brought up).

 

And y'know, I'm not even saying that this is an important thing that needs to be addressed (because, yes, it does work as it is now, you're right).. just that I found it curious why the limitation was built into the game in the first place.

 

The limitations were there I would guess, for reasons you already stated (To not "Cheat" and make a person the centerpiece of four different storylines).

 

Gamewise, the storylines are a way to help develop the characters, and especially give them some good momentum going into match's, which can lead to better "grades". IF they are in more then one as a main character, that double's your chance's of getting them momentum.

 

With the ability to jump into another storyline with the characters you want to be in it, and keep the storyline going, I don't really see what the problem is.... You want to add another Main character, the option is there to do it (by chaining your storylines together). Most of the time you can do this without penalty, as long as you don't cut them too short to start with.

[Derek B]

Game breaking example for why people are only allowed to be major in 1 storyline at a time...

 

Imagine I have 2 A* workers, who pull A* ratings for every segment they are in (EVAR!) and put them in every (unchained) storyline I have. Every segment they are in together, will continue EVERY storyline with an A* rated segment, massively boosting my jobbers storyline, my tag team storyline, my women's division storyline and my other main event level storyline because I've decided that my A* guys should be everywhere.

 

The knock on effects... every storyline has a huge boost in heat, every worker involved in that storyline gets a bit of a boost from that heat, and all it takes is that one match/segment from the two A* workers, since they are polluting every storyline.

 

Sure, not all players would do that, but some would. The balance is the fact that they can't just now. Much like the repeat booking penalties, this is just one of those things that encourages players to think rather than take every game based short cut they can find.

[wilts]

Derek, I have to disagree with you here as for me this falls under the same category as in game access to the editor.

At the end of the day, if you cheat any game then you are only cheating yourself. Why should the many who want the added control over their game be punished purely because a handful don't have the self control to avoid the loopholes of the game?

[Greg McNeish]

When this debate was running rampant, I was a big supporter of having a two storyline cap for workers. Although I feel that the current system performs adequately, I still feel that being able to have someone as a major player in two storylines would be a good balance between the freedom of booking (I, for one, do legitimately have some people as major players in two overlapping storylines frequently, as I transition from one arc to the next), and limitations on people that would scam the system.

 

Cheers!

[D-Lyrium]

I have to disagree -- how many times has Law and Order, CSI, House, etc, had a case move along -- or even a solution found -- by interracting with someone who only appears for one scene? Or a background character who doesn't really do anything until one short conversation with the main characters?

 

By definition, a supporting character provides support for the story -- this usually means having an important role, wether plot-wise or character-wise. If they weren't important to the story, they'd be cameo roles or simply there to add 'flavor' to a scene. This is why the Oscars have categories for Best Supporting Actor and Actress -- if they weren't important to the story, they wouldn't be worth having awards to. You don't see an Oscar for 'Best Extra' or 'Best Cameo'.

 

To be honest, this is a terrible analogy (and that's coming from me!).

 

CSI is not wrestling. CSI does not have Horatio and Ryan battling to the death in a long and bloody feud (luckily, because I quite like Wolfe and don't want him to die horribly), while Calleigh cuts promos for Horatio from time to time but is later caught sleeping with Ryan.

 

In wrestling, you have a central characters: the wrestlers. And you have supporting characters: managers, valets, bodyguards, wrestlers with smaller roles.

 

In CSI, Calleigh might well have had a major role in the above storyline, because you're telling a story pure and simple and all three characters have equal importance. But in wrestling she didn't - she didn't even step into the ring. She's a support character, she helps give the story some depth but the story isn't about her at all. It's not a cameo role - she becomes one of the reasons Horatio and Wolfe are fighting - but she's not doing any fighting, so from a wrestling feud perspective she's relatively unimportant.

 

If, in an episode of CSI written on the fly in true Crash TV late 90's WWF style (which is what unchained storylines essentially are), Calleigh arrives at the arena in Wolfe's car with no real explanation, that's not moving the storyline along much at all. So what? Maybe her car broke down. It's not moving the story along until Horatio gets a chance to react to this new development. The story is about Horatio and Wolfe, Calleigh is just a cog in the machine. A tool in the box (in more ways than one in this case ¬_¬).

 

Did I mention how much I hate that spelling of Kayleigh? Or Emily Proctor in general? No? Wow... my control over my nerdrage is improving.

[T-Jay]

The only thing that is quite frustrating as far as Storylines/Angles would be the inability to edit or rework entire storylines within the game. The ability to add angles is great (although would be even better if those created angles were also integrated into the main data as well), but the ability to fix or edit problematic storylines within the game would surely lead to longer gameplay time. Nonetheless the work done on it so far has been great. Although I'm sure there's always small tweaks that can be done to improve things as we go along.

 

Such as (yup... here we go again!!!)... On the Analysis screen in the PM Booking area. Having the the number of days/weeks (weeks would be preferred) a worker hasn't been used would be a huge bonus. Especially for those playing as bigger feds who take more time to plan/book longer shows.

[wilts]

If, in an episode of CSI written on the fly in true Crash TV late 90's WWF style (which is what unchained storylines essentially are), Calleigh arrives at the arena in Wolfe's car with no real explanation, that's not moving the storyline along much at all. So what? Maybe her car broke down. It's not moving the story along until Horatio gets a chance to react to this new development. The story is about Horatio and Wolfe, Calleigh is just a cog in the machine. A tool in the box (in more ways than one in this case ¬_¬).

 

Yes, but with the current system Horatio would have nothing to react to.

With storylines (especially in terms or in game ratings/etc) they seem to be just that, stories, books, novels, so when I play it out it is all getting written down. If I then read that back later when Horatio reacts I have no idea what he is reacting to.

[Genadi]

Let's use this example, remember the Lesnar vs Rock storyline? Without Heyman in Lesnar's corner adding interviews and match psychology I don't think it would've been as good, nor would Rock have an out excuse for the loss. If I was to re-create that feud I'd have to have Heyman involved. Now he didn't gain much or any popularity from it, he was merely a supporting role who added to the storyline but imo he was vital in that storyline adding what Lesnar was lacking.

 

The main priority in that storyline was getting Lesnar over, had Heyman played a major role he may have overshadowed the green monster softening his impact.

 

Apply to this to whatever storyline in question and I think it makes sense.

[T-Jay]

I would have made Heyman a major role especially in the beginning of it. Heyman was the difference between Lesnar getting over or becoming another curtain jerker.

 

Had it been any other person as Lesnar's manager (which would have been a supportive role) it would have bombed badly and Vince woulda pulled the pin pretty quick. Also Heyman wasn't just a spokesman either, he got physically involved at times to keep the intensity and spark for the fued going. At least early on Lesnar would have been almost a supportive role to Heyman until he found his niche.

 

It's kinda like Heyman made such a big noise that workers (Rock, Austin, Triple H etc) took notice, then he sent his Monster (Lesnar) to the ring to prove his point. It might be one of the fewer occassions where a worker played a lesser important role than their manager.

[Genadi]

I would have made Heyman a major role especially in the beginning of it. Heyman was the difference between Lesnar getting over or becoming another curtain jerker.

 

Had it been any other person as Lesnar's manager (which would have been a supportive role) it would have bombed badly and Vince woulda pulled the pin pretty quick.

 

Do you mind if I borrow the time machine you used to back that point up?

[T-Jay]

So you think that Bobby Heenan, Jim Cornette or even Jimmy Hart would have done a better job than Heyman with Lesnar??? They were completely different types of managers. Heyman was always big, loud and in your face whereas the others were prodominantly more weazely and sly in their pursuit for whatever.

 

Heyman brought his 'ECW' attitude into the role as Lesnar's manager. And it worked. Also when he turned on Lesnar was also a big turning point for Lesnar too. That was the sink or swim time. But Heyman was also important in that fued with Big Show too.