Derek B Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 If I wanted to add a promotion that drew roughly 2,000 people in two different regions, how much popularity should they have in those two regions? Tricky... but mostly because I don't think you should be looking at the number of fans drawn to a show as a measure of their raw popularity given how many factors involved. By that logic, when TNA draw house show attendances of a few thousand fans in the UK then they should have about 70 popularity across the UK, which is waaaaaay above where they should be (I'd estimate them around 35 in the UK). It's better to scale popularity to the way they should behave in the game, in particular the size they should be (Regional or Cult) as that is the most important thing to get right when balancing a game world. Attendances are worked out based on a number of factors and trying to get to a certain attendance level would be very tricky. + Company Popularity (in each region) + Event Size (maximum allowed size varies by Company size) + Company Momentum (The higher it is, the better. Regional battles can cause huge changes here) + Wrestling Industry (The higher the better, again can cause huge shifts in crowd size) + Economy (Higher the better, can cause huge shifts here too) + Fan Burnout (running too many shows in one area can burn out fans, causing lower than expected attendances. I think this only applies to monthly/annual events if you run more than 1 per month, not weekly ones). I'd make sure to set them at the level that is appropriate to their position in the game world (either a good sized Regional or a low end Cult), depending on how they should play in-game. If they are really only running as a regional type company but their regions happen to be split over two areas, then I'd consolidate that into just one region as a concession to gameplay rather than the loosely defined areas of the game. I'm struggling mentally with my American geography just now, but if a company only ran in a few towns over two states rather than in every state of their region, they'd be the same size as a company who ran the same number of towns in states that fell into the same area, assuming similar crowd levels. In this case, instead of sharing the popularity of just two states over two regions, I'd condense it into one and have both companies listed as being about the same size, with notes in their bio about the states they run in "real life" so that the user knows. Don't overcomplicated their size because of the boundaries that have been drawn up, that could get messy for border based companies, who could gain a lot of size jsut because they're hard to define. Pick a side, and put them there. Hopefully that makes sense. ...... I'll get into the other discussion soon, but I'd disagree with D-Lyrium's assessment of Paul Bearer or Kevin Sullivan being menacing. They did have some menace, but neither one was notable for it. What they were both notable for was their entertainment skills and ability to play weird gimmicks very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulskln Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 <p>A mod that I am using has Vickie Guerrero rated as 60 for sex appeal would this be right.I don't remember her ever really doing much to use sex appeal so don't really matter.Personally id rate her lower but that's just me.</p><p> It would be interesting for people give there own ratings for workers id give Vickie somewhere between 45 and 55 for sex appeal.</p><p> </p><p> Also O.D.B. in TNA is rated as 75 for sex appeal surely this is far to high for her.I would put her near to Vickie Guerrero level unless people like Whisky guzzling tattoed bruisers.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh_Showtime Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 <p>For Vickie it depends because over time she has lost tons of weight and is far more attractive than five years ago when she had the on-screen relationship with Edge.</p><p> </p><p> 08 Vickie I would give maybe a 40 and 2013 Vickie would probably 60 max so close to what you think.</p><p> </p><p> I would put ODB in the low to mid 60s personally</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="paulskln" data-cite="paulskln" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>A mod that I am using has Vickie Guerrero rated as 60 for sex appeal would this be right.I don't remember her ever really doing much to use sex appeal so don't really matter.Personally id rate her lower but that's just me.<p> It would be interesting for people give there own ratings for workers id give Vickie somewhere between 45 and 55 for sex appeal.</p><p> </p><p> Also O.D.B. in TNA is rated as 75 for sex appeal surely this is far to high for her.I would put her near to Vickie Guerrero level unless people like Whisky guzzling tattoed bruisers.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That last line was great Paul!<img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> I guess it is a matter of what the mod maker finds attractive. Personally I would rank Vickie low maybe in the 30's. ODB I would put her about high 50's. I once had a friend that idolized Eddie and so he thought Vickie was hot because as he said to me, "Eddie was the man, he would never marry an ugly chick." So he would rank Vickie a lot higher than you or I would.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulskln Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That last line was great Paul!<img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /><p> </p><p> I guess it is a matter of what the mod maker finds attractive. Personally I would rank Vickie low maybe in the 30's. ODB I would put her about high 50's. I once had a friend that idolized Eddie and so he thought Vickie was hot because as he said to me, "Eddie was the man, he would never marry an ugly chick." So he would rank Vickie a lot higher than you or I would.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I read Eddie's book and he was a heavy drinker for a while if I remember correctly so maybe he had beer goggles on when he dated and married Vickie, giving Vickie a little slack though her daughter Shaul is pretty hot so maybe Vickie was hotter in her younger days.</p><p> </p><p> In fact I found this of her she is actually pretty hot or photoshopped <span>http://www.wwebulls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/vickie-guerrero-in-bikini.jpg</span></p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I guess it is a matter of what the mod maker finds attractive.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think that's the case of a lot of mods... but I don't think that's what it should be. I think in this case subjectivity is bad. It's not how attractive you find the person, but how effective they are in eye candy segments, meaning how many in the crowd will be titillated by it. You cannot accurately and definitively rate how hot a woman is. Everyone's tastes are different. </p><p> </p><p> For example, you may find ODB about as attractive as Vickie, but I'd wager the whole big-boobs-drunken-trollop thing works for a lot more people than Mrs Guerrero does. I'd say C+ for ODB. I can see the appeal of her look, even if it doesn't float my boat. Vickie depends where your 'floor' is. Which sounds mean, but I figure she's 10-20 points above the lowest you'd give a woman. She's TV ugly. Not ugly ugly.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crayon Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Hey Derek, just checking in again and wondering if you have any thoughts on the below quote? One other thing: in relation to Star Quality, should that be a factor when configuring Managers/Valets, Personalities, or Color Commentators? Rumor was that it was in the past, but I wondered if it's still the case. Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlameSnoopy Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="crayon" data-cite="crayon" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Hey Derek, just checking in again and wondering if you have any thoughts on the below quote?<p> </p><p> Cheers!</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Default CornellVerse database has star qualities set for managers so that's a firm yes - which makes sense since it's a "camera" skill <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarmonyOfDissonance Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Skb_hSvGs" rel="external nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Skb_hSvGs</a></p><p> </p><p> Vickie didn't look half bad back in 2005. Eddie's death had to have taken a pretty big toll on her eating habits.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crayon Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="FlameSnoopy" data-cite="FlameSnoopy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Default CornellVerse database has star qualities set for managers so that's a firm yes - which makes sense since it's a "camera" skill <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Ah true. Definitely muddies the waters a bit though, since it then becomes "SQ in a manager sense" and "SQ in a wrestler sense" (i.e., Batista may have high SQ as a wrestler, but I'd have a hard time saying "whoah, that guy looks like a kick ass manager")</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 Crayon, I don't understand what you're talking about here. Star quality is how much the worker in question looks like a star... it makes no difference what role they are in, you can take one look at Batista and you will think he is a star. How he is used makes no difference at all, that's covered by his active roles. He wouldn't be very good at being a manager since he doesn't really have that skillset, but his star quality would shine through in every segment he is in... it's a trait that doesn't go away because you change his role to something else. A lot of managers will have relatively low star quality though... most of them are relatively small or are older than their clients... with star quality being a stat that drops with age and tends to favour people who stand out (big men do this more obviously, though anyone can have SQ) then a lot of managers will have less of it then their clients. But they'll make up for it in another way, usually with entertainment skills or a great look in another way (Sex appeal or menace). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crayon Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Derek B" data-cite="Derek B" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Crayon, I don't understand what you're talking about here. Star quality is how much the worker in question looks like a star... it makes no difference what role they are in, you can take one look at Batista and you will think he is a star. How he is used makes no difference at all, that's covered by his active roles. He wouldn't be very good at being a manager since he doesn't really have that skillset, but his star quality would shine through in every segment he is in... it's a trait that doesn't go away because you change his role to something else.<p> </p><p> A lot of managers will have relatively low star quality though... most of them are relatively small or are older than their clients... with star quality being a stat that drops with age and tends to favour people who stand out (big men do this more obviously, though anyone can have SQ) then a lot of managers will have less of it then their clients. But they'll make up for it in another way, usually with entertainment skills or a great look in another way (Sex appeal or menace).</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Hey Derek. What you've got above is what I was initially thinking in reference to your original write-up about skills. Although the big question is does SQ affect a worker's output as a manager (or color commentator)?</p><p> </p><p> It was just with what Flamesnoopy mentioned about the C-Verse having SQ set for managers (and the original rumor being that good Managers and Color Commentary <em>should</em> have SQ set high) that made me think that it's something that's <span style="text-decoration:underline;">definitely</span> required, although with the original write-up only mentioning wrestlers and what you've noted above it's now making me think that maybe it's not actually a requirement (purely in terms of results).</p><p> </p><p> Naturally, as a modder I'm less interested in whether or not a worker should have this or that SQ based on general perspective of my impression of them, but moreso how much SQ I should give them to see a certain kind of results in the gameworld.</p><p> </p><p> Hope that makes sense <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattywood Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Here's a question I've been tossing and turning over. Yet to debut workers who have famous relatives or are celebrities that have had involvement with wrestling, or even the athletes-turned wrestlers(Lex Luger, Goldberg, etc). I would think it would be alright to give the celebs pop, but the relatives?(sons, daughters, etc) Should they have any pop or zero like everyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="crayon" data-cite="crayon" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Hey Derek. What you've got above is what I was initially thinking in reference to your original write-up about skills. Although the big question is does SQ affect a worker's output as a manager (or color commentator)?<p> </p><p> It was just with what Flamesnoopy mentioned about the C-Verse having SQ set for managers (and the original rumor being that good Managers and Color Commentary <em>should</em> have SQ set high) that made me think that it's something that's <span style="text-decoration:underline">definitely</span> required, although with the original write-up only mentioning wrestlers and what you've noted above it's now making me think that maybe it's not actually a requirement (purely in terms of results).</p><p> </p><p> Naturally, as a modder I'm less interested in whether or not a worker should have this or that SQ based on general perspective of my impression of them, but moreso how much SQ I should give them to see a certain kind of results in the gameworld.</p><p> </p><p> Hope that makes sense <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png"></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Talent has nothing to do with star quality. Star quality will help any time a worker has it, but it's not a requirement for anything. Some of the most popular managers had a lot of star quality, and that's one of the reasons they became popular, but it's not essential. Judge them exactly the same way you would anyone else... look at them and ask yourself if they look like a star. Non-wrestlers in general probably aren't hitting the gym as much so mouthpiece types are likely to be lower in star quality... but your valet types are probably going to look more like models and that comes with an element of star quality that is more obvious, along with the highly obvious sex appeal. I think that's part of the reason that we get more valets than mouthpieces these days... they're easier to find and sex sells more easily too.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Matt Shannon" data-cite="Matt Shannon" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Here's a question I've been tossing and turning over. Yet to debut workers who have famous relatives or are celebrities that have had involvement with wrestling, or even the athletes-turned wrestlers(Lex Luger, Goldberg, etc). I would think it would be alright to give the celebs pop, but the relatives?(sons, daughters, etc) Should they have any pop or zero like everyone else?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Generally speaking, anyone who has a name before they even get into the industry should start with a little popularity and for the CV97 I scaled it to the popularity levels and closeness of the person they were linked to. There are basically four types of people in this case.... relatives, legacies, crossovers and celebrities.</p><p> </p><p> For relatives I generally put a cap of about 20 popularity on where they can start, or about 20% of the maximum popularity of the linked person. That means they can quickly start working thei way up the ranks and will get a bigger push than most newcomers, but it doesn't make them good enough to really sell tickets on their own. Basically, it gives them the same advantages that a lot of second generation workers get and the more popular the dad (usually), then the more popular the child will start.</p><p> </p><p> Legacies are the second incarnations of a character, which is mostly a Mexican thing. With second, third and fourth generation stars being common there AND the legacy of a mask being a big deal, I generally set an upper cap of about 30% of the maximum popularity of the previous version for this. That adds value to the character that is being continued and again, gives them a big headstart in the industry. For the record here too, the mask prestige SHOULD start at 0. Mask prestige is per worker, NOT per mask so any new worker taking on an old mask should start at nothing.</p><p> </p><p> Crossovers are guys coming in from other sporting type situations, most often some other combat sports. These are pretty hard to scale though, but since they are generally pretty bad wrestlers, aiming a little high makes sense. But in all cases, I'd set the popularity at roughly the level you think they would make a fairly neutral impact in a company for. Mike Tyson was huge for WWE because he was a huge star in a mainsream sport... Ken Shamrock was waaaay more talented and was the top of his sport, but he didn't do much for WWE because MMA was still underground at that point. Kurt Angle may have been top of the world in his sport, but most people didn't care about it so he still had to work his way up from fairly low down, probably in the high 40s/low 50s despite his world class level.</p><p> </p><p> Celebrities... well, they're not really covered by TEW except in the extras you can spend moneyon for PPVs. As such, they shouldn't really be in the data. But if you have to add them, then put their popularity at a level where you think they'd be a help to a company. With the WWE sitting at about 75 popularity now, most celebrities are below that... only some really big names could add to that, and they have to actually be doing something noteworthy to get the kind of press where they would help. Personally, I wouldn't add them at all. Guessing stats for them ain't easy and TEW doesn't know how to make them work properly, so it's best they not be added. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png"></p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattywood Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Derek B" data-cite="Derek B" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Celebrities... well, they're not really covered by TEW except in the extras you can spend moneyon for PPVs. As such, they shouldn't really be in the data. But if you have to add them, then put their popularity at a level where you think they'd be a help to a company. With the WWE sitting at about 75 popularity now, most celebrities are below that... only some really big names could add to that, and they have to actually be doing something noteworthy to get the kind of press where they would help. Personally, I wouldn't add them at all. Guessing stats for them ain't easy and TEW doesn't know how to make them work properly, so it's best they not be added. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Thus why they're usually User Characters. <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvarasus Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 What would you put Cyndi Lauper and Mr.T popularity at if your doing Real World mod based in January 1985? You say don't put them higher than the company, but at this time both were bigger names then the WWF. Also in events to make sure I am right. Special means that the event your adding in the database only appears once correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croquemitaine Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="alvarasus" data-cite="alvarasus" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What would you put Cyndi Lauper and Mr.T popularity at if your doing Real World mod based in January 1985? You say don't put them higher than the company, but at this time both were bigger names then the WWF.</div></blockquote><p> When adding outside celebrities to TEW*, I think you have to consider pop in terms of "how much do <em>wrestling fans</em> care about them?" rather than a blanket "how famous are they?". I'm sure there are tons of celebrities who have more mainstream popularity than the entire wrestling industry but who would receive little reaction if they showed up at a wrestling event.</p><p> </p><p> Lauper and T are a special case in that they did more than cameos but actually participated in running storylines and were "built up" within the WWF. If the mod begins right around Wrestlemania, I'd give them both main event level pop. If the mod begins before or at the beginning of their involvement with the company, I'd give them midcard level pop. In the latter case, they key thing is to give them good charisma and camera stats so they can be built up relatively quickly. After all, they're celebrities for a reason.</p><p> </p><p> *Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, celebrities should be represented by just clicking "hire celebrities" in the event menu. They should only be added as characters if they actually wrestled or become involved in the industry for an extended period of time. Note that Drew Carey getting tossed out of the Royal Rumble doesn't count as "actually wrestling".</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattywood Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Croquemitaine" data-cite="Croquemitaine" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>When adding outside celebrities to TEW*, I think you have to consider pop in terms of "how much do <em>wrestling fans</em> care about them?" rather than a blanket "how famous are they?". I'm sure there are tons of celebrities who have more mainstream popularity than the entire wrestling industry but who would receive little reaction if they showed up at a wrestling event.<p> </p><p> Lauper and T are a special case in that they did more than cameos but actually participated in running storylines and were "built up" within the WWF. If the mod begins right around Wrestlemania, I'd give them both main event level pop. If the mod begins before or at the beginning of their involvement with the company, I'd give them midcard level pop. In the latter case, they key thing is to give them good charisma and camera stats so they can be built up relatively quickly. After all, they're celebrities for a reason.</p><p> </p><p> *Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, celebrities should be represented by just clicking "hire celebrities" in the event menu. They should only be added as characters if they actually wrestled or become involved in the industry for an extended period of time. Note that Drew Carey getting tossed out of the Royal Rumble doesn't count as "actually wrestling".</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Whereas Tommy "Tiny" Lister actually would be included in the data as he had extended involvement with the WWF in 1989, getting involved in matches and wrestling in three matches as Zeus.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king187 Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Seems that Cpt. Charisma has taken your advice on popularity, etc. I think his ratings are a bit high-ish, but using your popularity guide has made his database play 100x better. I'm very much enjoying it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricSpade Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 When crafting Referees where that is their only role, what worker skills (besides Refereeing) are necessary to set, or is Refereeing the only skill that matters for them and the rest can just be ignored? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Parent Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 <p>Wow.</p><p> </p><p> Your guide should come with the game.</p><p> </p><p> Tremendous work. I learned a lot.</p><p> </p><p> As a mod maker, I never could make the jump from EWR to TEW Series because TEW Series has so much more depth, and it got more in-depth as it went on, and a lot of it went way past me, even though lots of it was stuff we dreamed about having back in the day. So, for me, your guide is the rosetta stone to TEW mod-making. MAYBE, just maybe, now I can do something more relevant than releasing a Locations file every year!</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrwhippy Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Is there a special skill set required from a worker to be able to take a bump successfully? I've only ever done it a few times but it's always been a negative on the segment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoxy Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="mrwhippy" data-cite="mrwhippy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Is there a special skill set required from a worker to be able to take a bump successfully? I've only ever done it a few times but it's always been a negative on the segment.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Might be your product settings that are the problem. I have no problems doing sick bumps in heavily hardcore/daredevil promotions, but on the other hand, I tend to only hire people with decent performance stats, so good selling and/or psych maybe? Maybe someone else knows better than me.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaysin Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 I always thought bumping was part of the basics stat since it's the first thing you learn while training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh_Showtime Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 I think its a combination of toughness/resilience/personality and their current body condition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.