Genadi Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="snakesonaplane" data-cite="snakesonaplane" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Haha thanks Genadi, yeah I read that <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> Ahh sorry about that, I just presume because I'm so air headed sometimes and miss stuff like that others do also <img alt=":o" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/redface.png.900245280682ef18c5d82399a93c5827.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><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><p> Styles will always be a bit subjective though, but as long as no-one is obviously "wrong" then they should be fine. With the new Fog Of War feature, setting the right style is very helpful when it comes to identifying a worker's likely strengths, so following this guide will help people to identify rookies who could be good for them. But there will always be workers who are outliers.... there will be some Middleweight who things he's a Cruiserweight. There will be a hardcore flyer who will be hard to categorise (Sabu is more of a Psychopath, while early Jeff Hardy would be a Spot Monkey for example) and you'll not be sure where to put them. Hopefully this has helped, but as long as you get it close to the mark then you should be good. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This has raised a subject I brought up around TEW '10 regarding styles and a suggestion I made. I think the next step for TEW is to have Style on a slider, that way a worker can have 2 styles. For example Sabu in say 1997 would be around 40% Spot Monkey, 60% Psychopath. Meh if I get time I'll explain it better and post in the suggestions forum sorry to derail this thread any. Back to GTA I go <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...
Jaysin Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Genadi" data-cite="Genadi" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Ahh sorry about that, I just presume because I'm so air headed sometimes and miss stuff like that others do also <img alt=":o" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/redface.png.900245280682ef18c5d82399a93c5827.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png"><p> </p><p> </p><p> This has raised a subject I brought up around TEW '10 regarding styles and a suggestion I made. I think the next step for TEW is to have Style on a slider, that way a worker can have 2 styles. For example Sabu in say 1997 would be around 40% Spot Monkey, 60% Psychopath. Meh if I get time I'll explain it better and post in the suggestions forum sorry to derail this thread any. Back to GTA I go <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png"></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The Slider idea is FANTASTIC. I'm a little bummed no one has thought of that yet.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrwhippy Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Might as well ask in here as it's as good as anywhere and a lot of people read this thread. In my spare time I've been watching WWF and WCW PPVs from the late 90s, so naturally I've witnessed a lot of Sycho Sid Vicious matches. I think we all agree he's a limited in-ring worker, so in TEW many of his top row skills will be poor, although maybe he could be a 60ish Brawler. Anyway, I checked him out in many mods and in nearly all of them, his Psychology is bad. What actually defines Psychology in TEW? I thought a part of it involved the controlling of the crowd and bringing reactions out of them. Now from what I've seen, Sid is/was brilliant at keeping the crowd on edge during his matches and I think it's one of the main reasons he was a credible World Champion. So is this an overlook on the part of mod makers because they just set it to a similar level to other performance skills or am I misunderstanding the meaning of it? Or do people just disagree with me that he wasn't as good at it as I think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattywood Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Might as well ask in here as it's as good as anywhere and a lot of people read this thread. In my spare time I've been watching WWF and WCW PPVs from the late 90s, so naturally I've witnessed a lot of Sycho Sid Vicious matches. I think we all agree he's a limited in-ring worker, so in TEW many of his top row skills will be poor, although maybe he could be a 60ish Brawler. Anyway, I checked him out in many mods and in nearly all of them, his Psychology is bad. What actually defines Psychology in TEW? I thought a part of it involved the controlling of the crowd and bringing reactions out of them. Now from what I've seen, Sid is/was brilliant at keeping the crowd on edge during his matches and I think it's one of the main reasons he was a credible World Champion. So is this an overlook on the part of mod makers because they just set it to a similar level to other performance skills or am I misunderstanding the meaning of it? Or do people just disagree with me that he wasn't as good at it as I think? If I'm not mistaken, I think it's so that guys like him wouldn't be constantly voted for internet awards such as "Best Overall Worker," or winning Wrestler of the Year awards(which he did not in real life). But if he is in there with the right workers, for example the very good chemistry he had with Shawn Michaels and Sting. He seemed like he performed better with guys like Shawn and Sting who could sell well for him, thus why I think, in my opinion anyway, you could make a case for chemistry with them. Anywho, after digressing there, if he has good chemistry with the right guys, and is booked to his strengths, which were his Charisma and Menace, and with his Star Quality, he should still be able to get over to at least B- level, which is hard for a lot of workers, or maybe even B or B+(which I think is where he topped off at in real life). And if he has high pop, he may still get a negative crowd reaction penalty, but he may still bring in good enough ratings not to tank a show if he's in there with the right guys and/or booked to his strengths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. Boons Ghost Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Derek B is my hero - and he should be your hero, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mich75 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 This mainly applies to indy promotions, but what would you say is the best way to have someone make occasional appearances for an indy promotion, without being part of their regular roster? I get that I can set them up with a PPA deal, and set them to "occasional wrestler", but does that mean that they will only make occasional appearances, or does that mean that they will still appear regularly in segments for the promotion, but will only actually wrestle occasionally? For example, many top US indy stars regularly make appearances at UK indy shows, without technically being a part of the shows' regular rosters. Is there a good way to recreate this type of situation in the game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 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>Might as well ask in here as it's as good as anywhere and a lot of people read this thread.<p> </p><p> In my spare time I've been watching WWF and WCW PPVs from the late 90s, so naturally I've witnessed a lot of Sycho Sid Vicious matches. I think we all agree he's a limited in-ring worker, so in TEW many of his top row skills will be poor, although maybe he could be a 60ish Brawler. Anyway, I checked him out in many mods and in nearly all of them, his Psychology is bad. </p><p> </p><p> What actually defines Psychology in TEW? I thought a part of it involved the controlling of the crowd and bringing reactions out of them. Now from what I've seen, Sid is/was brilliant at keeping the crowd on edge during his matches and I think it's one of the main reasons he was a credible World Champion.</p><p> </p><p> So is this an overlook on the part of mod makers because they just set it to a similar level to other performance skills or am I misunderstanding the meaning of it? Or do people just disagree with me that he wasn't as good at it as I think?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I've not looked at his stats for a while, but I'd say that he's probably under-rated in most mods. The guy had a great look, strong charisma, could play crazy/brute gimmicks pretty well and wasn't a disaster on the mic (sure, he made mistakes but otherwise his promos weren't bad). Performance skills wise, I'd probably have his consistency and psychology in the mids 70s... basics maybe in the low 70s, safety down a touch from that and his selling down a little again. Pretty good for a man his size, but not good enough to have incredible matches without the help of someone else that can pick up the slack a little. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png"></p><p> </p><p> Similarly, Kevin Nash tends to be under-rated in mods when I have looked... guy had an awesome look, could really talk and knew how to put a match together. Was terrible in the top row which limited him, but otherwise he was a great performer for his size. He's not exactly as sucky as The Great Khali or Giant Gonzalez or anyone like that. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png"></p><p> </p><p> Sidenote: if a mod maker is modding things to stop people getting "Best Overall Worker" type notes then they are modding wrong. With stats roughly outlined above, both Nash and Sid would be capable of headlining a company but they'd struggle to do very well at it unless they had someone else to help them. Which is why guys like HBK were so awesome, because he could do everything and have awesome matches with anyone, which is why he'd be the one who would be winning "Best Overall Worker" over guys like Sid/Nash anyways. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png"></p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Derek B is my hero - and he should be your hero, too. <p> </p><p> <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png"></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Your bribe is in the mail. Hopefully it's enough to convince you to do some DOTT. <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> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Mich75" data-cite="Mich75" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>This mainly applies to indy promotions, but what would you say is the best way to have someone make occasional appearances for an indy promotion, without being part of their regular roster? I get that I can set them up with a PPA deal, and set them to "occasional wrestler", but does that mean that they will only make occasional appearances, or does that mean that they will still appear regularly in segments for the promotion, but will only actually wrestle occasionally? For example, many top US indy stars regularly make appearances at UK indy shows, without technically being a part of the shows' regular rosters. Is there a good way to recreate this type of situation in the game?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The AI doesn't sign anyone to short appearance contracts EXCEPT freelancers. The Freelancer concept is a Japanese only thing though (as is company specific loyatly), which is there to simulate workers who don't want to settle down with any company at all for a long period of time. Outside of those workers, you will never see the AI sign workers to short term appearances. Though they can do worker trades via Alliance Loans and Working Agreements. Which leaves you with two options on what to do with workers who make spot appearances. Either give them a contract with a company, or don't. </p><p> </p><p> It can be tough to decide whether you should or shouldn't, and it's a judgement call on each person. In the real world, wrestlers make one off appearances all over the place but in TEW that can only really happen on the odd Indy Show that happens, which uses unepmloyed workers only (except for Tribute Shows, whih can sometimes use employed workers). Those shows cover your typical indy shows around the country and can run up to 3 times a month per game area.... </p><p> </p><p> The other thing I find hard to judge is whether or not a company should be added to the game world at all. There may be 50 tiny wrestling companies running shows in New York City, but if they are all just tiny companies then it's probably best for the game world balance to include only some of them. The rest can be covered by indy shows, especially if adding all of the companies means adding workers to a large number of contracts. Again... TEW only lets workers stay with a handful of contracts at once, so if you add someone with 9 contracts with local companies then that is going to upset the game world balance.</p><p> </p><p> So ultimately... its' hard to decide if a worker should have a contract with someone or not.... it's also hard to decide if some companies should be in the game too. Or even some workers in some cases, as adding everyone can also just be adding deadweight to a game if you include too many people who are never going to get anywhere. IF you think a company deserves to be there and IF a worker wrestles there frequently, THEN give them a PPA deal. IF they aren't there often, don't bother giving them a deal. ANd hopefully everything works out in the end. <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...
Mich75 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 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><p> The AI doesn't sign anyone to short appearance contracts EXCEPT freelancers. The Freelancer concept is a Japanese only thing though (as is company specific loyatly), which is there to simulate workers who don't want to settle down with any company at all for a long period of time. Outside of those workers, you will never see the AI sign workers to short term appearances. Though they can do worker trades via Alliance Loans and Working Agreements. Which leaves you with two options on what to do with workers who make spot appearances. Either give them a contract with a company, or don't. </p><p> </p><p> It can be tough to decide whether you should or shouldn't, and it's a judgement call on each person. In the real world, wrestlers make one off appearances all over the place but in TEW that can only really happen on the odd Indy Show that happens, which uses unepmloyed workers only (except for Tribute Shows, whih can sometimes use employed workers). Those shows cover your typical indy shows around the country and can run up to 3 times a month per game area.... </p><p> </p><p> The other thing I find hard to judge is whether or not a company should be added to the game world at all. There may be 50 tiny wrestling companies running shows in New York City, but if they are all just tiny companies then it's probably best for the game world balance to include only some of them. The rest can be covered by indy shows, especially if adding all of the companies means adding workers to a large number of contracts. Again... TEW only lets workers stay with a handful of contracts at once, so if you add someone with 9 contracts with local companies then that is going to upset the game world balance.</p><p> </p><p> So ultimately... its' hard to decide if a worker should have a contract with someone or not.... it's also hard to decide if some companies should be in the game too. Or even some workers in some cases, as adding everyone can also just be adding deadweight to a game if you include too many people who are never going to get anywhere. IF you think a company deserves to be there and IF a worker wrestles there frequently, THEN give them a PPA deal. IF they aren't there often, don't bother giving them a deal. ANd hopefully everything works out in the end. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Thanks again for your help. I think I might just deal with them on a case-by-case basis then, when it comes to setting up my game, depending on how many appearances they make. So, does the "occasional wrestler" option just mean that they will still appear full time for the promotion, but only make occasional in-ring appearances? I guess another option might be to give someone a PPV-only clause in their PPA deal if they only appear for that company at big events, but that will depend on how the promotion's events are set up.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 To be honest, I've never noticed much difference in people set to be "occasional wrestler" when compared with being set as "wrestler". If the worker in questioin is just occasional then they should wrestle less then a wrestler would... but I've never noticed much difference. You could use the PPV only clause, but almost every small company should only have their regular monthly events and nothing else, so that would have no real effect. You'd be best just leaving most of the guys in question out of the companies, unless they are the champion of the company OR have been involved in actual programs within the company. If someone has just shown up for a couple of dates then don't add them. If they've been regularly appearing on almost every show, then add them. And if a worker ends up with more than 3 contract, start looking at the ones that ould be deleted because the game will do that anyway soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattywood Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 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>I've not looked at his stats for a while, but I'd say that he's probably under-rated in most mods. The guy had a great look, strong charisma, could play crazy/brute gimmicks pretty well and wasn't a disaster on the mic (sure, he made mistakes but otherwise his promos weren't bad). Performance skills wise, I'd probably have his consistency and psychology in the mids 70s... basics maybe in the low 70s, safety down a touch from that and his selling down a little again. Pretty good for a man his size, but not good enough to have incredible matches without the help of someone else that can pick up the slack a little. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /><p> </p><p> Similarly, Kevin Nash tends to be under-rated in mods when I have looked... guy had an awesome look, could really talk and knew how to put a match together. Was terrible in the top row which limited him, but otherwise he was a great performer for his size. He's not exactly as sucky as The Great Khali or Giant Gonzalez or anyone like that. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> Sidenote: if a mod maker is modding things to stop people getting "Best Overall Worker" type notes then they are modding wrong. With stats roughly outlined above, both Nash and Sid would be capable of headlining a company but they'd struggle to do very well at it unless they had someone else to help them. Which is why guys like HBK were so awesome, because he could do everything and have awesome matches with anyone, which is why he'd be the one who would be winning "Best Overall Worker" over guys like Sid/Nash anyways. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Well I stand corrected then. And if I am mistaken as to why most mods had him underrated, then I stand corrected on that. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> Me, it was a little bit on the web story thing, but mostly so that he wouldn't be overrated. </p><p> </p><p> Now, that said, with my next mod being set in 1985 and Sid not debuting for another two years(which means he'll be green as a gourd when he debuts), should his Psychology and Basics then be in the 50s, maybe 60s, with maybe Very Good or Good potential? And what about other big guys who while weren't the best wrestlers in the world, but didn't stink up the joint like Great Khali and El Gigante(Giant Gonzalez)? And lastly, where should Andre the Giant's selling be in 1985, based on what ring veterans have said about him? <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> Sorry, I couldn't resist being a smart ass. <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...
Derek B Posted October 3, 2013 Author Share Posted October 3, 2013 Completely missed that there was a reply here. D'oh! I've never seen Sid as a rookie, the earliest I've ever seen him was probably about 93 and even then he hadn't gotten as far as the stats I laid out previously. Starting his psychology out in the 60s would definitely be over-rating him, but he learned a lot from being put against some pretty big names. Starting him out with psych in the 30s probably wouldn't be far off the mark, and he'll just grow into the rest by working with the right people. His camera skills should still be very high (with some good physical skills and charisma too), which ought to ensure that he can gain popularity very quickly and will ehlp him rise up the card to get to the kinds of people that can teach him. As a mod maker I tend to avoid setting potential as much as I can... sometimes people develop into awesome workers, sometimes they don't. I prefer to leave it to chance, as trying to control too much of the future can be a bad thing. For every person who gets a roll that is worse then they do in real life, someone else will get one that is better. As for Khali/Gonzalez... yikes, they are terrible. I've seen some of their early stuff and they are just terrible, terrible workers... with awesome camera skills, high power and some charisma. Top row is virtually non-existent, performance row is equally terrible as they are just really bad. They are generally under-rated in things like athleticism too, with both of them actually being pretty good due to their size at some things... but their size also cripples their limbs/mobility in the long run, leading to them being even worse after several years. These guys should generally have high camera skills, brute gimmicks and some charisma... basically all you need for a Brute push and nothing else. Khali has gotten a LOT better with the WWE, but he's still pretty bad. WWE switched him from a brute gimmick (which requires a lot of charisma and wins to keep credible/popular) to a comedy gimmick, which makes easy gains in short matches but can't be taken seriously up top... I wouldn't say Khali is very good at it, but at least he tries. As for Andre, it's always a tough call. Obviously selling wasn't what he was primarily doing but he was pretty good at it by time he was winding down his career and being used to put people over. I'd probably put him in the high 60s.... enough that he does sell and is pretty good at it, but not so high that he's the kind of person who can make anyone look like a million dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattywood Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 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>Completely missed that there was a reply here. D'oh!<p> </p><p> I've never seen Sid as a rookie, the earliest I've ever seen him was probably about 93 and even then he hadn't gotten as far as the stats I laid out previously. Starting his psychology out in the 60s would definitely be over-rating him, but he learned a lot from being put against some pretty big names. Starting him out with psych in the 30s probably wouldn't be far off the mark, and he'll just grow into the rest by working with the right people. His camera skills should still be very high (with some good physical skills and charisma too), which ought to ensure that he can gain popularity very quickly and will ehlp him rise up the card to get to the kinds of people that can teach him. As a mod maker I tend to avoid setting potential as much as I can... sometimes people develop into awesome workers, sometimes they don't. I prefer to leave it to chance, as trying to control too much of the future can be a bad thing. For every person who gets a roll that is worse then they do in real life, someone else will get one that is better. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> As for Khali/Gonzalez... yikes, they are terrible. I've seen some of their early stuff and they are just terrible, terrible workers... with awesome camera skills, high power and some charisma. Top row is virtually non-existent, performance row is equally terrible as they are just really bad. They are generally under-rated in things like athleticism too, with both of them actually being pretty good due to their size at some things... but their size also cripples their limbs/mobility in the long run, leading to them being even worse after several years. These guys should generally have high camera skills, brute gimmicks and some charisma... basically all you need for a Brute push and nothing else. Khali has gotten a LOT better with the WWE, but he's still pretty bad. WWE switched him from a brute gimmick (which requires a lot of charisma and wins to keep credible/popular) to a comedy gimmick, which makes easy gains in short matches but can't be taken seriously up top... I wouldn't say Khali is very good at it, but at least he tries. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> As for Andre, it's always a tough call. Obviously selling wasn't what he was primarily doing but he was pretty good at it by time he was winding down his career and being used to put people over. I'd probably put him in the high 60s.... enough that he does sell and is pretty good at it, but not so high that he's the kind of person who can make anyone look like a million dollars. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Thanks a lot for this. ^_^ I think you misread when I brought up Khali and Gonzalez. I meant as far as big guys like Kevin Nash, Big Show, etc, who didn't necessarily stink it up like Khali and Gonzalez did(but didn't put on a whole lot of, if any, classics either).</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted October 5, 2013 Author Share Posted October 5, 2013 My bad, misread your post a bit. Right then... I've never had the joys of seeing a young Kevin Nash in action, but by time he hit his peak years he was a guy who had pretty strong performance skills, could talk very well and had a great look. His top row would be his weak point, but in a popularity over performance type company that wouldn't really be a problem unless you put him in the ring against someone with a similar limitation. Brawling probably in the low 40s, everything else in the top row at 20 or less (he could work with other styles, but didn't do anything of them himself).... entertainment skills probably in the high 70s/low 80s (better on the stick than Sid)... he was a fairly athletic guy for his size (50s), decent enough toughness (50s/60s?), could wrestle longer matches if asked (low 60s), strong but not uber strong (high 70s/low 80s) and as we all know... fairly injury prone, so resilience probably down in the 40s/50s. His performance skills and camera skills are his best areas though... so basics 70ish, psych 75-80, consistency 80ish, safety 80ish (didn't do enough to be dangerous!), selling 70ish. And camera wise, 90-95 star quality, 50-60 sex appeal, 80ish menace... the dude had a great look and his sheer size is enough to give him a lot of menace (though not as much as Sid, who looked like a crazy person). In terms of gimmick skills, he'd probably peak in cool, cocky, wholesome and brute... all things within his skillset, while being able to play face or heel very well too. Injuries would eventually have a negative effect on his perfomance, but for popularity based products this should highlight how good he was... just that he needed someone with a great top row in order to have his best matches, as that is his key weakness. Big Show is a pretty special guy in TEW terms. One of very few people who actually qualify for Giant size and the dude is awesome. Better than Andre in TEW terms but never booked as effectively. And arguably with an overness cap around the B/B+ range too. Top row, I'd give Big Show about a 60-65 in brawling, with up to 30 in everything else... the guy can work with anyone even if he doesn't include it in his own arsenal, but he has developed into an awesome worker over the years. He's a pretty strong talker (high 70s/low 80s) with similar level charisma... and he excels at Acting, now being my go to guy in terms of being able to act when required, giving him a mid 90s score there. Physically... he's a hell of an athlete. The guy can move for someone his size, so he would likely be in the 70s there. He's tough (80s), with great stamina for a guy his size (70s) and awesome power (high 90s to 100) and he's very resilient too, probably around the 80 mark. He's also pretty damn good in the performance row. I'd give him 70s in basics, mid 70s in psych, 80s in consistency and safety too, and somewhere in the 70s or low 80s for selling... no-one his size has ever been able to bump and sell as well as Big Show has, the guy is awesome. But not awesome enough to be having classic matches all the time... camera skills, I'd give him high 80s star quality, 40ish sex appeal and 100 menace. Big Show might be a nice guy, but if you tell me he's in a bad mood I'm going to go the other way no matter who is standing down that path. So hopefully that helps... those are kinda peaked Big Show stats and with skills like that he could succeed pretty much anywhere but would do best in an entertainment based company. He's learned a lot over the course of his career too... his peak top row would always be brawling, but when he started he'd have minimal skills elsewhere there. His physical/camera skills are pretty much the same, but his performance and entertainment skills have grown over time too. At first he was pretty much a charismatic giant with a great look who could move suprisingly well.... and he's grown into a helluva performer, though never quite into the megastar he could've been. But I blame the booking for that more than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakesonaplane Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 <p>Hey Derek could you please give me your advice? I'm interested in simulating the Japanese scene, and at the moment there is a lot of variety in relationships, I know you're not that into the puroresu scene so i'll give you some background.</p><p> </p><p> Some feds like Inoki's IGF have basically no outsiders, and their workers rarely if ever appear elsewhere, basically isolationism.</p><p> </p><p> Then there are feds like Big Japan, whose workers seem to appear in almost every other company in Japan, a guy like Daisuke Sekimoto for example.</p><p> </p><p> However, most promotions (especially ones that run regularly) have a core roster, and so their cards feature that promotions core talent, or 'affiliated players', and the rest of those featured are a combination of a few freelancers, and players affiliated with other promotions (and who are identified as such).</p><p> </p><p> <em>My question then is, if promotion A features players affiliated with promotion B (say since the start of the calender year, to keep things current) does this mean promotion A and promotion B should have a working agreement? </em></p><p> </p><p> <em>Or do these relationships ned to be official, publicly stated relationships to be added to the game?</em></p><p> </p><p> At the moment I count that if any workers affiliated with a specific promotion have appeared on another promotions cards from the start of 2013 until now, that they have a working agreeement. Is this too generous?</p><p> </p><p> Like in real life, workers affiliated with Big Japan, have appeared recently in say 5 other promotions across Japan, should I then given Big Japan a working agreement with each of these promotions? As the workers would not appear in these places without the consent of their home promotion.</p><p> </p><p> Basically, as a mod maker, should I be inferring these relationships exist when workers affiliated with a promotion appear in a different promotion, and put them in to simulate the fact that say this year, a worker from promotion B has appeared on Promotion A's cards say six times, and could then conceivably appear in the future? A working agreement would allow a talent trade to simulate this for the human player.</p><p> </p><p> The reason why I ask is also because I've done some research and by my current criteria, basically an affiliated worker has appeared on the show of another promotion (outside special tribute shows, or single appearances in 12 months), the promotions have a working agreement.</p><p> </p><p> Some examples of the number of agreements this would produce, </p><p> </p><p> <strong>Big Japan</strong> would have working agreements with: JWP, Freedoms, Legend, W1, NOAH, Z1, Union, RJPW, WNC, Kdojo, CZW, Ice Ribbon, Diamong Ring, Dradition, Oz.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Zero1</strong> with: Diana, W1, WNC, BJW, OPW, MPW, NOAH, AJPW, Sendai, Ice Ribbon, Kdojo, Oz, DR, Futen.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Diamond Ring</strong>- Tenryu, NOAH, Futen, DDT, AJPW, Z1, DG, Diana, Stardom, WNC, BJW, Kdojo, Oz, SGPW, MPW.</p><p> </p><p> There are 30 active promotions in this region in my file, and the full list in the above style produces something like 100 agreements!</p><p> </p><p> Thank you.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted October 10, 2013 Author Share Posted October 10, 2013 That sounds like a LOT of compay relationships to end up adding... there are a few tricks up your sleeve that you can use to keep things fairly simple without having to do too much work. They are "Worker Loyalty To Company" and "Owner Preferences via pacts". Setting workers to be loyal to their main company will ensure that they stay there barring some kind of incident, such as a falling out with the boss or growing massively too popular for them and leaving because of that (though there is more flexibility in Japan for overness there). In TEW13, workers will be happy to work for other companies even while loyal to them (they didn't in TEW10) so simply by having loyalty to their home company you can have workers showing up in lots of other companies too. This ought to remove the need to add most of the pacts you were looking to add since workers will happily stay with their home company and take work elsewhere too. once companies hit regional the companies might try to hire people to Exclusive PPA deal... but that's generally only common if there are very few workers around OR there are a lot of negative pacts going on. As for owner preferences, setting up the owner of each company with the "right" setting ought to be able to keep things working the way you want. "Hostile" will see the owner maintain/set-up hostility and war relationships for the most part... "Isolated" will see them maintain/set-up Non-Aggression Pacts mostly... "Normal" will see them just kinda go with the flow, mixing things up a bit... and "Open" will see them use Working Agreements more. Smart use of these settings ought to help you maintain the region pretty nicely and let it play out nicely over the long run. As for pacts themselves... the fewer you use, generally the better off you'll be. The most important ones to add for a region like Japan will be the negative ones, to ensure that some companies just don't work together. It sounds like the IGF might be one where you want to set a lot of Non-Aggression Pacts so that they stay in isolation. But most of the rest, with workers appearing all over the place... you can probably just give them free reign and have owners that aren't going to be declaring war on everyone. There will be some examples of companies actively working together and they would deserve Working Agreements... but as you guessed, I don't know the area well enough to give you examples. Hopefully that helps, not so sure if it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhd1 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Another possibility would be to add them to a trading alliance. Make sure they are not permanent members, and perhaps limit the eligibility to Japanese promotions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakesonaplane Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 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>In TEW13, workers will be happy to work for other companies even while loyal to them (they didn't in TEW10) so simply by having loyalty to their home company you can have workers showing up in lots of other companies too. This ought to remove the need to add most of the pacts you were looking to add since workers will happily stay with their home company and take work elsewhere too. once companies hit regional the companies <em>might</em> try to hire people to Exclusive PPA deal... but that's generally only common if there are very few workers around OR there are a lot of negative pacts going on.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Thanks for taking the time to reply to this btw.</p><p> </p><p> This is an interesting idea, I guess I didn't appreciate the benefit of loyalty on the smaller end. </p><p> </p><p> So basically you reckon that if worker A is loyal to company A, and I know he has been appearing sporadically for promotion B, instead of giving promotion A and B a working agreement to simulate this (and leaving worker A off of promotions B's roster), I should add worker A (with loyalty set to company A) to company B on a PPA, and scrap the working agreement.</p><p> </p><p> Note that nearly all of the promotions in the game area will be around a regional level, but there are virtually no negative pacts that will be at play. I'm also going to try to include a good balance of free agents as well, so hopefully that will prevent the predatory signings that you mention.</p><p> </p><p> I'll have another look at my lonnnnng list of relationships and see where I can cut with the above in mind, thanks.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Derek" data-cite="Derek" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> As for owner preferences, setting up the owner of each company with the "right" setting ought to be able to keep things working the way you want. "Hostile" will see the owner maintain/set-up hostility and war relationships for the most part... "Isolated" will see them maintain/set-up Non-Aggression Pacts mostly... "Normal" will see them just kinda go with the flow, mixing things up a bit... and "Open" will see them use Working Agreements more. Smart use of these settings ought to help you maintain the region pretty nicely and let it play out nicely over the long run. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes good idea! </p><p> </p><p> I hadn't really given much thought to this aspect of the mod settings to be honest, and it's actually a very important tweak to make, I agree. A lot of the promotions in the region are incredibly cooperative (compared to say the US), with the industry only just beginning to 'rise' again after a big down-turn many of the companies have formed alliances or shared workers to ensure each others survival (which is my company relationship file is looking so bloated). </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Derek" data-cite="Derek" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> As for pacts themselves... the fewer you use, generally the better off you'll be. </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't necessarily disagree that if the other relevant factors are set correctly, that less is more in this area, and well... most really! No one likes mod bloat.</p><p> </p><p> Can I ask though, do you think there is a specific down-side to 'over setting' these agreements, if you willlllll?</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Derek" data-cite="Derek" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> IGF might be one where you want to set a lot of Non-Aggression Pacts so that they stay in isolation. </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes good idea, I was just going to leave their agreements blank, but non-aggression pacts is probably better.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Derek" data-cite="Derek" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Hopefully that helps, not so sure if it does. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It does actually, you've given a few more settings to consider in order to produce the same results that I want to simulate, and that's definitely a good thing.</p><p> </p><p> ------------</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="jhd1" data-cite="jhd1" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Another possibility would be to add them to a trading alliance. Make sure they are not permanent members, and perhaps limit the eligibility to Japanese promotions. </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Thanks for the suggestion.</p><p> </p><p> There's at least one trading alliance I could implement, so that would cover three of the promotions on my list.</p><p> </p><p> What is the specific benefit of using a trading alliance over say a three-way set of working agreements?</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh_Showtime Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="snakesonaplane" data-cite="snakesonaplane" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> What is the specific benefit of using a trading alliance over say a three-way set of working agreements?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> One direct benefit is that you can do one way trades or alliance loans which the AI does take advantage of</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakesonaplane Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 <p>Oh really? So if I set up a working agreement between two promotions the AI controlling these won't utilise the agreement at all?! </p><p> </p><p> But if I set up an alliance they will?</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhd1 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="snakesonaplane" data-cite="snakesonaplane" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Oh really? So if I set up a working agreement between two promotions the AI controlling these won't utilise the agreement at all?! <p> </p><p> But if I set up an alliance they will?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I can't remember ever seeing the AI using a working agreement trade, certainly among itself (i.e. between two AI promotions). They definitley alliance loan workers among themselves though.</p><p> </p><p> It's also slightly easier to leave an alliance I think (if you have a load of alliance loans you can pretty much guarantee that trying to end one will end in a negative relationship).</p><p> </p><p> It's also easier than implementing a the many, many combinations of working agreements there looked to be in Japan <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...
Horatio Hammerlock Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Has anyone posted the statistical distribution for ratings in the Cornellverse for both workers who have debuted and those yet to debut? And has anyone gone any further and figured out the statistical distribution for Business, booking, alcohol & drug usage, etc.? This info would be invaluable for mod-making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djthefunkchris Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Has anyone posted the statistical distribution for ratings in the Cornellverse for both workers who have debuted and those yet to debut? And has anyone gone any further and figured out the statistical distribution for Business, booking, alcohol & drug usage, etc.? This info would be invaluable for mod-making. I'm not sure of what your actually asking. Lazorbeak (I believe it was him) has done stat comparisons in the C-Verse as far as averages, comparing top end to low end, etc. I thought I subscribed to it, but apparently I didn't... I subscribed to his booking 101 thread. As far as business and booking, these come into effect for AI promotions, as the owner or booker will influence the promotions settings to a limited effect. Roster turnover and the like most notably. An outright statistical analysis of how much I don't think anyone has done. It's more of a play it by ear type of thing... you set the promotion, set the owner and booker to what you think they should be (all the stats there in), and then play test. Playing as booker of a promotion will allow you to know what kind of irrational owner goals there are, which in turn help you tweak the stats of the owner til' it's believable. Playing a watcher game allows you to see how all the promotions will work during game play, and thus you can try to tweak the stats that effect them to your liking. I don't think anyone has broke down these stats to find out what the C-Verse average is or anything like that, as everything is different depending on the promotions you want to emulate (or build from scratch). IF you want a promotion exactly like USPW, just duplicate them in your mod, changing the names accordingly. As far as drug/alcohol etc... These aren't set up very high in the default database, not like they used to be in the "RW" type databases anyways. While testing a mod in 2010, I found all these stats to be very influential in the game world. IF we set them all as seperate entities in comparison with each worker.... it killed off some pretty important characters pretty fast. I'll give an example of what I mean. Lets say worker A is a smoker, uses hard and soft drugs. Let's say in comparison to worker's B and C he is around 25% in each category. You would think you would want to set him at 25% in each stat... but I found that to be too unrealistic. Worker B has only one bad habbit of Hard Drugs, at 50%, and worker C 50% on soft drugs. Believe it or not, Worker A has a 25% higher chance of something bad happening, then worker B or C. I don't know how the game mechanics play out with this, but if I were to guess, the randomness checks everything, and the more a worker has checked, the more chances he has to be on the randomness chart. What worked on 2010, was to take that 25% and divide it by 3 (for the three ticked bad habits), so that it would be more like 7 or 8% on each stat. If it were only two ticked, then you would divide by two making it 12 or 13% per stat. If they are set differently, you just divide by how many ticked on each one. For those that only have one thing ticked, leaving it higher is fine, as that is the only thing they will be checked for. IT doesn't sound right, but it plays out much more realistic. Jeff Hardy and RVD don't die so fast for example. I also think this has to do with how many people are actually set. For example, if you have less then half a dozen set to hard drugs, then one of these guys are going down as soon as the hard drug area is randomly picked. What I think happens is a check for random habit, then a check for which habit weighed on how many have these items ticked, then a check on the list of people with that habit checked weighed by the percentage of use. So, what I'm trying to say is that I think the weight of each of these are also dependent on the total ticks. Having 1000 people ticked vs 10 people ticked is going to make a dramatic difference in the way things are played out. 1000 ticked for drinking, might give you years of different names having various drinking problems... but having 10 might make the same person have it every month because of them having a higher percentage then the rest. One person with everything checked, has the possibility of being effected every time that stat is checked, which is why I have suggested using smaller percentages for people with multiple ticks. The method I come up with really helped even things out, and gave people that died too suddenly a fighting chance to have a similar simulated career as they had in real life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Hammerlock Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="36188" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm not sure of what your actually asking. Lazorbeak (I believe it was him) has done stat comparisons in the C-Verse as far as averages, comparing top end to low end, etc. I thought I subscribed to it, but apparently I didn't... I subscribed to his booking 101 thread. <p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm talking about something that would tell us x% of workers in the Cornellverse have a C+ in Brawling, x% have C in Brawling, x% of yet to debut workers have a D+ in Psychology, x% of yet to debut workers have a D Psychology, etc. It would really be helpful to have a spreadsheet with these numbers. I know it TEW 2013 doesn't make this easy, but it would be awesome to have those numbers.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodsmeister Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 <p><strong>PERSONALITIES</strong></p><p> </p><p> I know WWE dont seem to have that many backstage problems (or atleast we dont here about them). But with Derek's first couple of posts not really going into detail I have been searching the web for backstage gossip etc... which is the closest we are going to get to guessing. For male only WWE workers this is what I have found.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>CM Punk</strong> (negative influence) - this stems from him constantly getting heat for tweets, shouting at fans and even in he admits he can be abit antisocial.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Randy Orton</strong> (negative influece) - Slightly improved over the years as he has matured, back in 2004 - 2009 possibly a major negative but these days he has stopped pooping in bags, slating people in interviews and breaking wellness policies like its going out of fashion. Must have grown up since he had a kid maybe. So i put his anti-social up and his ruthlesness a little high (i reckon he would be tempted by a bigger offer if such a company exsisted).</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Brock Lesnar</strong> (Very negatitive) -Again high Rutlesness and Anti-Social (keeps himself to himself). Plus selfish and egotistical (cant see him doing many jobs to people with alot less pop than him).</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Ambrose</strong> and <strong>Rollins</strong> (potential negatives) at the moment alot of heat on Sheild stories of them two in particular 'believing to much in the shield' keeping there distance from others, and treading on veterans toes abit... dont know if its just people jealous of there push but you would think it would go to there heads so i put there ego. selfish and anti-social up slightly more than average. Reigns apparantly is not the same as he is all about improving and picking the brains of the veterans (so left him towards average).</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Alberto Del Rio</strong> (negative influence) apparantly a bit of a douche said some horrible things about The Miz and was moaning alot about his push when he wasnt champion. (Anti-Social -Ego - Selfish).</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Sin Cara</strong> (negative influence) selfishness due to him to even attempting to learn english and apparantly he is a douche read reports even when he was in mexico he thinks he is a cut above. Also has heat for qutting in his match when he dislocated his finger, yet a diva fractured her pelvis and continued... Douche!</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Michael Hayes</strong> (major negative) total douche dont think this needs an explanation (anti-social mainly).</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Road Dogg</strong> and <strong>Billy Gunn</strong> (potential negative) ... Manipulative - just the two faceness of them slagging off WWE and Triple H and then going back kissing butt. Other than that i got nothing I can think of so just leave them under the mark to be negative influnces.</p><p> </p><p> Makes the locker room around 77%</p><p> </p><p> Positives (not including relationships)</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Kane</strong> (very positive) always here good stories about the guy.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Charles Robinson</strong> (very positive) again alot of reports of him being a good dude.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Undertaker</strong> (locker room leader) this is well known surely.</p><p> </p><p> Everyone else is sort of around average or slightly towards the good or negatives just using gut instincts.</p><p> </p><p> Anyone got any more? or disagree etc..</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattywood Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 <p>Not sure on the Ambrose and Rollins bit because you can't always believe everything that's in the sheets, especially if promoters are willing to work said sheets(yes, that does happen). I mean, I could see it being a possibility, and in-game, they can potentially go from being negative influence to no influence at all if you keep upping their morale with bonuses, time off, praising them after PPVs, etc. But at the same time, dirt sheet reports should always be taken with a grain of salt, especially if they come from hacks like Marc Middleton and Steve Carrier. If it means anything, there are Youtube videos floating around of the Shield showing someone(I'm guessing a close friend or someone they met, don't know) how to do their entrance, and they seemed pretty cool in those videos. Granted, that's not the be all end all of how they truly are, but could give an indication.</p><p> </p><p> I will agree with Kane, Charles Robinson and Undertaker for obvious reasons. I could see negative influence for Billy Gunn and Road Dogg, but I'll wait and see how they act after they leave WWE to see if they truly are two-face, or if they truly had a change of heart and realized "Man, that was pretty stupid for us to talk crap like that." Road Dogg was on drugs at one time, after all(can't remember if Billy was or not). Me personally, I'd leave them in the middle for now. Again, if I'm not mistaken, I think personalities can change in-game anyway.</p><p> </p><p> BTW, I think you're confusing Mercenary with Ruthlessness, as Mercenary, I believe, is someone who would take a better offer from another company. If I'm wrong, someone with better knowledge of the game than me can correct me. From what I can tell, Orton seems to bleed WWE, but then again, not counting TNA, there hasn't been a rival company on the level of WCW to court him with offers since Vince bought them out, so we will never truly know. Maybe Loyal/Mercenary in the middle for him? Not sure where I'd put his Ruthless trait at the moment as other than that interview he did where he threw Kelly Kelly under the bus(and apologized for it, and seemed genuinely remorseful about it), he really hasn't had many, if any, ruthless incidents.</p><p> </p><p> I will agree, there are times that Punk needs to learn to STFU and not try to start Twitter fights with random fans(such as mocking them because they choose to follow a certain religion). Heck, he needs to learn to STFU in general(like when he slated his upcoming WrestleMania match against the Undertaker). I'm all for being honest and all that, but you have to know where and when it's appropriate. Now I don't have a problem with his complaints on idiotic fans, such as ones that run up to him and take off his headphones to try and talk to him. I'm with him on that. Or the incident when he hit a fan. There was a fan that kept poking him and trying to push him down, and you NEVER do that to a wrestler. NEVER... EVER. From all accounts, Punk seemed to feel bad about hitting the wrong guy. And I hope there's a special place in hell for the douchebag that bragged about trying to stir up that crap that night. As to what kind of influence, he seems to get along with most everyone on the roster, and I don't see WWE shows tanking because of how he acts, so maybe neutral with some negatives slightly up(but not ridiculously high). I think where Hive had Raven in his Clash of the Titans mod would be a good indicator of where to set personalities such as Punk, Orton, etc.</p> 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.