Help Understanding Popularity and Momentum

[SirMichaelJordan]

I just don't understand how momentum effects promotions.

 

As WCW 2001 I am consistently booking B- to B+ shows and yet my popularity has dropped to C's and C+'s in the US. I have a small TV deal and PPV so I should be gaining popularity. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

Its probably because you have a small TV deal, Small TV deals can only gain you so much popularity.

 

Other things affect company popularity like incidents, product, etc.

[SirMichaelJordan]

I agree with this. But as I previously mentioned if kane and big show retired, and came back in over a years time, they would be reviewed as much higher pop than C+. Same with the undertaker was he stopped wrestling full time? I don't think he would be, but he is definately an A when he reappears

 

based on what? crowd reaction?

 

Kane & Show are never going to put butts in seats.

[FlameSnoopy]

Id say TEW pop is how strong of an overall draw you are. That being said, nobody except for maybe The Rock would be A*. Cena, Lesnar, and Taker would be A. Punk, Bryan, and Triple H would probably be B+ and would be strong Bs for sure. Orton would be a strong B and Batista, Sting, Rollins, Reigns, etc. Would be somewhere between B- and low B. Guys like Ambrose, Ziggler, Sheamus, Big Show and Kane would probably be high C+.

 

This is massively overrating. The Rock hasn't seen A* pop in over a decade. Undertaker never even had A pop. Triple H in his peak had B+, nowhere near those levels anymore. When Orton was at his most popular probably had mid-B.

[Peter.1986]

based on what? crowd reaction?

 

Kane & Show are never going to put butts in seats.

 

Your not telling me if kane came back in a years time at wrestlemania in the old kane attire to take on undertaker it would be received as a A v C+ worker match?

 

You've got to understand kane and the big show are more popular than nearly all the current roster. I can guarantee you more people know who they are than they do Daniel Bryan, Seth Rollins and Roman reigns

[Peter.1986]

This is massively overrating. The Rock hasn't seen A* pop in over a decade. Undertaker never even had A pop. Triple H in his peak had B+, nowhere near those levels anymore. When Orton was at his most popular at mid-B.

 

Putting a photo of the rock on the titantronwoukd get a reaction that proves he has always been A*

 

Undertaker has reached A in different eras, triple h could have peaked around A towards the end of attitude era and early ruthless aggression.

 

Randy orton I agree

[FlameSnoopy]

Reaction and popularity aren't the same thing though. Neither are recognisability and popularity. "A" popularity is superstar pop and lets face it, wrestling has been lacking in superstars for the past decade or so.

[dpoolez]

This is massively overrating. The Rock hasn't seen A* pop in over a decade. Undertaker never even had A pop. Triple H in his peak had B+, nowhere near those levels anymore. When Orton was at his most popular probably had mid-B.

 

I'd argue that The Rock is A* strictly because of his crossover appeal as an action movie superstar. He's a legit box office draw now outside of wrestling and I think that translates over to his wrestling popularity as well. Notice how in TEW whenever somebody leaves to shoot a movie their wrestling popularity instantly goes up. Also when you consider that he's drawn big numbers for WM since coming back and has raised ratings whenever he shows up for Raw I think there's a strong argument for him being an A*.

 

The Undertaker's pop can go either way. If he's not an A then he's high B+ (86-89) at the worst. He's another legitimate draw, has been a strong draw for 20 years and is still one of the main reasons that people tune into WM.

 

Triple H would probably be a strong B if I were making a mod right now but I dont think a low B+ is out of the ordinary for him, especially if guys like Punk and Bryan are B+ as well. He's likely around their level (even if hes slightly below them) in terms of drawing power and he's one of the biggest heels in the company who always gets camera time and is in important angles. I could especially see him being a B+ in the peak of the Authority/Daniel Bryan feud.

 

Orton is a strong B. Anywhere from 80-82 for the most part. Not a megastar but still a very popular worker.

[Peter.1986]

Reaction and popularity aren't the same thing though. Neither are recognisability and popularity. "A" popularity is superstar pop and lets face it, wrestling has been lacking in superstars for the past decade or so.

 

But if you disregard reaction then the rock is still A* people still to this day put the show on just to see him.

 

If someone said Kane came back next week you would get people turning it on to see it, same with the build up to raw 1,000. People watched it to see vader, sid, doink etc then watched the show because people like that would be on it.

 

I mean vaders popularity has increased since he last actively wrestled surely? It happens with all the old stars, the longer they are away their pop rises back towards what they were percieved at in their peak.

 

That's why a lot of angles they are in boost the ratings.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Your not telling me if kane came back in a years time at wrestlemania in the old kane attire to take on undertaker it would be received as a A v C+ worker match?

 

You've got to understand kane and the big show are more popular than nearly all the current roster. I can guarantee you more people know who they are than they do Daniel Bryan, Seth Rollins and Roman reigns

 

Youre absolutly right all of those guys you just named are close to the same level of Kane & Big Show the difference is the latter have poor momentum.

 

None of the guys you named should be anywear near a A.

 

Kane left and came back how many times? Kane coming back as masked Kane recently wasn't that great so I thought people (casuals) would care if it was done again for Mania. And TBH I doubt people outside of wrestling know who Kane is let alone knowing that Taker has a brother.

[FlameSnoopy]

I'd argue that The Rock is A* strictly because of his crossover appeal as an action movie superstar. He's a legit box office draw now outside of wrestling and I think that translates over to his wrestling popularity as well. Notice how in TEW whenever somebody leaves to shoot a movie their wrestling popularity instantly goes up. Also when you consider that he's drawn big numbers for WM since coming back and has raised ratings whenever he shows up for Raw I think there's a strong argument for him being an A*.

 

The Undertaker's pop can go either way. If he's not an A then he's high B+ (86-89) at the worst. He's another legitimate draw, has been a strong draw for 20 years and is still one of the main reasons that people tune into WM.

 

Triple H would probably be a strong B if I were making a mod right now but I dont think a low B+ is out of the ordinary for him, especially if guys like Punk and Bryan are B+ as well. He's likely around their level (even if hes slightly below them) in terms of drawing power and he's one of the biggest heels in the company who always gets camera time and is in important angles. I could especially see him being a B+ in the peak of the Authority/Daniel Bryan feud.

 

Orton is a strong B. Anywhere from 80-82 for the most part. Not a megastar but still a very popular worker.

 

I do understand your arguments.

 

The Rock is probably the only one that could have A* pop, I'd still rate him at "A" though. In my opinion he was more over in wrestling before he left.

 

In my opinion, Undertaker was never the true top dog. He's always been a good draw, but like I said, in no point in history would I rate him at "A". People are always interested in what he is doing and whatnot, but that is in part due to his incredible legacy (especially come WrestleMania, his Mania streak).

 

I'd say 3H would be at low-B so we almost agree on that Abscence lowers popularity though so Punk would be around B. The biggest over-rating is Bryan at B+, just can't ever see that being the case. I'd set him at B- best. There's a reason he's not being top dog.

 

I always found Orton to be one of those guys that seemed capped in popularity. A "B" in popularity for his peak would be accurate in my opinion. He's one of the few guys like Jericho who no matter what they seem to do, never seems to lose much pop. So a B- or B would be a fair rating for him.

[FlameSnoopy]

Abscence doesn't improve popularity Peter.1986, it lowers it. Anyway, I've pretty much said all I have to say on this topic. Great discussion and great points everybody. Discussing TEW stats always brings up a lively discussion!

[AfRoMaN36]

I can see that this topic is very subjective and everyone has their own opinions on what popularity actually means.

 

 

I'd say 3H would be at low-B so we almost agree on that Abscence lowers popularity though so Punk would be around B. The biggest over-rating is Bryan at B+, just can't ever see that being the case. I'd set him at B- best. There's a reason he's not being top dog.

 

I completely disagree here. If Punk were to return at the next RAW, he'd tear the roof off the place. He'd most certainly increase ratings, ticket sales, Network buys etc. He's at least an A and should remain that way.

 

 

It depends on how the other workers on the roster are rated, he can push at upper mid card at C if nothing was overrated. a C would actually be fine as it translate into Recognizable when you use the filters in TEW which is really a stretch for him TBH. I personally would give him a C- which translates between Regional Star & Recognizable. His momentum would be at a nice level since he's always in good matches and angles.

.

 

I would rate Dolph as more than just recognizable. It could just be that I'm accustomed to my game, where my uppermidcarders are all in the B's and my main eventers are either B+'s or A's, but the way I see it is that if anyone in my uppermidcard were to leave, they should be able to main event in TNA. Dolph at C (at least in my game) couldn't do that. But in reality, TNA would lick their chops in order to have him.

[Peter.1986]

Abscence doesn't improve popularity Peter.1986, it lowers it. Anyway, I've pretty much said all I have to say on this topic. Great discussion and great points everybody. Discussing TEW stats always brings up a lively discussion!

 

I would totally disagree with that, people that don't watch wrestling anymore want to see them and people that watch it like to see them, they have a raise in pop, which would then go down again quickly the more they were used.

 

Like I said those examples.

 

Also how can you explain xpac? When he was last wrestling he was that poorly received they even created a whole new saying (x-pac heat) wind forward a few years and the crown are absolutely loving seeing him again.

 

Every wrestler that comes back after a long time out is relieved a lot better than they were previously.

[Bigpapa42]

Reaction and popularity aren't the same thing though. Neither are recognisability and popularity. "A" popularity is superstar pop and lets face it, wrestling has been lacking in superstars for the past decade or so.

 

From an interview with Adam Ryland:

 

CPB: From Iruleall "What does popularity exactly mean? Is it based on how much wrestling fans know that wrestler or is it how many people know him/her? Comparing it to a WWE where wwe ignores its fan how would they be ran when the most popular guys are not pushed as main guys yet guys who fans are not really into get pushed hard."

 

Adam: It's the reaction that worker can get from wrestling fans.

 

http://http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=528308&page=6

[FlameSnoopy]

I'm just rating these by the game mechanics, nothing else. If you track popularity progress of a wrestler who has been inactive for long enough, you'll see it drops.

[FlameSnoopy]

From an interview with Adam Ryland

 

Yes, overall reaction (=how much the fans care). Not one-time reaction (=pop).

[Self]

I completely disagree here. If Punk were to return at the next RAW, he'd tear the roof off the place. He'd most certainly increase ratings, ticket sales, Network buys etc. He's at least an A and should remain that way.

 

I agree that he would tear the roof off the place. Yet I'd give him a B. That, plus his star quality and skills in-ring and on the microphone, would no doubt be an awesome segment on any show.

 

There may be an "absence makes the heart grow fonder" mechanic missing from TEW.

[Peter.1986]

Youre absolutly right all of those guys you just named are close to the same level of Kane & Big Show the difference is the latter have poor momentum.

 

None of the guys you named should be anywear near a A.

 

Kane left and came back how many times? Kane coming back as masked Kane recently wasn't that great so I thought people (casuals) would care if it was done again for Mania. And TBH I doubt people outside of wrestling know who Kane is let alone knowing that Taker has a brother.

 

 

No Kane never came back as the original Kane, he was still current, not the old Kane. (If he did recently then they didn't do it right because I never heard of it)

 

I can guarantee you a lot more people know who Kane is and the big show.

 

When you talk away from wrestling are you talking casual fans? Or old fans who no longer watch the show? Don't forget Kane's debut (as Kane) was like 10 year, his popularity was through the roof until at least 2001. How many people watched it then that no longer watch it? That's a lot of people and some of these would watch the show to see it.

 

Kane and the big show were main eventers in the WWE most popular time. They were at the same level of not more popular than mankind. The big show won the main title in wcw and wwf.

[Peter.1986]

Yes, overall reaction (=how much the fans care). Not one-time reaction (=pop).

 

Yeah that's true, but like I said there a kind of nostalgia pop that's missing, the way older workers are received, the longer they are away, the more people think of them at their peak. Momentum doesn't cover this, nor does pop.

 

In tew terms there would be absolutely no point in bringing back old wrestlers. What would Kevin Nash, hogan and Scott hall be rated after their stint in tna? It certainly Wouldn't be what they received as in their next Wwe appearance. Same with new age outlaws.

[Bigpapa42]

Yes, overall reaction (=how much the fans care). Not one-time reaction (=pop).

 

So how does that correlate to Daniel Bryan being a B- at best when the reaction he consistently gets from fans is the best in the company?

[SirMichaelJordan]

I can see that this topic is very subjective and everyone has their own opinions on what popularity actually means.

 

 

 

 

I completely disagree here. If Punk were to return at the next RAW, he'd tear the roof off the place. He'd most certainly increase ratings, ticket sales, Network buys etc. He's at least an A and should remain that way.

 

 

 

 

I would rate Dolph as more than just recognizable. It could just be that I'm accustomed to my game, where my uppermidcarders are all in the B's and my main eventers are either B+'s or A's, but the way I see it is that if anyone in my uppermidcard were to leave, they should be able to main event in TNA. Dolph at C (at least in my game) couldn't do that. But in reality, TNA would lick their chops in order to have him.

 

Yea, in my game if Dolph cant mainevent in TNA a C or C- than they are really overrated.

 

Also note there are two type of wrestling fans Casual & Hardcore with hardcore alsways being around. A conpany with 0 popularity will still draw a crowd and the numbers will change depending on the area and its setup.

[FlameSnoopy]

So how does that correlate to Daniel Bryan being a B- at best when the reaction he consistently gets from fans is the best in the company?

 

Like I said earlier, I don't watch wrestling and haven't watched in ages. I just wanted to weigh in on the topic on the basis that I've been modding for the series for 7 years. I've barely even seen the guy wrestle in WWE, but can't see him being on par in popularity with the likes of HHH and Punk. To me, Bryan just isn't of the same calibre. But like I said, I don't watch the product so to what he has developed to now is hard for me to say.

[Peter.1986]

Like I said earlier, I don't watch wrestling and haven't watched in ages. I just wanted to weigh in on the topic on the basis that I've been modding for the series for 7 years. I've barely even seen the guy wrestle in WWE, but can't see him being on par in popularity with the likes of HHH and Punk. To me, Bryan just isn't of the same calibre. But like I said, I don't watch the product so to what he has developed to now is hard for me to say.

 

I don't think you can really put it into tew terms to be honest, because Bryan has been pretty much an A* in momentum (as far as the fans are concerned) but not an A* as far as his matches and push is concerned.

 

I see your whole point in him been a B- and A* momentum. But I think if he is B- that means everyone else on the (active) roster is below this, apart from john cena.

 

Which I can also understand because of you compare Bryan now to previous times a B- is about right.

[Bigpapa42]

Like I said earlier, I don't watch wrestling and haven't watched in ages. I just wanted to weigh in on the topic on the basis that I've been modding for the series for 7 years. I've barely even seen the guy wrestle in WWE, but can't see him being on par in popularity with the likes of HHH and Punk. To me, Bryan just isn't of the same calibre. But like I said, I don't watch the product so to what he has developed to now is hard for me to say.

 

Okay, fair enough. Was just curious on your logic there.

 

I think we've reached a point where wrestling has been altered to the point where a game mechanic isn't really going to be able to accurately recreate certain situations.

[SirMichaelJordan]

I don't think you can really put it into tew terms to be honest, because Bryan has been pretty much an A* in momentum (as far as the fans are concerned) but not an A* as far as his matches and push is concerned.

 

I see your whole point in him been a B- and A* momentum. But I think if he is B- that means everyone else on the (active) roster is below this, apart from john cena.

 

Which I can also understand because of you compare Bryan now to previous times a B- is about right.

 

He's been booked well for WWE's product. Hardcore WWE fans (or maybe just IWC) just don't like the current product.