Help Understanding Popularity and Momentum

[AfRoMaN36]

This is exactly what I was referring to with my comment about TEW not being able to recreate some of the current real world dynamics.

 

The Bryan situation is kinda similar to the Punk situation in that they are getting serious crowd reactions yet not really being given an opportunity to "be the guy" and actually draw. Based on Ryland's explanation, the crowd reaction should be enough to garner them higher popularity, yet arguements can be made that the popularity should be attenuated. But even high momentum doesnt' really account for the reaction.

 

I don't think that having him at a lower popularity in-game really works. In reality, the returning Bryan could have been put into a feud with Lesanar and it would have been a legit main event feud for WM. It didn't matter if the return was done with a ton of momentum or the storyline was hot, the fans would have accepted it. But in game, at B- popularity, he would be insufficiently popular to headline an event as big as WM.

 

Its also not really possible to create a dynamic like that of John Cena, who is undeniably popular and considered a draw, yet he splits the fans in an absolute and consistent manner.

 

I agree with everything you say, but on the last bit I bolded, it definitely is possible. He has an extremely stale gimmick. Dirt Sheet notes would mention how crowds are vocal about this, as they are for Cena.

[FlameSnoopy]

This is exactly what I was referring to with my comment about TEW not being able to recreate some of the current real world dynamics.

 

I think the problem here is that TEW doesn't recognize a real "draw". HBK in his prime had sizzling charisma (IMO, on par with The Rock) and exceptional star aura, but as a booker in real life I'd much rather have someone like Hogan (a real draw) main event. As it is in the game now, you're a draw if you have the popularity, as simple as that. Star aura is only how much you feel like a star/champion, but I'd argue that HBK was far from the best draw yet had "A" level star aura. So there is a definite void there. HBK had good all-around skills, elite psychology, great mic skills, superb star aura and elite charisma, but in the end he was quite a mediocre draw.

[SirMichaelJordan]

A popular guy will get dumped on if his in ring work is poor in a company that is big on performance so its not cut dry as crowd reaction = popular. I don't translate Adam's responds as being that. WWE has a vocal crowd casual fans are just as important as hardcore vocal fans so a vocal hardcore fans based reacting to a guy doesn't outweigh a casual fan not caring about the same guy. They are both wrestling fans.

 

a B- can headline WM assuming WWE ins't rated like a A. Plus Brock would be rated as one of the most popular guys in the game not named Rock so that ME would be fine.

[effigies]

Derek has a great breakdown on this in the mods forum. But, an important thing to remember is TEW rates everything in objective terms, not relative. that is, the ceiling in any stat is the same, even if no one active, or ever, has hit that ceiling.

[Peter.1986]

I think the problem here is that TEW doesn't recognize a real "draw". HBK in his prime had sizzling charisma (IMO, on par with The Rock) and exceptional star aura, but as a booker in real life I'd much rather have someone like Hogan (a real draw) main event. As it is in the game now, you're a draw if you have the popularity, as simple as that. Star aura is only how much you feel like a star/champion, but I'd argue that HBK was far from the best draw yet had "A" level star aura. So there is a definite void there. HBK had good all-around skills, elite psychology, great mic skills, superb star aura and elite charisma, but in the end he was quite a mediocre draw.

 

That should come down to star quality then i reckon.

 

One thing I think is missing. Is power or menace as part of the match. The big workers in real life have more believability about them. As an shawn michaels was much better in every aspect than hulk in the ring, apart from the fact hulk was more powerful and looked more like a believable winner

 

Menace makes it easy to build pop but then big workers still don't put on as good matches as the better performers.

 

Maybe companies rated more on pop need to rate the match grade more on pop, menace and power

[Croquemitaine]

Daniel Bryan's current popularity is probably as high as anyone's in the company other than Lesnar and Cena. Definitely main-event level, whatever one's personal opinion on what that means in current WWE.

 

Bryan's momentum is definitely through the roof, however. Forget about how the company appears to be treating him and look at his booking in TEW terms. He gets massive reaction every time he appears. That means he's appearing in A/A* rated angles. He's winning or at least looking strong in all of his matches, most of which also get massively postive crowd reactions, meaning they're grading at B+/A/A* as well. This is how you build momentum in TEW.

 

The fact that WWE is wasting his high-grade matches by not putting him in the main event slot more often is why RAW as a show is getting shitty grades (again in TEW terms) despite the quality of workers involved. Look at the most recent RAW. You had an A* angle with Lesnar and a B+/A rated match between Bryan and Ziggler. That should have been enough to put together a highly-rated show that would grow the company's pop. But instead, they put that match in the undercard and main-evented with a six-man match featuring four guys with decent pop but NO momentum (plus stale gimmicks and time-decline on two of them). Even with Rollins in the mix (who probably got a penalty for fatigue), the match was no better than a C+, massively deflating the audience and bringing an initially hot show's grade down to merely average.

 

-----

 

Maybe companies rated more on pop need to rate the match grade more on pop, menace and power

I agree. I'm honestly not sure how Power is applied in match ratings but I've always suspected it's undervalued. Currently, segment participants can get a bonus for high Charisma and high Star Quality. I think similar bonuses should be available for Menace and Sex Appeal*.

 

* Yes, for male workers too.

[KingofOldSchool]

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.

 

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[KingofOldSchool]

The wrestling industry, and thus most real world mods still see the WWE as the standard bearer. Whether they are as popular as they were in the past (Which in game terms could be blames by a bad industry rating), they are till the A company. Other promotions are rated relative to the E's popularity.

 

And yeah, the Miz headlined a Mania, but nobody hijacked the Rumble two years in a row because of him, or cancelled their Network subscription in protest. Bryan's Mania moment also isn't regarded as the worst in the modern era. The crowds are unanimously behind him, smarks, kids and most casual viewers. This level of unity behind a wrestler has not been seen since Austin. Rock even heard boos during his heyday. Don't get me wrong, Bryan is no Austin or Rock, but he is without a doubt a "huge star." People pay to see him, and are angry when he loses.

 

Nope.

 

He's a star, but not a "huge" star.

 

Punk is a bigger star than Bryan and I wouldn't classify him as a huge star either.

 

Icons should be those who are easily recognizable to fans and non fans alike. Guys like Hogan, Rock, Savage, Austin, Piper, Warrior, Andre, and Flair could be considered Icons.

 

Huge stars should be considered those who some non fans can recognize and were/are hugely popular among wrestling fans. Guys like Taker, Sting, Bret, HBK, HHH, and Foley fit that mold. These are usually guys who were major stars when wrestling was really hot, but they aren't big enough mainstream wise to be considered Icons.

 

The simple "stars" are those who have been hugely popular during their careers, but aren't really "name" guys to non fans. Like, if you showed someone who didn't watch wrestling a picture of them, they would probably not recognize them. A lot of wrestlers can be placed here, guys like Punk, Orton, Jericho, Bryan, Edge, Nash, Hall, Kane, etc.

 

I don't like the "Draw" placement as that is iffy, even guys like Sting, HBK, etc weren't draws, but they were still stars. Now the Well Knowns are guys that wrestling fans know and were popular during their day, but they weren't in the upper echelon and that can include guys like Ziggler, Sheamus, Christian, Tito Santana, Owen Hart, etc.

 

Basically, some of you are overvaluing a lot of guys.

[FlameSnoopy]

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Great mature argument.

 

I also love how you then went ahead and set everyone in the same category I rated them in

[Peter.1986]

Daniel Bryan's current popularity is probably as high as anyone's in the company other than Lesnar and Cena. Definitely main-event level, whatever one's personal opinion on what that means in current WWE.

 

Bryan's momentum is definitely through the roof, however. Forget about how the company appears to be treating him and look at his booking in TEW terms. He gets massive reaction every time he appears. That means he's appearing in A/A* rated angles. He's winning or at least looking strong in all of his matches, most of which also get massively postive crowd reactions, meaning they're grading at B+/A/A* as well. This is how you build momentum in TEW.

 

The fact that WWE is wasting his high-grade matches by not putting him in the main event slot more often is why RAW as a show is getting shitty grades (again in TEW terms) despite the quality of workers involved. Look at the most recent RAW. You had an A* angle with Lesnar and a B+/A rated match between Bryan and Ziggler. That should have been enough to put together a highly-rated show that would grow the company's pop. But instead, they put that match in the undercard and main-evented with a six-man match featuring four guys with decent pop but NO momentum (plus stale gimmicks and time-decline on two of them). Even with Rollins in the mix (who probably got a penalty for fatigue), the match was no better than a C+, massively deflating the audience and bringing an initially hot show's grade down to merely average.

 

-----

 

 

I agree. I'm honestly not sure how Power is applied in match ratings but I've always suspected it's undervalued. Currently, segment participants can get a bonus for high Charisma and high Star Quality. I think similar bonuses should be available for Menace and Sex Appeal*.

 

* Yes, for male workers too.

 

I don't think Bryan is B+ or A, yes is he is third behind cena and Brock, but he is behind them quite a bit on a popularity level, momentum definitely A*

 

 

You can get menace angles, they are the best way to build these workers up (Andre the giant, Yokozuna) etc the big guys who don't have great entertainment skills. But in the matches they don't get any kind of bonus for this

[Self]

Daniel Bryan gets great grades, but let's not forget he's an incredibly talented guy. His matches aren't great just because he is popular. He has the skills to elevate them, and WWE's product puts more focus on Performance than ever (it's still Pop over Perf, but not as much as it used to be). This being said, I think Bryan has finally hit that point where he has the popularity to auto-push him to a main event position, which I don't think he had before, even as recently as last year's WrestleMania.

 

It's interesting seeing some of you interpretations of Momentum, which differ from my own. I think of Bryan as having a C to B, simply because I think there's room for the player to push him better, and would prefer some number in the game for the player to look at and want to build on.

[TeemuFoundation]

"WrestleMania 31 became the highest-grossing live event in WWE history, grossing $12.6 million and breaking the previous record of $12.3 million that was held by WrestleMania 29 at MetLife Stadium in 2013."

 

Brock Lesnar is an A*.

 

And The Rock vs. Triple H feud in 2000 is the highest drawing rivalry in wrestling history. Triple H was at least an A at his peak. Yeah, he was going against The Rock, who was white hot, but Triple H and The Rock drew more than The Rock and Steve Austin.

[Peter.1986]

"WrestleMania 31 became the highest-grossing live event in WWE history, grossing $12.6 million and breaking the previous record of $12.3 million that was held by WrestleMania 29 at MetLife Stadium in 2013."

 

Brock Lesnar is an A*.

 

And The Rock vs. Triple H feud in 2000 is the highest drawing rivalry in wrestling history. Triple H was at least an A at his peak. Yeah, he was going against The Rock, who was white hot, but Triple H and The Rock drew more than The Rock and Steve Austin.

 

Plus for that to be 15 years ago when there were many less ways in which to watch it or buy it. That's saying something.

 

I remember the days when over here in England these so called ppv's were just on sky sports, so I didn't actually what PPV meant lol.

[FlameSnoopy]

"WrestleMania 31 became the highest-grossing live event in WWE history, grossing $12.6 million and breaking the previous record of $12.3 million that was held by WrestleMania 29 at MetLife Stadium in 2013."

 

Considering that WrestleMania is noted for breaking records all the time (WM29, WM28, WM25, WM24, WM23 etc.) this is hardly noteworthy and definitely doesn't mean that every time a record is set the main eventers should be set at A* popularity.

[Peter.1986]

Considering that WrestleMania is noted for breaking records all the time (WM29, WM28, WM25, WM24, WM23 etc.) this is hardly noteworthy and definitely doesn't mean that every time a record is set the main eventers should be set at A* popularity.

 

Either way he would have took a big loss after losing to a C+ Seth Rollins

[TeemuFoundation]

Considering that WrestleMania is noted for breaking records all the time (WM29, WM28, WM25, WM24, WM23 etc.) this is hardly noteworthy and definitely doesn't mean that every time a record is set the main eventers should be set at A* popularity.

Brock Lesnar is also the biggest draw in UFC history.

[FlameSnoopy]

It still doesn't convince me that Brock Lesnar is in the same league as Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin & The Rock. Arguably there wouldn't even be a WrestleMania without Hogan. Arguably WWF wouldn't have won the Monday Night War without Austin. The Rock certainly wouldn't be a massive movie star today without his A* popularity run in wrestling. I just can't see any of those things becoming a reality, if the man in question was substituted for Brock Lesnar.

[nebradska]

Using the description I've seen elsewhere, A* is a household name, even among people who are not wrestling fans. Hogan is the prime example. Rock has been there and is constantly pretty close now because of his movie career. Austin was there during the height of WWE's popularity, but I'm not sure he is now. Lesnar is not and has never been a household name. A- seems a reasonable cap for him, probably only held back by middling to average charisma.

[Peter.1986]

It still doesn't convince me that Brock Lesnar is in the same league as Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin & The Rock. Arguably there wouldn't even be a WrestleMania without Hogan. Arguably WWF wouldn't have won the Monday Night War without Austin. The Rock certainly wouldn't be a massive movie star today without his A* popularity run in wrestling. I just can't see any of those things becoming a reality, if the man in question was substituted for Brock Lesnar.

 

Brock lesnar has to be an A* at some point, just like Mike Tyson would be an A* in the early 90's not because of his wrestling pop.

 

Hulk rock and stone cold were an A* through wrestling though.

[SirMichaelJordan]

I don't think Bryan is B+ or A, yes is he is third behind cena and Brock, but he is behind them quite a bit on a popularity level, momentum definitely A*

 

 

You can get menace angles, they are the best way to build these workers up (Andre the giant, Yokozuna) etc the big guys who don't have great entertainment skills. But in the matches they don't get any kind of bonus for this

 

I think Menacing workers get a bonus for being booked to dominate.

 

It might not be affected by the actual menace rating but I think the gimmick gets the bonus for being booked right.

 

As for Brock, I definitely think he's one of the current popular wrestler now and I would probably put him at Cena's level simply because WWE is not as popular it was 10 years ago to put him on a Rock, Austin level but he's def a top active worker in popularity especially recently.

[Peter.1986]

I think Menacing workers get a bonus for being booked to dominate.

 

It might not be affected by the actual menace rating but I think the gimmick gets the bonus for being booked right.

 

Yeah it's just the gimmick, menace gets a big rating in (menace) angles too

 

But I mean in the actual match, big workers get no bonuses towards the match grade apart from star quality and charisma. Where as I think menace and power are something that does make a match better.

[Self]

Yeah it's just the gimmick, menace gets a big rating in (menace) angles too

 

But I mean in the actual match, big workers get no bonuses towards the match grade apart from star quality and charisma. Where as I think menace and power are something that does make a match better.

 

I actually love the way Menace works now. Workers with high Menace are really easy to get over and amass Popularity... but eventually they have to wrestle, and rely on their other skills. If they aren't good in the ring, it shows. If you've booked them correctly, and amassed enough Popularity and Momentum from angles and squash matches and storylines, they should still do alright... but it's not guaranteed. Look at Ryback. Look at Big Show. Got over quick, but their matches can fall flat.

 

To me, it creates a fun and interesting trade-off. Do you push the big menacing guy you can get over in 3 months for a solid main event? Or do you push the smaller technical wizard who might take a year to get over... but will give you an amazing main event? Perhaps patience is a virtue, or perhaps that technical wizard won't give you the quality angles to build a hot storyline, whereas the menacing giant will build a match the crowd are dying to see.

 

Talking Brock Lesnar... Hulkamania was a phenomenon. Austin 3:16 shirts were everywhere. I'm not seeing that level of popularity for Brock Lesnar. There's no shame in a B+, especially with an A* gimmick, A* momentum, great in-ring skills, an amazing manager he has awesome chemistry with...

[Peter.1986]

I actually love the way Menace works now. Workers with high Menace are really easy to get over and amass Popularity... but eventually they have to wrestle, and rely on their other skills. If they aren't good in the ring, it shows. If you've booked them correctly, and amassed enough Popularity and Momentum from angles and squash matches and storylines, they should still do alright... but it's not guaranteed. Look at Ryback. Look at Big Show. Got over quick, but their matches can fall flat.

 

To me, it creates a fun and interesting trade-off. Do you push the big menacing guy you can get over in 3 months for a solid main event? Or do you push the smaller technical wizard who might take a year to get over... but will give you an amazing main event? Perhaps patience is a virtue, or perhaps that technical wizard won't give you the quality angles to build a hot storyline, whereas the menacing giant will build a match the crowd are dying to see.

 

Talking Brock Lesnar... Hulkamania was a phenomenon. Austin 3:16 shirts were everywhere. I'm not seeing that level of popularity for Brock Lesnar. There's no shame in a B+, especially with an A* gimmick, A* momentum, great in-ring skills, an amazing manager he has awesome chemistry with...

 

I do agree with you on the menace thing.

 

But some poor big workers just have that believability about them. Look at Yokozuna for example, he wasn't the best of wrestlers, but the size of him made you think how can someone beat him, and every time he did a move it looked like it would finish them off. That's either menace or power, and there should be a little bonus for that in my opinion.

 

In a way I think we're in an era now where people pay more attention to wrestling skills, people are more bothered about who's a better technical wrestler.

 

But that to me is the product.

[KingofOldSchool]

Great mature argument.

 

I also love how you then went ahead and set everyone in the same category I rated them in

 

You used the actual grades. I was laughing at how far off base you were on those.

 

Saying Rock isn't an A+ in popularity ruins anything you say. The biggest cross promotional star in wrestling history, who is still active, is above and beyond an A+.

[FlameSnoopy]

I actually love the way Menace works now. Workers with high Menace are really easy to get over and amass Popularity... but eventually they have to wrestle, and rely on their other skills. If they aren't good in the ring, it shows. If you've booked them correctly, and amassed enough Popularity and Momentum from angles and squash matches and storylines, they should still do alright... but it's not guaranteed. Look at Ryback. Look at Big Show. Got over quick, but their matches can fall flat.

 

To me, it creates a fun and interesting trade-off. Do you push the big menacing guy you can get over in 3 months for a solid main event? Or do you push the smaller technical wizard who might take a year to get over... but will give you an amazing main event? Perhaps patience is a virtue, or perhaps that technical wizard won't give you the quality angles to build a hot storyline, whereas the menacing giant will build a match the crowd are dying to see.

 

Fully agree. Was it in TEW2010 where you could get all the menacing guys super-over way too easily? Anyway, it's better now and quite realistic in fact.

 

You used the actual grades. I was laughing at how far off base you were on those.

 

Saying Rock isn't an A+ in popularity ruins anything you say. The biggest cross promotional star in wrestling history, who is still active, is above and beyond an A+.

 

You can't give 100 to a guy whose last match was a loss in the main event of the biggest wrestling event of the year. Book that match in TEW and you'll see a drop in pop. Again, I rated them based on game mechanics, not in a vacuum. Also the difference between a 94 and a 100 is minimalistic at best.

 

EDIT: Not that I would've rated him 100 during any part of his "return" run. Maybe it was just me expecting too much but it was definitely anti-climactic for me. It was visible in his ring and mic work that he had ring rust. Even the Mania where he was hosting was a bit lame, can still remember the overly long opening segment where I bet I wasn't the only one thinking "get it over with already".