Putting the challenge back into the game (and taking out broadcasters)

[Nephrinn]

Hey all, I've been playing WMMA religiously since the first game came out and the one complaint I've always had about the game was that it was too easy to make money, which made the game too easy in general. In WMMA 1-3, a regional sized company was more of a challenge because you could not rely on broadcasters making you money, but instead had to rely on putting on good shows, managing those shows efficiently, picking and choosing who you signed and being very frugal with contracts. This in turn put more importance on other aspects of the game, like scouting, roster size, and marketing.

 

But once you hit national, you were essentially given training wheels and your hand was held the rest of the way to the top because you could make so much money from broadcasters. I would sign up all my competition's best fighters, sign up every future champion, sign golden contracts without a thought, and throw together events haphazardly. It didn't matter; I'd be rolling in dough like Scrooge Mcduck before long anyway.

 

I don't think it has to or should be that way. If you put on good shows and manage your roster well, you can make enough through gate profits alone to cover expenses and turn a profit, without the need for broadcasters at all.

 

Give it a try and tell me what you think!

[Blackman]

<p>One can always try to maximize the show %'s. Broadcasters don't really help with that. It's true that the game is way too 'easy' in terms of company management, but I held on to the thought that that's the way it's supposed to be if Adam doesn't want to alienate casual MMA fans looking for a fighting sim. And I agree.</p><p> </p><p>

Nobody stops you from releasing a mod pack for broadcasters. I guess you can always delete them altogether, but won't that backrupt almost any company (if it's purely on ticket sales)? Never tried it.</p>

[Nephrinn]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Blackman" data-cite="Blackman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40061" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Nobody stops you from releasing a mod pack for broadcasters. I guess you can always delete them altogether, but won't that backrupt almost any company (if it's purely on ticket sales)? Never tried it.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Deleting them altogether is the only way I've found to make it challenging (leave Sportstube for reality tv shows). And I think the only way to avoid AI bankruptcies without broadcasters is to enable fantasy banking. I don't think it's smart enough to alter marketing levels, so it constantly runs events at default levels, which are always too expensive and thus always creating huge deficits. This is why regional companies usually go bankrupt even with broadcasters.</p>

[EuchreJack]

Deleting them altogether is the only way I've found to make it challenging (leave Sportstube for reality tv shows). And I think the only way to avoid AI bankruptcies without broadcasters is to enable fantasy banking. I don't think it's smart enough to alter marketing levels, so it constantly runs events at default levels, which are always too expensive and thus always creating huge deficits. This is why regional companies usually go bankrupt even with broadcasters.

 

Actually, you can keep the AI promotions alive by creating broadcasters who only have enough slots to accommodate the AI promotions.

 

In that way, they get the broadcasting revenue and you don't. And if they happen to either lose a broadcaster or go bankrupt, you have the satisfaction of having actually earned that broadcaster by outlasting one of your competitors that had it easier than you.

[Makhai]

It's stupid easy to make money once you get to good PPV and TV. It always has been and it always should be. It's why Bellator and UFC are successful and others are not. The game should always be balanced around losing money without TV/PPV and making money with it.

 

The problem the game has is, it's WAY too easy to get those things. Cable companies IRL have zero interest in non-UFC related content because the UFC brand is so strong and instantly recognizable to advertisers and consumers. If Viacom didn't own Bellator right now, they wouldn't even exist at all. This gets exponentially worse the bigger and bigger the top dog gets. Because you'd have to hit a higher-and-higher threshold to even get a foot in the door.

 

And that's the first thing I would nerf. You can't even ask a TV company unless you're within 1 tier of the best company in the game world at that moment. IE UFC is Low-Int, you gotta hit High Nat. PPV should be achievable for all, but cost you more in production than it generates in revenue unless you have a MASSIVE draw(Sukarno, Gina Carano, Kimbo Slice, Sakuraba). Or be within striking distance to the best company in terms of prestige.

 

You should have to be credible against your competition, even more than against the generic size grades and it should be almost impossible to take those companies talents until you are credible enough to do so.

[DarkAWhole12]

I totally agree that the game is too easy, and the problem with it is as a higher-up company you can hire whoever you want no matter what because of the amount of money you can offer fighters, and the other companies won't match the offers. If you're running UFC that is realistic...somewhat. Currently in real life Bellator once in a while will outbid UFC on some fighters that are lower-tier and fighters that UFC doesn't want to pay a super amount of money for, and they're people they can afford to lose. These fighters are gains for Bellator and sometimes they will outbid UFC for them. Something like that couldn't happen in the game.

 

What I'm trying now is to get rid of the broadcasters and enable fantasy booking. And when I feel like a company has done enough poor shows in a row I'll manually shut them down.

[Blackman]

Just lower the exposure of the default broadcasters and it's fine. I've done this with O+ and so far it's working out in my watcher games.

[DarkAWhole12]

Just lower the exposure of the default broadcasters and it's fine. I've done this with O+ and so far it's working out in my watcher games.

 

What do you lower them to?

[Donners]

It's true that the game is way too 'easy' in terms of company management, but I held on to the thought that that's the way it's supposed to be if Adam doesn't want to alienate casual MMA fans looking for a fighting sim. And I agree.

 

I can understand that, and I was just whining about how Football Manager is so much harder now than it was a decade ago.

 

However, the options are already there to cater for the casual player. There's fantasy banking, fantasy match making, the ability to turn off firing and, most of all, an in-game editor which lets you add money and popularity as you wish.

 

Retaining those options while adding in more of a challenge would broaden the appeal of the game.

 

You should have to be credible against your competition, even more than against the generic size grades and it should be almost impossible to take those companies talents until you are credible enough to do so.

 

WMMA 3 had that with competitive credibility, whereby you had to have a certain number of world ranked fighters to avoid penalties. That made building, retaining and poaching fighters particularly important, as well as providing incentive to add new divisions. It would be great to see that back.

 

As it is now, the companies essentially operate in a vacuum - seven of the eight companies in my world are HLN or higher (five international).

[Blackman]

What do you lower them to?

 

insignificant, at least for HLR companies

[redgiant]

Do regional fighters only make around two thousand dollars per fight in companies in real life? I don't know much about the real MMA world, but I feel like fighters are underpaid in the game, making it easy for promotions to get rich.

[GUINNC]

Do regional fighters only make around two thousand dollars per fight in companies in real life? I don't know much about the real MMA world, but I feel like fighters are underpaid in the game, making it easy for promotions to get rich.

 

I promote a regional show in Tennessee. It's usually based off their experience level and draw. So, a 2-0 fighter who's less than 20 regional rating in the game would probably make 750 to show, 750 to win. As their rating and/or draw goes up, more money they make. The game gets the money right early on, but the bigger names should be making bank (McGregor, Rousey, Sukarno, Foster).

[Blackman]

Sukarno makes more bank than anybody I know.

[GUINNC]

Just look at the payouts from this weekend's show. McGregor took home $500,000 flat (No win bonus). Pretty solid amount of money. I try in my game to make large payouts to big name/big drawing fighters since the game now keeps track of each fighter's income.

[Gtact420]

Just look at the payouts from this weekend's show. McGregor took home $500,000 flat (No win bonus). Pretty solid amount of money. I try in my game to make large payouts to big name/big drawing fighters since the game now keeps track of each fighter's income.

 

That's going to be interesting. The problem I think is that it will not change anything for the generated players as the increase in salary due to the change in popularity is low.

[Blackman]

A feature for the next game could be that fighters will demand more wages. A trick one could use is to just sign for as many fights as possible so you can keep your money cows on low wages for a long time. Not a nice thing to do, but you can get away with it. But it'd be pointless to add it now if there's no focus on the managing aspects. And honestly, that's not really a priority (for me at least).

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Donners" data-cite="Donners" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40061" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I can understand that, and I was just whining about how Football Manager is so much harder now than it was a decade ago.<p> </p><p> However, the options are already there to cater for the casual player. There's fantasy banking, fantasy match making, the ability to turn off firing and, most of all, an in-game editor which lets you add money and popularity as you wish.</p><p> </p><p> Retaining those options while adding in more of a challenge would broaden the appeal of the game.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I completely disagree. What you're advocating is making the game so hard that casual players have to use the functional equivalent of cheats, just to be able to play. Where in gaming is that acceptable? That basically invalidates any accomplishment they might have and excludes them from participating with the community at large.</p><p> </p><p> I'm drawing a blank here because I'm having trouble thinking of any game, in any genre (outside of e-sports), that has seen its appeal broadened by <em><strong>adding</strong></em> difficulty. At least not in the last 15 years or so (and especially not in the last 10). The current trend says the exact opposite, which is why most games are so easy now. But every trend has at least one exception (and/or outlier) so I'm sure there's something.</p><p> </p><p> And I think the 'Candyland' model works well in games like this. Making it more difficult at the top end would make it less attractive as a goal. For example, think of the corporate ladder. You grind and toil climbing it so when you get to the CEO position, you can take it easy. You don't have nearly as many low level concerns because you have people to handle those. Finance? That's the CFO's job. Day to day operations? COO. The big picture is your primary concern, which makes your job a lot easier (and, oddly, more lucrative) than when you were the Senior Manager of Waiting to be Laid Off. Do you honestly think the CEO of the company you work for has a more difficult job on a day to day basis than you do? Most people don't (and in corporate America, they're probably right). When you get to National and above, you don't worry about what each show is making at the gate. You worry about maintaining and expanding your dominance. The competitive landscape might be in your favor if you're the only National company in your area. It could also be against you if you're the third company to reach National in your area.</p>

[Blackman]

<p>No, what he's advocating is to broaden the scope of the game. You're not making the game more difficult by changing the mechanics. You're adding another difficulty level, which is an entirely difficult thing. So I don't see the problem.</p><p> </p><p>

Unless you are too proud to stoop to the level of 'casual', in which case you should take an effort to learn the game. I know I'm not, and I have no problem with extra difficulty. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[Donners]

I completely disagree. What you're advocating is making the game so hard that casual players have to use the functional equivalent of cheats, just to be able to play. Where in gaming is that acceptable? That basically invalidates any accomplishment they might have and excludes them from participating with the community at large.

 

There are essentially two broad audiences out there - those who are interested in the fights themselves, and those more interested in the management side.

 

The latter, after the initial stages of a lowly company, becomes the equivalent of a mobile clicker. You can sit there mindlessly repeating the same task and never fail. I don't know how anyone could get a sense of accomplishment from that.

 

It also serves to unbalance the game world, creating a few invulnerable mega-companies and leaving any new ones to be instantly crushed.

 

That shallowness does not do justice to the scope of the game world, nor its various mechanics, and detracts from its appeal to a portion of the audience - a significant thing for a niche game. It's a really good game - Adam's best in my view, and certainly the best MMA sim out there - but it could be so much more.

 

A starting point would be simply the restoration of a feature from WMMA 3, competitive credibility. I don't recall that causing much angst among players when it was in, and I'm sure it wouldn't cause a great disruption if it was restored.

 

It doesn't need to suddenly become an insurmountable challenge - as I said, I'm disappointed that Football Manager has gone that way - but there's a happy medium between a tough challenge and no challenge whatsoever.

 

Make it an opt-in if necessary - let players choose whether they want to spend more time on management or just focus on the fights. There's no shame in that, just different interests and preferences. Most of the community interactions revolve around the cards and fighters, not company development - people who focus on the former will in no way be excluded. It'll just give all of us a chance to enjoy the aspects of the game which appeal to us.

[Blackman]

Don't talk to him about competitive credibility. That addition would be Remi's downfall. No doubt he's booking 'CanCorp' or something.

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Donners" data-cite="Donners" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40061" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There are essentially two broad audiences out there - those who are interested in the fights themselves, and those more interested in the management side. <p> </p><p> The latter, after the initial stages of a lowly company, becomes the equivalent of a mobile clicker. You can sit there mindlessly repeating the same task and never fail. I don't know how anyone could get a sense of accomplishment from that. </p><p> </p><p> It also serves to unbalance the game world, creating a few invulnerable mega-companies and leaving any new ones to be instantly crushed.</p><p> </p><p> That shallowness does not do justice to the scope of the game world, nor its various mechanics, and detracts from its appeal to a portion of the audience - a significant thing for a niche game. It's a really good game - Adam's best in my view, and certainly the best MMA sim out there - but it could be so much more.</p><p> </p><p> A starting point would be simply the restoration of a feature from WMMA 3, competitive credibility. I don't recall that causing much angst among players when it was in, and I'm sure it wouldn't cause a great disruption if it was restored. </p><p> </p><p> It doesn't need to suddenly become an insurmountable challenge - as I said, I'm disappointed that Football Manager has gone that way - but there's a happy medium between a tough challenge and no challenge whatsoever. </p><p> </p><p> Make it an opt-in if necessary - let players choose whether they want to spend more time on management or just focus on the fights. There's no shame in that, just different interests and preferences. Most of the community interactions revolve around the cards and fighters, not company development - people who focus on the former will in no way be excluded. It'll just give all of us a chance to enjoy the aspects of the game which appeal to us.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't disagree with the desire for more difficulty. I disagree with the assertion that adding difficulty will broaden the audience. I don't have a single problem with adding difficulty (to ANY game). If I like the game, I will overcome that difficulty because I'm an OG (Original Gamer, since the TRS-80) and that's what OGs do. <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> I would completely agree that a sort of 'arcade' or 'quick play' mode where you just put on the fights you want to see would be awesome. I'm more into the minutiae of managing the entire business. Heck, if you want to add difficulty to that end, give fighters (real) personalities. Some fighters have an inflated image of themselves and thus would be likely to want top dollar while in the midst of a 6-fight losing streak, tanking their brand value (and thus, their ability to draw).</p><p> </p><p> I'd be the first to admit that I'm biased. I've worked on several games in the past few years and had the opportunity to "talk shop" with producers and designers so I have a good idea of what the current climate is. Aside from indie darlings (considered outliers by the powers that be), everyone's looking to lower the barrier to entry for games. Relative difficulty is one of those barriers. Cost, as you might expect, is another. Many developers are looking at games like Candy Crush as examples of what the perfect balance is (and that's insane to me). Free to acquire and free to play, until you hit a "pay fence" (it's not a pay wall because you can continue playing, it just won't be as fully featured as it was before). They're looking to draw people in the hundreds of millions so they look to games that are already doing that.</p><p> </p><p> Anyway, I was just trying to point out what was painfully shown to me: the so-called 'casual' player outnumbers the 'hardcores' by up to 28 to 1 for some games (probably 10-to-1 here). So building additional difficulty into the base game may not be the best course of action if expanding the audience is a goal. MMA's visibility is expanding quickly but there's still only one company doing that (and no, Bellator doesn't count. Bellator is to UFC what TNA is to WWE, seriously. I worked on UFC when Spike had it and I've worked on Bellator now and the difference is night & day). Just like you have thousands of people who can't play TEW without a real world mod (because fantasy booking is the only thing they're interested in), it's a similar situation here. Now that I think about it, that arcade mode would fit perfectly. Maybe add a fantasy draft mode too.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Blackman" data-cite="Blackman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40061" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Don't talk to him about competitive credibility. That addition would be Remi's downfall. No doubt he's booking 'CanCorp' or something. <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> No. I'm following the formula and the path laid by combat sports since time immemorial (mainly boxing though). You build up a small number of fighters by feeding them people they should beat and then you cash in by pitting them against each other. Competitive credibility just forces you to manage your "non-stars" (aka cans) better to keep them strong. It's a juggling act and a bit of a game within the game. It's especially "fun" when it blows up in my face (see: Katy-Jayne Paulson d. Pamela O'Neill by SD), forcing me to redo everything for that weight class. But that also creates opportunities (like Marian Sanchez going 11-0 and getting to the #8 WW BW ranking by only fighting light-hitting wrestling types and tapping them all. All with a jaw so weak, calling it 'glass' would be slander to glass jaws). I had her pegged as a can when I signed her because of her glaring deficiency. Then I forgot I had her until Pam got beat and I had to go through the entire (146 member) bantamweight division to come up with a new plan.</p>

[Blackman]

I think it just comes down to the fact that it doesnt matter much. The target is to get 100% events, but failing that wont really hurt you... at all. So there is not much incentive to play.

 

I just like it to be centered on the fighters. Every matchup should be a challenge for them to overcome, and not just a means to get them over quickly. Ufc doesnt agree, i know, but its my way damnit :-D

[Remianen]

I just like it to be centered on the fighters. Every matchup should be a challenge for them to overcome, and not just a means to get them over quickly. Ufc doesnt agree, i know, but its my way damnit :-D

 

I see your point and I agree with it, kinda. I'm dealing with deciding which tactic to use in my current game.

 

I have Lilia Kovalenko that I'm trying to build up for a showdown with a resurgent 40 year old Kochiyo Chikamatsu (who recently took the Flyweight title off a previously dominant Catherine Woo on her second shot at it). But I also need something for Daniela Sadorra to do since she fell out of favor (and out of the top 10) after losing to Jessica Herbig (who's now next in line for a title shot). If I want to make Lilia (who moved into the top 10 after Daniela's fall) face and possibly overcome a challenge, I should make her take her 45% chin up against one of the most lethal strikers in the division. But, if I want to just build her so she's a credible title contender, I can put her against someone who fits her skillset better. Like the declining Sandy Oliver (#9) and Katherine Williams (#7), both of whom have chins that are even weaker than Lilia's with poor stand-up. Daniela is at #15 now so, ranking wise, there's no reason for Lilia to take a fight with her since there's little to gain and everything to lose. But as a competitor, she might want to prove herself against the very best (and Daniela is still notorious for what she did to April Watson a decade ago even though April got revenge by tapping her in 2004). I may just fall back on Lilia's career goals (Money) and in that case, she would want the fight that would draw best. For a fight being held in Brazil, Kovalenko v Sadorra might be the best bet. Especially since Oliver's going to lose to Leslie Myers and Kat Williams is likely to get knocked out by Natasha Mellow (who I stole from Q-Cage and built up). But then, if that happens, Lilia would be best served by waiting and watching herself rise, possibly into the top 5 (or just outside of it). Beating Daniela wouldn't do that and losing to her would possibly drop her out of the top 15 and skyrocket Daniela in her place. Also, because of how I structure contracts, fighting for (25% bonus), winning (100% bonus), and defending (50% bonus) a title is extremely lucrative. So the money would probably be in standing pat and letting the path to the title open before you.

 

EDIT: AAAAAAAAND just like I thought. Sadorra d. Kovalenko by split decision. Daniela controlled and won the first three rounds and then cruised from there on, escaping from every takedown and trying to keep the fight standing. Now I have to rebuild Lilia into a Hall of Fame contender (now that I know the criteria).

[Azul]

What I did to fix this problem is that I assigned every company their own broadcaster with a insignificant rating in areas that the company starts with popularity. If the company gains enough money over a period of time I add another area to the broadcaster with a insignificant rating. Every AI company no matter what size chooses the highest marketing level for each event. Why this is I have no idea. No matter how much money they have they will do this, even if it is making them go bankrupt. I manually add players to the game to give these companies I realistic marketing level whenever they create an event, and then I have the player leave the game. These are the best solutions I can come up with for this problem.

[Blackman]

<p>Almost a year later, I still have the same opinion. I could be wrong, but I don't think people are interested in the management side of the game. If there's still an 'arcade' mode, perhaps adding management (with decisions that actually matter) would be one of the main things the game can improve on. </p><p> </p><p>

I know that most games I just want to forward the game asap so I can get to the fights I booked. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> More and more I just lean towards letting the AI do everything and just sit back and watch the gameworld evolve (whereas in real life it takes so damn long in-between fights I just lose interest).</p>