The Roman Reigns Effect

[SirMichaelJordan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TheZies" data-cite="TheZies" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yeah, it's not really not being "popular." If i built him in TEW, I'd assume his momentum would be super low with a bad gimmick that is also stale. And most of his segments would be "entertainment" which doesn't play to his strengths.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yup, being booked as a menace in the shield got him popular. He has a poor gimmick and his angles dont grade well.</p>

[Poputt]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ColossusPT" data-cite="ColossusPT" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>No. Mark Henry in ECW and Hall of Pain Mark Henry were two of he best characters in WWE at the time</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's what I do.</p>

[Spud1305]

<p>In my opinion, the problem with Reigns (apart from the rumours that Vince came up with the gimmick and doesn't want it to fail) is that he doesn't look like he believes what he's saying during promos. He's also been given terrible lines, "suffering sucotage son!" immediately springs to mind. Leading up to Fast Lane where they were teasing Ambrose turning on Reigns, they should have had Reigns turn on Ambrose and beat him down e.g. put through announce table, or spear through a table. Something that essentially makes Reigns look like a bad ass. Then maybe have him cut very short promos about how the crowd turned on him so now he doesn't care and only cares about himself. Maybe have him take out some people in short bursts so he looks destructive. Agree with the other comments, when he was in the Shield he was kind of the silent muscle and did look good in those short bursts where he'd spear someone or get involved to help with the triple powerbomb.</p><p>

The other issue may be that the WWE have had him in the ring giving promos with other great mic workers. Not long ago he was in the ring with Jericho and as soon as Reigns spoke he looked amateur, probably an extreme example.</p>

[Alucidus]

My big problem with popularity is that I have something I call 'the 70 zone'. Once I get a worker to 70 pop, they'll just sit there forever. The only way to elevate somebody out of the 70 zone is to sacrifice the pop of somebody who is already above 70 pop. It really, really annoyed me in my WWF '96 run.

[drcat123]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Alucidus" data-cite="Alucidus" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>My big problem with popularity is that I have something I call 'the 70 zone'. Once I get a worker to 70 pop, they'll just sit there forever. The only way to elevate somebody out of the 70 zone is to sacrifice the pop of somebody who is already above 70 pop. It really, really annoyed me in my WWF '96 run.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> 70's person needs to win more and do major success angles. I know you are wwe so being performance based is not a option. You would have to fire people who have bad stats. 70 in performance product. You are close to there max rating on matches. Until you improve there stats not pop. WWF 96 is probably much more pop on matches. You can't have your people win then lose then win then lose. What happens is you end up with current wwe. Alot of potential without the backing behind them.</p>

[bigtplaystew]

<p>Were the Bucks capped? Like if you look at their trending popularity, did it just stop in the 50s for several months or is it still creeping it slowly? If I'm worried about someone being capped I give them four straight squash matches each week for a month. If their pop doesn't go up at all even a slight bit then I generally assume they're capped. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>

I wonder if it's style based. I swear wrestlers with the japanese juniors and puro style simply dont get over nearly as fast as they should in my WWE save. I mean I got Shinsuke over but... he's Shinsuke. More often than not when I can't get someone over it's my fault, I just didnt realize it. I'm doing something booking wise - either giving bad notes or not putting them in there with the right people, or assuming a guy is more over than he is and over exposing him, etc - but I'm doing something thats screwing them up.</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

Good point on the styles.

[JackKnifed72]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="bigtplaystew" data-cite="bigtplaystew" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> I wonder if it's style based. I swear wrestlers with the japanese juniors and puro style simply dont get over nearly as fast as they should in my WWE save. I mean I got Shinsuke over but... he's Shinsuke. More often than not when I can't get someone over it's my fault, I just didnt realize it. I'm doing something booking wise - either giving bad notes or not putting them in there with the right people, or assuming a guy is more over than he is and over exposing him, etc - but I'm doing something thats screwing them up.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Maybe someone who knows exactly how it works, or could point out if it's in the in-game help or somewhere here on the boards, can chime in but yes there are penalties based on styles. Japanese Juniors and MMA crossovers (iirc) gain overness slower in entertainment based feds. In a fed with a higher comedy score, comedy gimmicks do better and there is less of a penalty for a wrestler losing to another wrestler who has a comedy based gimmick.</p><p> </p><p> again, I don't remember all the details on how it works if someone can help out.</p>

[drcat123]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="bigtplaystew" data-cite="bigtplaystew" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Were the Bucks capped? Like if you look at their trending popularity, did it just stop in the 50s for several months or is it still creeping it slowly? If I'm worried about someone being capped I give them four straight squash matches each week for a month. If their pop doesn't go up at all even a slight bit then I generally assume they're capped. <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I wonder if it's style based. I swear wrestlers with the japanese juniors and puro style simply dont get over nearly as fast as they should in my WWE save. I mean I got Shinsuke over but... he's Shinsuke. More often than not when I can't get someone over it's my fault, I just didnt realize it. I'm doing something booking wise - either giving bad notes or not putting them in there with the right people, or assuming a guy is more over than he is and over exposing him, etc - but I'm doing something thats screwing them up.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> check there star quality. The higher it is the faster they will go up. There is no cap actually. It is based on stats. If it is zero you better fire the worker or change it. There almost pointless in the world.</p><p> </p><p> source: </p><p> </p><p> <a href="http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80595" rel="external nofollow">http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80595</a></p><p> </p><p> Actually if you google your question for 2010. You be surprised the answers you find out.</p>

[nebradska]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="drcat123" data-cite="drcat123" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>check there star quality. The higher it is the faster they will go up. There is no cap actually. It is based on stats. If it is zero you better fire the worker or change it. There almost pointless in the world.<p> </p><p> source: </p><p> </p><p> <a href="http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80595" rel="external nofollow">http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80595</a></p><p> </p><p> Actually if you google your question for 2010. You be surprised the answers you find out.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> There definitely is an overness cap. It's generated at the beginning of the game (or the generation of a new worker into the game). The calculation is likely quite complicated, but we know that it takes into account SQ and the destiny roll.</p>

[shawn michaels]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels 82" data-cite="shawn michaels 82" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><strong>So if I go to the editor during game and increase someone's pop past the cap, will they be able to get more over, or will they just end up returning to said cap?</strong><p> </p><p> I Had a very frustrating save once. I was running WWE and Kurt Angle was in TNA. Despite this fact i started advertising for the Angle invitational to come soon. After a few vignettes it turned out that the Angle in question was Eric Angle. He had a major push on the making and was getting over, even winning a midcard title. Then...his pop capped at 51....i got him to 51 from 0 and he capped... I was annoyed as hell. <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Still wondering. If anyone knows do tell.</p>

[nebradska]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels 82" data-cite="shawn michaels 82" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Still wondering. If anyone knows do tell.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, you can brute force the cap open that way.</p><p> </p><p> I'm not sure if the new cap becomes whatever you raised their pop to or if it removes the cap entirely (i.e. it becomes 100).</p><p> </p><p> Also you may need to pass a day with the new pop level for the cap break to take effect. Not 100% sure about that.</p>

[Teh_Showtime]

It should also be noted that popularity caps are not region based, so if you hit a wall pushing a guy from another region, but he still has more popularity in another game area, it doesn't mean they have hit their cap.

[drcat123]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="nebradska" data-cite="nebradska" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yeah, you can brute force the cap open that way.<p> </p><p> I'm not sure if the new cap becomes whatever you raised their pop to or if it removes the cap entirely (i.e. it becomes 100).</p><p> </p><p> Also you may need to pass a day with the new pop level for the cap break to take effect. Not 100% sure about that.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> There is no cap. it is the potential on people. You can mass edit everybody before you start the game. I always set my potential to excellent. So <span style="font-size:24px;">Nobody</span> is screwed over. It is a even playing field</p>

[Teh_Showtime]

Even with everyone on excellent potential, caps still exist.

[Derek B]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="drcat123" data-cite="drcat123" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There is no cap. it is the potential on people. You can mass edit everybody before you start the game. I always set my potential to excellent. So <span style="font-size:24px">Nobody</span> is screwed over. It is a even playing field</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> There really is a cap. Potential governs how far skills can go, but those same skills are part of the calculation that goes into deciding how high the cap is set. By setting everyone's potential to excellent (giving Gillberg the same chance of success as Shawn Michaels) you are completely changing the way the game works. Not to mention voiding many of the challenges that are part of the game (and real life) too. I understand that this is your choice and your playstyle, but that is why you often miss what others are saying about the game and are often incorrect when offering advice.</p>

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="nebradska" data-cite="nebradska" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Also you may need to pass a day with the new pop level for the cap break to take effect. Not 100% sure about that.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You don't.</p><p> </p><p> Edit pop to 100. Save. Reduce to original value. Save. Voila! Cap busted.</p>

[Dave_Scott]

<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="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There really is a cap. Potential governs how far skills can go, but those same skills are part of the calculation that goes into deciding how high the cap is set. By setting everyone's potential to excellent (giving Gillberg the same chance of success as Shawn Michaels) you are completely changing the way the game works. Not to mention voiding many of the challenges that are part of the game (and real life) too. I understand that this is your choice and your playstyle, but that is why you often miss what others are saying about the game and are often incorrect when offering advice.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Derek coming in for the kill!!!! <img alt=":eek:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/eek.png.0e09df00fa222c85760b9bc1700b5405.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[soxfan93]

<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="40944" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There really is a cap. Potential governs how far skills can go, but those same skills are part of the calculation that goes into deciding how high the cap is set. By setting everyone's potential to excellent (giving Gillberg the same chance of success as Shawn Michaels) you are completely changing the way the game works. Not to mention voiding many of the challenges that are part of the game (and real life) too. I understand that this is your choice and your playstyle, but that is why you often miss what others are saying about the game and are often incorrect when offering advice.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Thank you for trying to explain this to him. Honestly, I've given up, and put him on my ignore list. Despite what everyone says, there really are lost causes out there.</p>

[drcat123]

There really is a cap. Potential governs how far skills can go, but those same skills are part of the calculation that goes into deciding how high the cap is set. By setting everyone's potential to excellent (giving Gillberg the same chance of success as Shawn Michaels) you are completely changing the way the game works. Not to mention voiding many of the challenges that are part of the game (and real life) too. I understand that this is your choice and your playstyle, but that is why you often miss what others are saying about the game and are often incorrect when offering advice.

 

Thank you derek

 

In a way you proved my point and there point. I play the game for the funniest experience possible. Mods today are lower on people. So if half the people are capped for any reason. It only hurts the fun of the game. If yall want to challenge yourself at every point. You can go right ahead and do it. I can also play the game my way too.

[Derek B]

Thank you derek

 

In a way you proved my point and there point. I play the game for the funniest experience possible. Mods today are lower on people. So if half the people are capped for any reason. It only hurts the fun of the game. If yall want to challenge yourself at every point. You can go right ahead and do it. I can also play the game my way too.

 

It's cool. I have no issues with people playing the game however they want, but any time people mod the game or use the editor to make large scale changes it can (and generally will) alter the way the game plays. In turn this can lead to errors and misconceptions about how the game works, which can lead to helpful advice becoming misleading, incorrect and ultimately harmful.

 

I've seen the effects in the past of advice that has been wrong (even been guilty of starting one myself) and how long those wrong bits of advice can stick around for... with a new TEW coming soon, I don't want people to spread potentially bad advice around. It's good form for all of us to make sure we re offering good advice, so I encourage everyone to make sure they are right about something before posting, and it's harder to be right the more you change the base, as no-one else is using that.

 

But generally speaking, I'm all for discussion. And I'm super looking forward to how busy and fun the entire forum will be when TEW16 gets released, even in beta week.

[nebradska]

In a way you proved my point

 

No he didn't. Even someone with 'Excellent' potential has an overness cap. It's just much more likely to be higher than anyone with any other potential rating.

[drcat123]

No he didn't. Even someone with 'Excellent' potential has an overness cap. It's just much more likely to be higher than anyone with any other potential rating.

 

derek ended that debate. As derek said you can play the game anyway you want too. I have never started a mod straight up. There is about 3 hrs of editing to do. I like retired wrestlers with stats to be able to have a in ring role if I want them to do it. I set the majority, retirement, relevant rate to the highest age per type. It makes younger people alot funnier to play. Since I know anybody under 30 will improve faster. I know nobody will leave the business until there 65 which is nice. I actually want that age up in 2016. I always hate having dead slots in my game. It could be by age, dead, pointless owners with no stats, etc. Adam makes the game for everybody to enjoy it. I like to know if I want to push gilberg to the top I have a better chance in my format. As suppose to his mod settings. As I said I don't like pushing people past a pop level (I release them to get there payday from other fed). I like to work people up not just book matches I know will do good. So my challenge is seeing people I worked for 2 years get 90 in a match. Instead of starting off getting a 90 orton vs cena. So everybody just sit back and enjoy the game

[soxfan93]

Right, but that's why Derek said that you aren't actually helping people when you give them advice. Nobody else plays that way. Everybody else likes the real challenge of finding the guys that can be stars or excellent workers, rather than just knowing that everybody will be.

[shawn michaels]

derek ended that debate. As derek said you can play the game anyway you want too. I have never started a mod straight up. There is about 3 hrs of editing to do. I like retired wrestlers with stats to be able to have a in ring role if I want them to do it. I set the majority, retirement, relevant rate to the highest age per type. It makes younger people alot funnier to play. Since I know anybody under 30 will improve faster. I know nobody will leave the business until there 65 which is nice. I actually want that age up in 2016. I always hate having dead slots in my game. It could be by age, dead, pointless owners with no stats, etc. Adam makes the game for everybody to enjoy it. I like to know if I want to push gilberg to the top I have a better chance in my format. As suppose to his mod settings. As I said I don't like pushing people past a pop level (I release them to get there payday from other fed). I like to work people up not just book matches I know will do good. So my challenge is seeing people I worked for 2 years get 90 in a match. Instead of starting off getting a 90 orton vs cena. So everybody just sit back and enjoy the game

 

So...let me if i understand: You like to work people, yet you raise all of the potential options and retirement age options? Interesting line of thought...

 

I hope Gilberg has a nice title run. I would love to see one of your saves and do a watcher's game.