Popularity and Momentum Confusion

[TeemuFoundation]

We were discussing this in the TEW thread, but I didn't want it to go any more offtopic than it already was.

 

I'd like to get some feedback from people regarding popularity and momentum in TEW.

 

The way I've understood this so far is that popularity is a wrestler's ability to draw money, and momemtum is company-specific "overness" - as in crowd reactions.

 

It works well to a degree, but there are cases like a Dolph Ziggler, who, if I were creating a mod, I'd give low popularity to, yet he got really big pops on a weekly basis at one point. Recently the pops have died down, but there was a long stretch where he lost every match he was ever in, yet the crowd continued to support him.

 

Ziggler's popularity - if we look at it as money-drawing ability - would be near the bottom, since no one has ever, or will ever, purchase a PPV because Dolph Ziggler's name is on it.

 

Here comes the dilemma, though, that I have. I don't want to come off as whiney, since the TEW is my favourite game franchise, and next to pokémon the only game I even play, and with pokémon it's mostly rom hacking that I do.

 

In a company like WWE, a wrestler like Ziggler would have low popularity, since he doesn't draw any money, but momentum is determined at least to a degree by the segment ratings. In a pop > performance company, Ziggler would bomb in the segment ratings, and his momentum would go nowhere.

 

Also, outside of John Cena, The Rock and Brock Lesnar, there aren't a lot of names in the WWE that I'd give popularity to, since no one is moving the needle there. Even Daniel Bryan, who got amazing pops every single week, failed to move the needle. His retirement speech, which was advertised all night, actually lost viewers, as amazing as that is. Sure, we can all take liberties with mods and give these guys more popularity, but the reality is that the WWE wrestlers are not very over.

 

I like playing 90s games since I think the popularity system in TEW does a great job at simulating overness in a historical scenario. I think times were just simpler then. If you were over, you were over. At least that's what it seemed like.

 

Nowadays, maybe the fanbase is just split into so many different divisions that it's extremely hard to determine who is over and who isn't, since guys like Punk can get a standing ovation for their entrance music, but lose the TV audience. This actually happened with Punk. This is also why I dislike the common argument that "the WWE should push this guy and that guy since they are getting mega pops", because clearly that is not the way it works anymore. But that's neither here nor there.

 

Of course, wrestling itself is not over, because the wrestlers today are so mch worse than the guys from the golden era, like Lawler, Jake Roberts, Savage, Hogan, etc. At least in North America.

 

My point in all of this is the following: Daniel Bryan, to the RAW crowd audience, clearly had A* popularity, so if you put him in a segment where he is rated on popularity, like the time he climbed on top of the cage to do the YES chant, he would score A*. I can't rate it any lower, since the crowd could not possibly have been any louder.

 

However, Daniel Bryan can't have A* popularity because that would put him in the league of The Rock, which he can't be. A* means that he would transcend wrestling, bring in new fans, dominate the TV ratings, draw mega buys on PPV, etc.

 

And then, somewhere, momentum comes into play. I guess if we had angles rated on momentum, it could solve some of the dilemma, but not all of it.

 

It's possible that I'm just missing something here, so feel free to drop in yout two cents.

 

And this isn't me complaining about TEW. This just interests me a lot.

[Genadi]

A worker who has A grade popularity in a company with A popularity, A momentum, with (and most importantly) an industry that's booming is very different to a worker who has A grade popularity in a company with B popularity, with C momentum in an industry that's pretty average.

[TeemuFoundation]

It's the wrestlers being draws that vitalize the industry. The industry was in the toilet before the nWo and Austin vitalized it by becoming big money draws.

[Self]

To me, Popularity is how many people in the potential wrestling watching world (somewhere between 'wrestling fans' and 'everyone in the world') know the guy and see him as a star. There's a degree of abstraction to it. Sure, The Rock is a million times more popular than Dolph Ziggler, but we don't have millions to play with. So on an abstract 0.0-100.0 scale, that needs to cover every level of worker, if Rock is 95, Dolph might be a 60.

 

I often look at Popularity in terms of 'If this guy moved to another company, where would he instantly slot in?'. So if Dolph went to TNA, how would he slot into their Main Event scene, as his popularity comes with him.

 

Momentum doesn't come with them if they left, so I count it more as an abstraction of booking quality. Win streaks. Storylines. Recent fortunes.

 

Personally, Dolph is an example of aving good popularity (above most WWE midcarders) but low-ish Momentum. He also has a fairly good gimmick, and very good wrestling skills. Let's not forget those impact crowd response too, and seeing Dolph wrestle gets a different reaction to hearing him talk.

 

All of the above is opinion and assumptions.

[Genadi]

It's the wrestlers being draws that vitalize the industry.

 

That's debatable. A lot of factors went into that boom, star power was important but not everything.

 

The industry was in the toilet before the nWo and Austin vitalized it by becoming big money draws.

 

WCW and WWF at the time were splitting a viewership of around 12 million back and forth domestically. Now RAW itself struggles to reach 4 million. In an industry that's a third of what it was there's only so much star power can do.

[TeemuFoundation]

Where are you getting 12 million from? I'm talking 1995.

[Genadi]

Where are you getting 12 million from? I'm talking 1995.

 

Your two examples were nWo and Austin nWo debuted mid '96, Austin cut the 3:16 promo around the same time.

 

Edit - What does you talking about 1995 make a difference? My comment was in reply to you saying

It's the wrestlers being draws that vitalize the industry. The industry was in the toilet before the nWo and Austin vitalized it by becoming big money draws.

 

WCW's and subsequently WWF's product change were a huge factor, Live TV and TV programming times were a huge factor. Storylines and booking were a huge factor... quality of presentation was a huge factor. The list goes on. Star power was also a huge factor but it alone wasn't the game changer. Hogan's debut in WCW did little to change the ratings, his star power alone did very little.

[combolock]

I feel out of place being that I am American and it's 4:00 AM here.

 

I like Popularity a whole lot more than momentum. When I think of momentum, I think of the sad case of Damien Sandow. One of the most popular characters the WWE had, he challenged Cena for the Title, Cena will only one good arm, and he lost after he threw the whole kitchen sink at Cena. Sandow's momentum fell of the cliff, but his popularity stayed, as evident by his chants with the Damien Mizdow angles.

[Genadi]

I feel out of place being that I am American and it's 4:00 AM here.

 

Never feel out of place here, it is a forum for a text based pro wrestling booking sim.... We are all here because of real families rejected us

 

 

Yes that was a TMNT movie reference, for all you old school brothers.

[TeemuFoundation]

You misunderstood a bit. I was talking the time prior to nWo and Austin, in 1995. In 1995, RAW and Nitro were drawing around the same numbers, mid-to-high 2s, same as RAW is drawing today.

 

My point was that the wrestling industry being in the toilet is not an excuse for the low ratings, since the industry was in the toilet in 1995, as well.

 

It took superstars to bring in the casual audience, which is the audience that brings in the big money.

 

This is offtopic, though, since this is about TEW.

[combolock]

Did Christian Faith bring in the viewers, or did SWF bring in the viewers?

[Genadi]

I thought this was your point...

 

It's the wrestlers being draws that vitalize the industry. The industry was in the toilet before the nWo and Austin vitalized it by becoming big money draws.

 

I replied to that

 

 

 

My point was that the wrestling industry being in the toilet is not an excuse for the low ratings, since the industry was in the toilet in 1995, as well.

 

Not the only excuse but a factor, just as it was a factor 3 years later when the industry had recovered. In TEW with some of the new features this will be replicated perfectly as a big steroid scandal etc will take some time to recover from. My point again is there are several factors at play, all of which it seems TEW now covers well.

 

 

It took superstars to bring in the casual audience, which is the audience that brings in the big money.

 

It took a lot of factors to bring the casual audience, but they're called casual for a reason. I disagree strongly that the casual audience brings the big money, I heard Russo say the exact same thing a few months ago on a podcast and just shook my head.

 

This is offtopic, though, since this is about TEW.

 

I've been talking in TEW terms this whole time

[Genadi]

Did Christian Faith bring in the viewers, or did SWF bring in the viewers?

 

Egg had to come first.... You can't just go "Chicken" and have a chicken

[Devilb0y]

I think I agree with Genadi on this one. Popularity of a wrestler indicates how big of a draw they are, but you can only draw as many people as are interested in the industry as a whole. So a mid-90s Shawn Michaels would probably have an A-A* popularity as the most over guy in the company, but that's relative to the popularity of the WWF at the time. A few years later Austin would also be an A*, but his drawing potential would be much higher because the business as a whole was doing much better.

 

With that said, the debate about whether stars make the business popular or vice versa seems moot to the actual confusion here, which is what popularity, momentum and recent fortunes represent. To my mind popularity is how big of a draw you are, momentum is how much the fans believe in you and recent fortunes is kind of a sub-set of momentum. A good example of the difference is Brock Lesnar before he beat Undertaker at WM30. He was undoubtedly a draw, but coming off the back of several high-profile losses (to Cena and Triple H, albeit mitigated slightly by a win over Punk) his momentum was poor, which manifested itself in fans believing that the result of Undertaker vs Lesnar was a foregone conclusion (i.e. Undertaker was winning). After that result, Brock's momentum - which went through the roof - increased far more than his popularity, because a wrestler's ability to draw doesn't tend to run in massive peaks and troughs (unlike momentum).

 

To speak to your example, Daniel Bryan probably isn't a great case study because he's an absolutely unique instance of a wrestler maintaining ludicrously high momentum despite being booked to lose it, simply because the fans refused to abandon him. In terms of popularity he was definitely an A-A* because, as I've said before, the popularity scale isn't fixed; it's relative to the success of the industry. So Bryan's A* in 2014 is not the same as The Rock's A* in 2000.

[combolock]

 

To speak to your example, Daniel Bryan probably isn't a great case study because he's an absolutely unique instance of a wrestler maintaining ludicrously high momentum despite being booked to lose it, simply because the fans refused to abandon him. In terms of popularity he was definitely an A-A* because, as I've said before, the popularity scale isn't fixed; it's relative to the success of the industry. So Bryan's A* in 2014 is not the same as The Rock's A* in 2000.

 

This is a really good point. What WWE was doing to Bryan is the equivalent of a main eventer in TEW2013 with 99 momentum losing to a midcard, as in jobbing out. I remember him becoming a Bray Wyatt lackey for a week or two even...it was insane booking.

[soxfan93]

All I've ever wanted was for Adam to pop in and say "this is how I would set Ziggler within the mechanics of the game" and briefly explain why so that we would all have a better understanding of the subject.

[kingjames]

Edited for being an interesting perhaps, but most definitely off-topic, comment by comment writer.

[Devilb0y]

All I've ever wanted was for Adam to pop in and say "this is how I would set Ziggler within the mechanics of the game" and briefly explain why so that we would all have a better understanding of the subject.

 

Isn't Ziggler just a fairly popular midcarder though?

 

At one point in his career, when he had the MITB briefcase and a World Title shot seemed a real possibility, he was getting big pops due to good momentum, but I don't think he's any more popular now than any other midcarder who has been 'made' so to speak. The fact that he's stabilised at a decent popularity level (probably in the 60s somewhere) is represented in the game by the hard benchmarks that wrestler's have for their pop.

[TeemuFoundation]

I don't think I entirely agree with this statement. I do know ratings are in the toilet. I know we're not getting 60-minute Broadways on a nightly basis.

 

But I also know the internet has completely changed how people take in wrestling. Ratings are consistently low, but I wonder how many potential viewers, particularly in the 18-35 age bracket that fueled the previous boom, don't even bother subscribing to cable at this point and simply go to YouTube or download torrents or read recaps instead of tuning in. You can argue, from the old wrestling standard of "drawing money" that those things don't count, that in the pre-internet era it'd be like someone picking up a copy of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter but never buying a ticket or tuning into Championship Wrestling from Georgia.

 

But I'd still call that interest. ESPN is doing stuff on pro wrestling. Ten years ago, that would have been unthinkable, but it's a nice full circle for a network that was the home of the AWA TV show. The Cheap Heat podcast downloads aren't gangbusters, but they're really solid. There's more wrestling fans out there than there are people who are tuning into Raw, I think. I believe we're actually on an upswing in popularity for professional wrestling, and though it may not be on the level of the Attitude Era, I think it might actually wind up being more sustainable in the long-term.

 

As for wrestlers today being so much worse than those in the past, I think there's a bit of nostalgia there. Having gone back to the WWE network to watch some of the JCP-era events, there are several matches per event that are super mediocre or actively bad. Watching the Attitude Era Raws and Monday Nitros, sometimes I can't help but think it was a boom period despite itself because the wrestling isn't very good in a lot of matches. We remember the legends because we only have footage of the legends. We only watch the video packages of the legends. Nobody has cared about the ham-and-eggers and we let them slip out of our minds.

 

This is a personal opinion, but I really do think the overall competency in wrestling has improved. I do think the psychology of working a crowd is lower overall than the territory days, but the athletic skills of the individuals participating in professional wrestling has increased. The average match intensity is way up in my opinion. The current largest company in the world is booked in a way that, in my opinion again, actively prevents workers from connecting with the audience in the organic ways that the stars of yesteryear might have, but that has more to do with having a control freak of an owner who only releases the reigns when he is afraid he might get beaten, the only think he hates worse than not having total control.

 

And not since the days of the territories to do I feel like there are more high-quality - and more importantly, financially viable - independent options in the US. Plus Lucha Underground is happening in North America, which is a raved-about, non-WWE product that's currently niche, but it's on TV, and its tailed-for-TV presentation has to be considered revolutionary. Whether that's good or bad (especially bad if you're Jim Cornette), it means people with money took a risk not only on pro wrestling, but on trying something new in pro wrestling.

 

Sorry to go on an spiel here, but having lived through the Attitude Era and enjoyed it, and having watched pro wrestling as far back as the last dying days of the territories, wrestling in North America has some amazing things going for it right now, and I can't feel like we're in the early stages of an upswing for the business. That WWE seems to regularly shoot itself in the foot, to take one step forward and one step back, does not change that, in my opinion. That it is happening despite WWE's missteps actually strengthens my belief there's more interest in pro wrestling than there's been for over a decade.

I'll be the first one to admit that there's a lot of subjective stuff involved, so I don't want to get into this too much. Especially since I've been talking about this until my head was blue so much lately.

 

But you said that wrestlers are better these days, despite the fact that psychology has suffered. You praise athletic ability, and you are absolutely right, wrestlers in North America these days are talented gymnasts. Guys like that have a place on a wrestling card. That alone, however, has nothing with being a good worker. A worker is a wrestler who works the crowd, makes them want to pay to see him. He does this by using psychology. Psychology - as long as you are able to move around - is the single most important ingredient in a wrestling superstar. This is something that a lot of modern fans seem to forget nowadays: the sport is a work. There is no such thing really as "wrestling skill" - the only job a wrestler has is draw money. It's a con job, the whole sport is a work.

 

I don't mean to undermine your opinions on wrestling, or say that you don't have the right to like guys like Cesaro, nothing wrong with that, but there's nothing that objectively makes him a "good wrestler". I know that the internet, during the last decade plus, has built this consesus of what makes a "good wrestler", but that has nothing to do with reality. Obviously, guys like Cesaro have their spot, they're great to have to make the stars look good by jobbing to them, selling to them, etc. but being a "good wrestler" doesn't mean that the big audience owes anyone anything.

 

You even said it yourself: the wrestling during the attitude era was nothing compared to what we have now. However, how were the ratings? 6, 7s and even 8s sometimes. The matches on RAW went 4 minutes.

 

Nowadays, we get AJ Styles vs. Kevin Owens for 20 minutes, and ratings are at 1995 levels. Torrenting, etc. no doubt is a factor, but TV shows like the Walking Dead and Breaking Bad draw ratings like no one has ever seen before. Why don't torrents have an effect on them? Why is just wrestling that is being downloaded illegally? UFC is making monster business, as well, and I'm sure those shows are available to download ust like wrestling.

 

The WWE, in my eyes, is making the mistake of catering to the internet, hardcore fanbase, giving us these 20 minute, heatless matches on TV because they are "good wrestling", despite the fact, and this is what it comes down to, that wrestling has always been niche. Wrestling, in and of itself, will not draw, especially in a day and age when people have the UFC that offers actual, real fighting. There's no way pretend fighting will ever be as cool.

 

This why I feel that the WWE needs to start concentrating on deep storylines, captivating mic work, interesting gimmicks.. just personalities, in general. Look at Sami Zayn: he was absolutely over in NXT, because the crowd consists of "us", the hardcore fans that are into wrestling. I think the WWE kinda believed in the hype and just inserted Zayn into the main roster, thinking "well, he's a great wrestler, they'll love him", and he's coming out to crickets.

 

Something as simple as showing teenage pictures of Zayn and Owens, telling the story of how they worked the independents together, Zayn made it NXT, Owens stabbed him in the back, they are former best friends, and all that, would have been really good. A story. Characters. But instead, Zayn's just there, having matches, and no one cares one iota. Because why should they. Wrestling does not draw.

 

I really hope I'm not coming off as a jerk, someone telling you what to like and not to like, I don't mean to. I probably like the same stuff that you do. I'm just looking at this from an from-the-outside-looking-in perspective. If a person doesn't like wrestling, there's no way wrestling will ever draw him or her in. That's why it was the angles, promos and characters and storylines of the attitude era that drew those huge ratings. The actual wrestling was secondary.

[BrokenCycle]

There's a lot of really weird opinions in this thread now.

 

But no one is actually clarifying what momentum actually is in this game, which you don't quite get. "Momentum" in wrestling is a snowball effect- not necessarily crowd reaction. Look at Brock's rise in 2002. He debuted. Then he beat some lower card guys. Then he beat this guy, then this guy, then this guy. It kept building. Then he won King of the Ring by beating some uppercard guys. Then he beat Hogan, and beat The Rock for the title. Then Undertaker, and Royal Rumble. Finally he beat Angle at Mania. Mega star at this point.

 

I think this snowball effect is perfectly simulated in TEW in an ultra simple "game" type way, where high momentum effects the possible gain of popularity.

[TeemuFoundation]

There's a lot of really weird opinions in this thread now.

 

But no one is actually clarifying what momentum actually is in this game, which you don't quite get. "Momentum" in wrestling is a snowball effect- not necessarily crowd reaction. Look at Brock's rise in 2002. He debuted. Then he beat some lower card guys. Then he beat this guy, then this guy, then this guy. It kept building. Then he won King of the Ring by beating some uppercard guys. Then he beat Hogan, and beat The Rock for the title. Then Undertaker, and Royal Rumble. Finally he beat Angle at Mania. Mega star at this point.

 

I think this snowball effect is perfectly simulated in TEW in an ultra simple "game" type way, where high momentum effects the possible gain of popularity.

Thanks for bringing the thread back on track.

[kingjames]

There's a lot of really weird opinions in this thread now.

 

But no one is actually clarifying what momentum actually is in this game, which you don't quite get. "Momentum" in wrestling is a snowball effect- not necessarily crowd reaction. Look at Brock's rise in 2002. He debuted. Then he beat some lower card guys. Then he beat this guy, then this guy, then this guy. It kept building. Then he won King of the Ring by beating some uppercard guys. Then he beat Hogan, and beat The Rock for the title. Then Undertaker, and Royal Rumble. Finally he beat Angle at Mania. Mega star at this point.

 

I think this snowball effect is perfectly simulated in TEW in an ultra simple "game" type way, where high momentum effects the possible gain of popularity.

 

Yes, thanks for going back on track!

 

A hard-coded game can never, no matter how deep and well thought out, perfectly simulate the "real world". Inexplicable things happen, especially in a charisma-driven form of entertainment, that mathematical models would find difficult, if not impossible to replicate. But the Lesnar example is a great example of the most time-tested, effective model of building up momentum for someone. Sometimes someone manages to get over despite poor booking, but how can you hope to model that in any reasonable way?

[CMVanRiper]

I've always seen it as popularity is how over a guy is, while momentum is how strong or believable their character is. Since we're using Ziggler, Ziggler would of had decent popularity but not main event momentum prior to Survivor Series 2014, however after that night when he was the sole survivor and went against 3 opponents it did make him look stronger and he had more momentum. If Dolph was ever going to get a main event push, it should be after a scenario like that. Right now Ziggler would have upper-midcard close to main event popularity and probably like C momentum.

 

Roman Reigns right now would have B or higher momentum because he's been booked strong, but his popularity is high enough to be the face of the company.

[youngnasa]

<p>I still don't understand how can being the #1 or #2 show on cable is considered in the toilet.</p><p> </p><p>

Its a lot of factors that contributes to even a wrestler being popular. The Network, Time Slot, the feel of the current American culture, and all that factors into what type of shows people watch, and attitude era matched that feel of the late 90s.</p><p> </p><p>

You want to know why new day is popular? Because they troll, and trolling is a thing in the new internet age right now. </p><p> </p><p>

Sometimes wrestling being popular has 0 to do with wrestling itself, and more so of the feel of the times we living in and how much the show's stories and characters matches the times.</p>