Small Questions Thread & "Living FAQ"

[Mr. Bungle]

Hello today i just learned how to make wresler pics but i have really question i search through all internet youtube etc.I wanna know how to delete or remove wresler background and add my background , because i watched youtube video Tew videos in there always with no background please help me!! i need this for my Mod.This the photo i wanna do Fleisch RWC background https://live.staticflickr.com/7832/32416711527_de09564670_b.jpg

 

I think it all depends on your graphical editor. I personally use Paint.Net, with the magic wand you should be able to select and delete the background, you have chosen a somewhat difficult picture to work with though. (it'll take you some time and work to get this done properly unless anybody else knows a better and faster way)

[Mr. Bungle]

Does anybody know if your production settings (high quality video, music, etc.) have any effect on the show grade, viewers and attendance?

[FINisher]

Does anybody know if your production settings (high quality video, music, etc.) have any effect on the show grade, viewers and attendance?

 

 

Hello today i just learned how to make wresler pics but i have really question i search through all internet youtube etc.I wanna know how to delete or remove wresler background and add my background , because i watched youtube video Tew videos in there always with no background please help me!! i need this for my Mod.This the photo i wanna do Fleisch RWC background https://live.staticflickr.com/7832/32416711527_de09564670_b.jpg

 

http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=533744

[landxx]

 

 

 

http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=533744

Thank you but I already learned to do it

[iruleall15]

Can someone explain to me why I have guys dropping in psych like this?

 

[Juhaninski]

Can't see the picture, but I'd guess that they reached their skill cap and whenever they go above it, they gradually go back down to the cap.

[iruleall15]

Can't see the picture, but I'd guess that they reached their skill cap and whenever they go above it, they gradually go back down to the cap.

 

To go from 92 to 84 in the matter of 12 months?

[Gungner]

I have this wrestler (Rocky Romero), who's injured but available for angles. However, he's not available to select under angles where I pick the participants... How can that be? I'm NJPW, there's no one he prioritises higher, nor do I have brands.

[DevilofNG]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Gungner" data-cite="Gungner" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I have this wrestler (Rocky Romero), who's injured but available for angles. However, he's not available to select under angles where I pick the participants... How can that be? I'm NJPW, there's no one he prioritises higher, nor do I have brands.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> IS he actually available for angles though? I had a similar situation where I thought a guy was available for angles and was pulling my hair out trying to figure out why. Finally looked a bit closer and saw his name didn't have the star beside it, meaning he wasn't available. Check that. If not, I'm not sure. Perhaps toggle the box to see all workers?</p>

[franticloser]

If you assign him a push he should show up, if not toggle the view all wrestlers.

[Gungner]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="franticloser" data-cite="franticloser" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If you assign him a push he should show up, if not toggle the view all wrestlers.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Thank you! I knew I had forgotten something... his push <img alt=":rolleyes:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/rolleyes.png.4b097f4fbbe99ce5bcd5efbc1b773ed6.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[CharlieRock]

<p>Generic Venues</p><p> </p><p>

Is it better with respect to popularity gains to sell out a 2,000 seat venue or sell more tickets in a generic venue?</p>

[pantaloons]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CharlieRock" data-cite="CharlieRock" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Is it better with respect to popularity gains to sell out a 2,000 seat venue or sell more tickets in a generic venue?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Sell more tickets, as far as I know, a sellout doesn't get you anything.</p>

[joshspicer]

<p>So is putting on shows in the same region multiple times the best way to increase importance? Because I've seen people in mods and diaries become National (WCW Lives for reference) before 2001 even ends. </p><p> </p><p>

Meanwhile, I have a higher rating in Australia, Japan, and Central Europe than I do in a few regions of the continental US and it's starting to annoy the piss out of me.</p>

[Teh_Showtime]

<p>Importance is just a percentage of your popularity in the region, it goes up with popularity (so yes).</p><p> </p><p>

Maybe those regions have better tv/PPV deals allowing for bigger gains per show</p>

[franticloser]

Also the importance could have dropped in some of your areas where it didn't in theirs.

[Diablox]

Is there any in-game penalty for switching off the face / heel divide mid game? I’m hoping the only difference is you don’t get the face vs face penalties etc. anymore & that’s all but if there’s some bigger hidden effect I’d rather not risk it.

[Teh_Showtime]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Diablox" data-cite="Diablox" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Is there any in-game penalty for switching off the face / heel divide mid game? I’m hoping the only difference is you don’t get the face vs face penalties etc. anymore & that’s all but if there’s some bigger hidden effect I’d rather not risk it.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> No penalties at all but you also can no longer get bonuses for a good/successful turn</p>

[Diablox]

Thanks, that makes sense & I hadn’t actually thought about having to lose the effects of turns, etc. so I’ll have a think about whether it’s worth losing that before I change anything.

[edenborn]

<p>Couple o' questions about Menace and how to use it "fairly."</p><p> </p><p>

Let's say you've got a super menacing monster on your roster and you want him to destroy jobbers, wreck the backstage area, etc.</p><p> </p><p>

If he wrecks the backstage area, that's a solo angle rated on Menace, and it's likely to get an outstanding score. Possibly one of the best scores of the night, raising the overall show grade. Is this... "fair?" Put another way: Does anyone watch a wrestling show and then gush about how a menacing wrestler destroyed a bunch of stuff backstage, terrified the caterers, etc.?</p><p> </p><p>

In a similar vein, let's say your monster destroys a match between two jobbers before it can start. You rate the monster on Menace, clearly. Do you rate the jobbers on Overness, Selling or Not Rated? </p><p> </p><p>

With Overness or Selling, the relative unpopularity of the jobbers is likely to tank the angle's score. Maybe that's not "fair" insofar as that low score will do nothing for the monster, who should be getting over with those kinds of attacks. On the other hand, with Not Rated, the angle grade will improve dramatically and the monster will definitely get over, but again, is it "fair" that one of the best scores of the night will just be a monster crushing jobbers?</p><p> </p><p>

I go back and forth on all this. Curious to know how other bookers handle it.</p>

[franticloser]

<p>I will first off say, I really need to start doing this for monsters in my game. But As for the jobbers, I say rate them on selling or nothing. Think about when this happens in real life, do you watch the monster kills jobbers angle, and think, "Man, this segment sucked because I didn't know those guys at all"? Yeah, at a certain point you'd expect the monster to go against bigger named opponents. but a random throw away to build the monster? No one cares about the bodies that are destroyed, and the only thing that might ruin it, is if the jobbers didn't sell which would kill the credibility of said monster.</p><p> </p><p>

As for the angle lifting the show, it would really depend, if the monster is that good, and the segment is one of the better things on the show, I can it being a possibility to have it be a stand out part of the show.</p>

[Kingster]

Is there any in-game penalty for switching off the face / heel divide mid game? I’m hoping the only difference is you don’t get the face vs face penalties etc. anymore & that’s all but if there’s some bigger hidden effect I’d rather not risk it.

 

Another thing is that without a face/heel divide, workers can't improve in their face and heel performance other than their mentors giving them a boost before the show.

 

Couple o' questions about Menace and how to use it "fairly."

 

Let's say you've got a super menacing monster on your roster and you want him to destroy jobbers, wreck the backstage area, etc.

 

If he wrecks the backstage area, that's a solo angle rated on Menace, and it's likely to get an outstanding score. Possibly one of the best scores of the night, raising the overall show grade. Is this... "fair?" Put another way: Does anyone watch a wrestling show and then gush about how a menacing wrestler destroyed a bunch of stuff backstage, terrified the caterers, etc.?

I don't see how this is not "fair". Doesn't Braun Strowman do similar things in WWE? And especially in WWE, I'd assume a lot of the audience are young kids who are legitimately terrified by stuff like that, even in the post-kayfabe era. So, I'd say spam those angles as much as you want.

 

In a similar vein, let's say your monster destroys a match between two jobbers before it can start. You rate the monster on Menace, clearly. Do you rate the jobbers on Overness, Selling or Not Rated?

I would never rate them "not rated". My personal rule is that as long as a worker participates in the angle and is on screen, he's rated on something.

In your instance, whether it's overness or selling would depend on how I see this angle being played out. For example, if he just throws them out of the ring and the jobbers run away, it's overness. But if he powerbombs them through a table or off the stage and they sell unconsciousness or they're back or neck being hurt, rate them on selling.

 

I will first off say, I really need to start doing this for monsters in my game. But As for the jobbers, I say rate them on selling or nothing. Think about when this happens in real life, do you watch the monster kills jobbers angle, and think, "Man, this segment sucked because I didn't know those guys at all"? Yeah, at a certain point you'd expect the monster to go against bigger named opponents. but a random throw away to build the monster? No one cares about the bodies that are destroyed, and the only thing that might ruin it, is if the jobbers didn't sell which would kill the credibility of said monster.

You're right, nobody cares if the wrestler being destroyed is a jobber, but everybody would care if the guy being destroyed was the most popular guy on the roster. So, it's clear that overness plays a factor. I feel like it's "unfair" to not rate a worker who is on screen at all. What exactly he should depends on the circumstance, but they should be rated on something.

[Gungner]

When dealing with Talent Trades, how many (in your experience) will become TOO many for a promotion to loan to you in a short space of time (without getting the message that you've loaned too many of their workers? I'm asking because I need 5 wrestlers from a promotion whom I have a working agreement with. The event is a 2-day event, but I'm worried that they'd feel like five loans are too many. Any experiences?

[edenborn]

I don't see how this is not "fair". Doesn't Braun Strowman do similar things in WWE? And especially in WWE, I'd assume a lot of the audience are young kids who are legitimately terrified by stuff like that, even in the post-kayfabe era. So, I'd say spam those angles as much as you want.

That's what I tend to believe. If the monster is menacing enough, then having him repeatedly clobbering jobbers should get him over.

I would never rate them "not rated". My personal rule is that as long as a worker participates in the angle and is on screen, he's rated on something.

Sure, I'm sympathetic to that, too. But herein lies the problem.

 

Let's say the monster destroys two jobbers with low overness and you rate the jobbers on overness or selling. My understanding is that the jobbers' poor contribution to the angle will drag the overall grade down. So far down that the monster may well be unable to gain any overness from the angle at all.

 

With their low popularity, the jobbers will get more popular from getting destroyed but the monster won't get more popular from destroying them. That's largely the opposite of what we want to achieve. The jobbers should gain a little overness perhaps because, man, the punishment they took sure looked brutal! But the monster should gain considerably more overness because he's terrifying and we're building fan anticipation for what'll happen when this beast eventually goes up against a babyface wrestler we're rooting for.

 

Why should it be that way? If the monster just ripped up the backstage area and snarled menacingly into the camera, he'd be rated solely on menace and the angle would get him over. But if he puts his hands on a jobber, only the jobber gets over? It doesn't make sense.

You're right, nobody cares if the wrestler being destroyed is a jobber, but everybody would care if the guy being destroyed was the most popular guy on the roster. So, it's clear that overness plays a factor. I feel like it's "unfair" to not rate a worker who is on screen at all. What exactly he should depends on the circumstance, but they should be rated on something.

With "name" wrestlers, someone who's being destroyed should make a difference, I agree. King Kong Bundy repeatedly splashing Hulk Hogan should rate higher than Bundy doing the same to Hillbilly Jim. For sure.

 

But with jobbers, does it really make sense to rate them on something if the goal is to put the monster over, and not them?

[franticloser]

You're right, nobody cares if the wrestler being destroyed is a jobber, but everybody would care if the guy being destroyed was the most popular guy on the roster. So, it's clear that overness plays a factor. I feel like it's "unfair" to not rate a worker who is on screen at all. What exactly he should depends on the circumstance, but they should be rated on something.

 

So, when the NWO had their promos, where you had so many wrestlers out there, and most just sat there doing nothing. They should all be rated on something? And The question was regarding jobbers, the only ting you really care about a jobber being rated on is selling, as they need to sell the beating. Their overness doesn't matter as they are nameless and just their to be destroyed. Or if you just have them tossed from the ring (which to me kind of defeats a monster destroying angle) then they don't get rated because no one cares.

 

As the monster moves on to bigger fish, then you can look at maybe rating a wrestler on overness instead, as the fans will actually care about who is getting beat up.

 

To use a real life example. When Braun Strowman was killing local talent, did you care about who that talent was? Did anything besides how devastating they made Strowman look, ever cross your mind? Probably not. Now Braun killing Zayn? That is someone you know, someone you are invested in and so his overness may start to be included in ratings.