Do you like the new national battle system

[d12345]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="soxfan93" data-cite="soxfan93" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41646" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Typically workers want longer contracts. It's always been like that.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes I know that but why wouldn't USPW up there offers in the bidding war?</p>

[snakesonaplane]

The fact that you said it wasn't as important for Japan as it is in the West. That's flat-out not true.

 

Except that I never said that; what I said specifically is that 'Star Quality' "in the TEW sense" is less important in Japan than the US (not that it isn't important), you also seem to have ignored the fact that I was talking about game concepts ('in a TEW sense') and not real world concepts.

 

In Japan, in real life, perception of 'star quality' is not the same as the US, a point we both agree on, this what I meant when I said 'Star Quality in the TEW sense' is less important in Japan than US, because 'Star Quality in the TEW sense' is more weighted towards the American concept in TEW, at least in my understanding.

 

I.E.

 

You put him in a line*up with almost anyone else and ask people to pick out a star, and even people who don’t know him would single him out.

 

The issue is that in TEW these different perceptions of SQ must co-exist on an identical scale, such that Shinya Hashimoto's SQ is treated as being identical if he is working in Japan or if he is signed by the WWF (this then becomes an issue of appropriate balancing by the mod maker). Now don't get me wrong this discrepancy doesn't bother me, I love TEW, and it can never be a perfect simulation and I don't want it to be, but we are talking about our opinions of the national battle system (which I like), and I'm suggesting it is set up to mirror the history of the US more so than other regions. If you disagree with that, great, it is a matter of opinion and you are entitled to yours.

 

I think it's fairly obvious SQ (in a real world sense, i.e. how people are perceived by the fans) is still important in Japan and everywhere, because everywhere has their own cultural characteristics that affect who is looked at as a 'star' and why.

 

 

It's extremely important all over the world, even if it's defined differently. All of the greats had it in spades and if not for their bodies breaking down, could still be headlining to this day because of it. The big problem is that in the West, star quality is usually judged along with look (which is why so many people who are said to have lots of star quality typically have very similar physiques) whereas in Japan, look doesn't factor in as much. Nakamura is a perfect example of that.

 

I completely agree

[Alucidus]

Don't know if I like the National Battle as a monthly thing. Since things arn't terribly likely to change on a month-to-month basis. Quarterly might make more sense.

 

I like the numerical quantification though. I like seeing the numbers change because I'm a nerd like that.

[CQI13]

So you're better off holding the spot at cult and building up your stars, and trying to lure bigger stars before making the jump? Certainly makes sense if you're building up.

 

As for starting in one, I just gave USPW Marat to start with - hated seeing them drop from National in month one. While I would prefer it to be quarterly as well, with things not changing dramatically from month to month it may not matter. But it might give you the chance to get one of those stars whose contracts come due.

 

Can you imagine trailing in that third month, and Champagne Lover (or Remo, or whoever) becomes available? You might even see an added sense of urgency for a company to sign them.

[justtxyank]

Just want to say that it was absolutely star quality that led to the wwf beating wcw. The idea that their shows were just that much better (prior to 2000) is hogwash. The wwf had Austin, the Rock and the undertaker and wcw had no in their class. That was the difference outside of Goldberg and an old hogan.

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="The Rock" data-cite="The Rock" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41646" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So yeah, I do like the new system.<p> But I don´t think it´s perfect because their should be some exceptions to the "Star Quality x Popularity" Rule, like Mick Foley.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't think this is a valid comparison. Mick would be extremely popular but his lack of star quality would mean that he's not as valuable as a Rock, Austin, Taker, Michaels, etc. That's exactly how it is in reality. He's got buckets of charisma and as a result, he gets over very quickly/easily but he just lacked that 'it'. Lance Storm was a similar case except he never reached those heights, despite being a far superior in-ring performer, because he had almost no charisma (comparatively speaking) or star quality. I often see Steve Flash as the C-Verse's Lance Storm (though I think Lance was better on the stick).</p><p> </p><p> In my view, Mick would have high entertainment skills and popularity but low camera skills. That doesn't make him unimportant. It just means that there are others who outshine him. Also, a worker can be seemingly perfect in star quality and popularity and awful everywhere else (needing to be carried in matches). Those are the types of worker you keep on the roster just to pad your battle score (Marat, for example) while your "glue" workers, like a Mick Foley, actually do the heavy lifting of keeping your show ratings high. It can be strategic like that now.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="d12345" data-cite="d12345" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41646" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm in month 2 in my TCW game and have actually seen USPW lose multiple bidding wars. The rankings after January were 1. SWF 2. TCW 3. USPW.<p> </p><p> In month 2 Rogue, [EDIT** meant to write Remo here], and someone else I forget all became available from SWF and a bidding war between TCW (me), SWF, USPW, and NOTBPW started.</p><p> </p><p> Even though USPW offered **Remo 41k per month over 4 years they lost out to SWF who offered 35k per month over 5 years. Same deal with Rogue.</p><p> </p><p> In both instances the offers from USPW wasn't even being seriously considered. This leads me to believe offering the most money doesn't just get you anyone.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="d12345" data-cite="d12345" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41646" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yes I know that but why wouldn't USPW up there offers in the bidding war?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Because their AI owner/booker doesn't value the worker beyond that point. I see this all the time. I can pluck any female worker from NOTBPW or SWF that I want for just that reason. Heck, I took SWF's primary color commentator (Emma) and didn't come close to approaching the 'walk away' amount I had set. And I didn't have to hand out creative control or PPV bonuses either. That's because I value the worker more than their "home" promotion does. I even managed to sabotage SWF by offering Ana Garcia the full clause treatment (CC, hiring veto, wage matching) and they matched those clauses. So she re-signed for them with what NFL geeks would call a 'poison pill' contract (ala <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_tag#.22Poison_Pills.22" rel="external nofollow">Steve Hutchinson & Nate Burleson</a>). That's another aspect of strategy that can be employed to screw up competitors.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CQI13" data-cite="CQI13" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41646" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Can you imagine trailing in that third month, and Champagne Lover (or Remo, or whoever) becomes available? You might even see an added sense of urgency for a company to sign them.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's exactly what happens. SOTBPW has been gobbling up every big name whose contract comes due. Champagne Lover's deal came due in May and a bidding war ensued that saw him re-up with SOTBPW for 125k a month (which is the max, no?) with creative control. They've added Rich Money and Tyson Baine and I wouldn't be surprised to see them add more.</p>

[Nachtfalter]

<p>Overall, I absolutely <strong>love </strong>the new system and it has improved the game in a massive way I wouldn't have expected when I first read about the new system.</p><p> </p><p>

Your handling of your main marketable stars are now so much more important, forcing you to carefully protect those main players, which I think makes the game a lot more realistic. </p><p> </p><p>

It also adds a significance to new signings that just didn't exist before. Playing as SWF, Rocky Golden's contract just came up and naturally, both myself and USPW were bidding for him (TCW had fallen to Cult and couldn't compete) - if I had lost out, USPW would have overtaken me in starpower, so I knew I had to break the bank if necessary. The only thing that would have made it even better would be a more aggressive AI also recognizing how crucial this bidding war was (as it was, I didn't have to completely break the bank and got Rocky for around 65k plus creative control), but still - I've felt a fantastic urgency in the negotiations like never before in the series.</p><p> </p><p>

All that being said, I still feel like show quality should probably play some small (much smaller than starpower, anyway) role in the national battles to account for situations like 1998 (as has been brought up) where WCW still had far superior starpower, but their shows mostly sucked which allowed WWF to (in TEW terms) win all national battles from Wrestlemania onwards.</p><p> </p><p>

tl/dr: The new system is awesome and I totally love it! But it could be further improved by incorporating show quality in some way.</p>

[lazorbeak]

<p>I really like the new system. I think it also helps explain stuff like All Japan consistently being second to New Japan, even though in pure match quality terms, All Japan was probably stronger.</p><p> </p><p>

The Monday Night Wars should work pretty well because by 98-99, a guy like Randy Savage or Ric Flair (or Hogan, or Piper) isn't nearly the star they were in 1989, and the focus on Austin as figurehead in 1998 led to him getting more over than anybody on the planet even as WCW split its focus among an overcrowded group of guys. I agree that WCW probably still had the edge for a lot of 1998, just because Austin and the Undertaker were the only two "made" stars WWF had after HBK's retirement, but by late 98/early 99, Triple H, Rock, and Mankind are all getting to that same level. Yes, Mankind's star quality means he's pretty much always #5 at best, but WCW's roster was looking awfully haggard by 1999 so it really wasn't an issue.</p>

[snakesonaplane]

I really like the new system. I think it also helps explain stuff like All Japan consistently being second to New Japan, even though in pure match quality terms, All Japan was probably stronger.

 

Yes I think you're right, whilst I think the mechanics of the national battle system and its focus on SQ make it harder to compete in Japan because of loyalty, you're totally right that IRL it was this lack of new stars with good SQ that has plagued AJPW/NOAH sinces the 90s. So definitely this makes the national battle system focus on SQ realistic for Japan also, much more than I thought initially. The split sort of compounded this problem for AJ and secured NJPWs dominance; whilst NJPW itself got lucky with its milennial generation of Nak and Tanahashi who even surpassed the previous generation in terms of SQ.

 

In a current day mod it's certainly going to be a struggle to dethrone NJ, but that is very realistic, they're in a WWE type position at the moment.

[Ash Styles]

They need to make it so that nows system has the biggest effect( the popularity and star quality), having the highest rated card has a medium effect and having overall better cards over the course of a month has the smallest effect but can still change things

[Tussinewa]

<p>I think the penalties for losing a national battle are way too harsh. At the start of a game, the loser of the national battle almost always drops to Cult. Realistically it took WCW years before dropped out. (Due to different reasons but you get what I mean).</p><p> </p><p>

Maybe losing national battles for months should lead to a company dropping to Cult. But losing one at the start of the game? It's way too much.</p>

[Lex Star]

<p>I really like the new National Battle system, it's making my signing of Champagne Lover and Remo much much more meaningful than it otherwise would have been, and it's making me not just immediately push the Keith Brothers to the moon, they're sitting in the Midcard-Upper Midcard for now, and probably will remain there until I get a big enough roster that their lack of SQ won't even matter overall, their in-ring skills are just too good to never Main Event, though.</p><p> </p><p>

The only issue I have with it is the amount of Popularity your company loses when you lose a battle. It drops all but one company down to Cult really quickly, which is pretty unrealistic, considering how long WWE and WCW were at war with each other.</p>

[Alan James]

<p>Finally figured it out. I remember I had a question that could not be answered. I was gaining pop after every show, but my popularity was still decreasing. Makes sense now. I was losing every month to WCW. </p><p> </p><p>

That explains my drop to cult in that game.</p>

[Captain2]

I find the emphasis on star quality to be a bit annoying. I have built up stars who have higher popularity than anyone on the WWE roster. Triple H and Brock Lesnar keep them on top for some reason despite more people knowing who Samoa Joe and AJ Styles are according to the most popular section.

[MrSelfDestruct]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="The Nickman" data-cite="The Nickman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41646" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Oh, don't get me wrong, Austin was the greatest star in the history of wrestling, and probably still is.<p> </p><p> But they didn't the Monday Night Wars on starpower. Quite the opposite.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> umm.. Steve Austin, Triple H, HBK, The Rock,Y2J, the list goes on</p><p> </p><p> vs</p><p> </p><p> Hogan, Golberg, Nash, Hall, and Savage.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> It works well btw, as guys can gain star power</p><p> </p><p> example. had Davis Wayne Newton jump from 86 SQ, to 96 recently. Find your potential stars, you can't jsut push whoever you want now and expect to win national battles. As would be the case in real life</p>

[larvicarioz]

<p>I think my reaction to the new system can be summed up in two ways. 1. I LOVE the impact it has on the company that I play, 2. I HATE the impact it has on the world around the company I play.</p><p> </p><p>

The new system has me creating new stars/stealing established stars all the time which I find a lot of fun, but now I'm at 2020 the world outside my company is just getting very dull. Both TCW and SWF have been practically incapable of re-signing any of their talent whose contracts come up while they're at Cult (from which they rise every 6 months on the dot, only to fall back down a month later). </p><p>

To illustrate my point, here's SWF's main event: Eric Eisen, Frederique Antonio Garcia, James Prudence, Jumbo Shrimp, Remo and Skull DeBones,</p><p>

TCW's: Bryan Vessey, Ricky Dale Johnson, Rocky Golden, Rolling Johnny Stones, Scout and Wolf Hawkins (who re-signed in October 2017, during a period at National). </p><p>

Meanwhile USPW have: Aaron Andrews, Jack Marlowe, James Hernandez, James Justice, John Anderson, Joshua Taylor, Marc Speed, Rich Money, Rick Law, Sammy Bach, Steve Frehley and Valiant. </p><p>

SOTBPW have even stolen Angry Gilmore, Joey Minnesota, Nicky Champion and Randy Bumfhole.</p><p> </p><p>

Here is an even better way of looking at it, the number of wrestlers each company has that a regarded as stars or better in the USA.</p><p>

SWF: 5</p><p>

TCW: 6</p><p>

USPW: 19</p><p>

SOTBPW: 19</p><p>

Hell even 21CW has 7</p><p> </p><p>

With USPW's broadcast deal on top of their huge funding and inability to lose national battles, they will never again be overtaken without a scandal occurring.</p>

[Owen Rey]

How are you guys seeing your total number of star quality?

[redgiant]

I really like the new National Battle system, it's making my signing of Champagne Lover and Remo much much more meaningful than it otherwise would have been, and it's making me not just immediately push the Keith Brothers to the moon, they're sitting in the Midcard-Upper Midcard for now, and probably will remain there until I get a big enough roster that their lack of SQ won't even matter overall, their in-ring skills are just too good to never Main Event, though.

 

The only issue I have with it is the amount of Popularity your company loses when you lose a battle. It drops all but one company down to Cult really quickly, which is pretty unrealistic, considering how long WWE and WCW were at war with each other.

 

Yes, the popularity drop should be reduced. It often ends up having only one national company in each country. The companies behind often go down to cult three months after they reached national. It has become a pattern.

[Lex Star]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="redgiant" data-cite="redgiant" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41646" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yes, the popularity drop should be reduced. It often ends up having only one national company in each country. The companies behind often go down to cult three months after they reached national. It has become a pattern.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It should take years of one company being number 2 to fall from National to Cult. I think #3 and beyond getting Smackdowned to Cult makes sense, there is only so much wrestling one can watch in a week, but the Monday Night Wars went on for what? 5-6 years? If the new National Battle system is supposed to replicate that, then it needs to dramatically lower the penalty for being #2.</p><p> </p><p> You have to lose some time though, right? I think maybe the longer you're #2, the more severe the popularity loss is each time, and I'd think being #1 for one month wouldn't clean the slate either, so it starts off slow, and then ramps up as the two companies trade the #1 and #2 spots every few months, preferably. That way the longer you've been in National Battle after National Battle with the same company, being #1 is much more important.</p><p> </p><p> Maybe if you maintain #1 for long enough the penalty if you fall to #2 starts to deteriorate at a similar rate as it ramps up for losing.</p>

[thelon]

Yeah, it seems like NOBTW always drops to Cult after a few months due to USPW which is pretty rediculous since they still put on A shows... is this by design? I mean it seems like the game world can't really have more than 1 national company per country.. and it doesn't even have to be home country.

[snakesonaplane]

<p><strong>I think all the concerns here re: the quick drop to cult to losers in national battles and the effect this has on the game world should really be brought to Adam's attention either in suggestions forum or in the technical forum to ensure this feature is working as intended.</strong></p><p> </p><p>

In real life, the loser of the national battle, initially WWF did not drop to cult, and whilst WCW probably did at the end of the USA national battle, this was after several years of losing.</p><p> </p><p>

I agree with the idea someone mentioned where the #3 in the national battle would face harsher penalties as maintaining 3 national level companies even in a hot industry is probably impossible in the real world. It is however certainly possible to have two competitive national companies in a hot industry, without either dropping to cult - this was the case in US in the 90s, Japan, and in Mexico.</p><p> </p><p>

Perhaps the penalties for losing the national battle as #2 should be reviewed?</p>

[The Nickman]

<p>Personally, I think the way National battles right now is calculated is fine, I just think you should be able to offset it by putting on better shows than your opponent.</p><p> </p><p>

Perhaps the dynamic should be you can only have minimal gains each month while you're losing a national battle, but if you're putting on better shows you shouldn't just be bumped to Cult everytime.</p><p> </p><p>

So more like a treading water thing while you try to build up your star power??</p>

[Lex Star]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="The Nickman" data-cite="The Nickman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41646" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Personally, I think the way National battles right now is calculated is fine, I just think you should be able to offset it by putting on better shows than your opponent.<p> </p><p> Perhaps the dynamic should be you can only have minimal gains each month while you're losing a national battle, but if you're putting on better shows you shouldn't just be bumped to Cult everytime.</p><p> </p><p> So more like a treading water thing while you try to build up your star power??</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Well, to be fair if people aren't tuning in to your show, they aren't going to see that it was better.</p><p> </p><p> The idea is that once you're on a National stage, the casual fans come in and want to watch the "the stars" they're not going to nitpick and be like THIS SHOW SUCKED. They're going to be pumped to see The Rock.</p><p> </p><p> All but one of my friends are at most casual wrestling fans. Guess who they like? The Rock. My friend was hot for The Rock when he came back, rather than CM Punk. They don't care if CM Punk is pulling out 5* matches, they want to see The Rock.</p><p> </p><p> Being National is a completely different beast than being Cult from a fan expectation perspective.</p>

[The Nickman]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Lex Star" data-cite="Lex Star" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41646" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Well, to be fair if people aren't tuning in to your show, they aren't going to see that it was better.<p> </p><p> The idea is that once you're on a National stage, the casual fans come in and want to watch the "the stars" they're not going to nitpick and be like THIS SHOW SUCKED. They're going to be pumped to see The Rock.</p><p> </p><p> All but one of my friends are at most casual wrestling fans. Guess who they like? The Rock. My friend was hot for The Rock when he came back, rather than CM Punk. They don't care if CM Punk is pulling out 5* matches, they want to see The Rock.</p><p> </p><p> Being National is a completely different beast than being Cult from a fan expectation perspective.</p></div></blockquote><p> Yes, but the people that ARE tuning into my show (and let's face it, if I've just gone to National, there ARE people watching) are not going to be put off by a great show.</p><p> </p><p> So like I said, if I put on great cards, I should at least be treading water.</p>

[Lex Star]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="The Nickman" data-cite="The Nickman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41646" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yes, but the people that ARE tuning into my show (and let's face it, if I've just gone to National, there ARE people watching) are not going to be put off by a great show.<p> </p><p> So like I said, if I put on great cards, I should at least be treading water.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It wouldn't be the great cards that keep people watching, at least not directly. Great cards would lead to presumably people caring about the workers involved because their popularity would rise as a result of the good cards.</p><p> </p><p> But in the end, the majority of fans at the National level would care more about who is on the show, rather than how good the show is, because if you're National, it's a given you're going to have a great product and if you're not, you're going to lose popularity because the show wasn't good enough.</p><p> </p><p> My opinion firmly falls on the #2 being able to tread water, just for the fact that the Monday Night Wars weren't won overnight, like National Battles are in TEW. Show quality has nothing to do with it, because good shows have popularity increases already and bad shows already lose you popularity. National Battles are an entirely different beast than show quality.</p>