TEW2020 Discussion Thread

[batsnumbereleven]

It looks like head-to-head battles are gone though, as Adam says that the battles take place when three or more companies hold a show in the same area...

[batsnumbereleven]

My two cents are that show rating shouldn't sell tickets since it's obviously impossible to tell how good a show is until it's over.

 

Presumably show rating would sell tickets for future shows though, as people will have come away with an impression of whether they would go again...

 

However, I would say that this is already catered for in terms of how the show rating impacts on company popularity in the region, wouldn't you?

[shawn michaels]

My two cents are that show rating shouldn't sell tickets since it's obviously impossible to tell how good a show is until it's over.

 

The previous show will sell tickets for the next. But hence my point: Big names draw, but only if people keep caring about the show. Case and point, WCW. Hence why I feel that in the combo, show quality should have the bigger percentage. No matter who you have as headliner, people will eventually not show if your shows are bad.

[Adam Ryland]

NB There was a typo in the original entry, it should have read "two" not "three" as the minimum number of companies to trigger an area battle.

[DarK_RaideR]

As far as Regional wars go, the change is hella welcome, especially for Small promotions in the US who just can't go up against RIPW's (SWF-funded) insane production values. The popularity and momentum losses were crippling, especially as they piled up and forced you to game the system by spamming shows in a month just so you could offset the war losses with the overall popularity gains. Doesn't quite feel 'realistic' and if you're trying to log the experience as a diary/dynasty it's even worse. So a big yes to the change from me, I can take the attendance losses if my popularity can keep climbing to a point where they more or less balance each other out or I can rise in size.

 

Haven't played with National or larger promotions, so take my opinion on National/Area battles with a grain of salt here, but I don't think the changes are as bad as they might initially seem. I've noticed a few people complaining about having to hire the likes of Marat Khoklov in order to survive these battles, so to them it must be liberating at least. As for the "people pay to see the stars" argument, my viewpoint is a little different and that's because of two things:

- One, of course they do, which is why SQ boosts those workers' pop gains alongside every match or angle they're involved in BUT there is no getting away from terrible stuff that features big stars. WWE's recent history has loads of examples of big events flopping due to terrible storylines/angles and mediocre match quality despite featuring some of today's top stars. Cena and Reigns got SQ and were handed superman pushes, but still got booed. Styles or Nakamura have SQ and can go in the ring, yet their WWE stuff hasn't lived up to the expectations their prior work elsewhere had set. I could go on forever, my point is SQ alone doesn't make or break a major promotion on its own.

- Two, we are all biased to an extent in our interpretations due to WWE's sports entertainment being the dominant paradigm. Basing National/Area wars on SQ alone is a huge blow to perf>pop companies and the CVerse already has two major cases in BHOTWG and PGHW. I can't see why such companies would push SQ-loaded workers who aren't also exceptional in the ring (and trust me, they're not easy to come by) just to stay afloat. Likewise, the TEW16 method forces them to push SQ-loaded workers over good in-ring performers with less SQ and that makes no sense given the product.

 

TL;DR version, again I have no hands-on game experience with National or larger promotions, but the "new" way of calculating National/Area wars makes more sense to me. No matter if a company is more soap opera or 100% shoot style, if they put on the best shows to provide the best product for their audience, they will do better.

[Historian]

As far as Regional wars go, the change is hella welcome, especially for Small promotions in the US who just can't go up against RIPW's (SWF-funded) insane production values. The popularity and momentum losses were crippling, especially as they piled up and forced you to game the system by spamming shows in a month just so you could offset the war losses with the overall popularity gains. Doesn't quite feel 'realistic' and if you're trying to log the experience as a diary/dynasty it's even worse. So a big yes to the change from me, I can take the attendance losses if my popularity can keep climbing to a point where they more or less balance each other out or I can rise in size.

 

Haven't played with National or larger promotions, so take my opinion on National/Area battles with a grain of salt here, but I don't think the changes are as bad as they might initially seem. I've noticed a few people complaining about having to hire the likes of Marat Khoklov in order to survive these battles, so to them it must be liberating at least. As for the "people pay to see the stars" argument, my viewpoint is a little different and that's because of two things:

- One, of course they do, which is why SQ boosts those workers' pop gains alongside every match or angle they're involved in BUT there is no getting away from terrible stuff that features big stars. WWE's recent history has loads of examples of big events flopping due to terrible storylines/angles and mediocre match quality despite featuring some of today's top stars. Cena and Reigns got SQ and were handed superman pushes, but still got booed. Styles or Nakamura have SQ and can go in the ring, yet their WWE stuff hasn't lived up to the expectations their prior work elsewhere had set. I could go on forever, my point is SQ alone doesn't make or break a major promotion on its own.

- Two, we are all biased to an extent in our interpretations due to WWE's sports entertainment being the dominant paradigm. Basing National/Area wars on SQ alone is a huge blow to perf>pop companies and the CVerse already has two major cases in BHOTWG and PGHW. I can't see why such companies would push SQ-loaded workers who aren't also exceptional in the ring (and trust me, they're not easy to come by) just to stay afloat. Likewise, the TEW16 method forces them to push SQ-loaded workers over good in-ring performers with less SQ and that makes no sense given the product.

 

TL;DR version, again I have no hands-on game experience with National or larger promotions, but the "new" way of calculating National/Area wars makes more sense to me. No matter if a company is more soap opera or 100% shoot style, if they put on the best shows to provide the best product for their audience, they will do better.

 

 

Can I just say I second everything that DR just said? His comments perfectly encapsulate my feelings on the new update. It will be much welcome, particularly for me who continues to fight RIPW in production just to not get creamed.

[shawn michaels]

As far as Regional wars go, the change is hella welcome, especially for Small promotions in the US who just can't go up against RIPW's (SWF-funded) insane production values. The popularity and momentum losses were crippling, especially as they piled up and forced you to game the system by spamming shows in a month just so you could offset the war losses with the overall popularity gains. Doesn't quite feel 'realistic' and if you're trying to log the experience as a diary/dynasty it's even worse. So a big yes to the change from me, I can take the attendance losses if my popularity can keep climbing to a point where they more or less balance each other out or I can rise in size.

 

Haven't played with National or larger promotions, so take my opinion on National/Area battles with a grain of salt here, but I don't think the changes are as bad as they might initially seem. I've noticed a few people complaining about having to hire the likes of Marat Khoklov in order to survive these battles, so to them it must be liberating at least. As for the "people pay to see the stars" argument, my viewpoint is a little different and that's because of two things:

- One, of course they do, which is why SQ boosts those workers' pop gains alongside every match or angle they're involved in BUT there is no getting away from terrible stuff that features big stars. WWE's recent history has loads of examples of big events flopping due to terrible storylines/angles and mediocre match quality despite featuring some of today's top stars. Cena and Reigns got SQ and were handed superman pushes, but still got booed. Styles or Nakamura have SQ and can go in the ring, yet their WWE stuff hasn't lived up to the expectations their prior work elsewhere had set. I could go on forever, my point is SQ alone doesn't make or break a major promotion on its own.

- Two, we are all biased to an extent in our interpretations due to WWE's sports entertainment being the dominant paradigm. Basing National/Area wars on SQ alone is a huge blow to perf>pop companies and the CVerse already has two major cases in BHOTWG and PGHW. I can't see why such companies would push SQ-loaded workers who aren't also exceptional in the ring (and trust me, they're not easy to come by) just to stay afloat. Likewise, the TEW16 method forces them to push SQ-loaded workers over good in-ring performers with less SQ and that makes no sense given the product.

 

TL;DR version, again I have no hands-on game experience with National or larger promotions, but the "new" way of calculating National/Area wars makes more sense to me. No matter if a company is more soap opera or 100% shoot style, if they put on the best shows to provide the best product for their audience, they will do better.

 

For someone who has no hands-on game experience in the National field, you make a great point. I too believe the former system was not working and was unrealistic, I also believe that if i had to choose between it and this new one, I would definitely take the one announced today. I just think that SQ should also be involved in the equation, but with more percentage depending on good shows. Good shows are the thing that makes the success cog work. Good shows generate huge stars, though, which affects your competition, and stars help to draw combined with good stories to follow. It is symbiotic and in an ideal world it would be part of the game system. But comparing to TEW 2016, this is indeed an upgrade. I also agree with that and I have played both big and small companies.

[DAVEFAN95]

Just a heads up this may be long, but I was hugely disappointed in the devolution of the "national battle" system, while I loved the regional battle split. I wasn't a huge fan of the SQ national battle system that was there but I don't believe that show ratings are what dictates that you are winning a battle with another company. I do think it is important (show ratings are essentially how good your storylines are doing) and the previous shows success/failure should dictate the amount of eyes on your product next week (TV rating/attendance etc).

 

I had previously made out a new idea for a national battle system (It's posted here in the suggestions section if you want to check it out: http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=537007) and it had three main concepts, TV ratings/PPV buyrates, star power (2016 system) and show rating (average rating of the shows held in a month) and it would be a percentage of each of these three would be converted into points, put together and the highest number of points wins the battle.

 

Now, I'm not trying to push my own agenda or anything like that, but I do think that there should be more than just one particular aspect of a company that should be taken into account. I'm also aware that these three concepts may not be perfect as some things might be missing, but I do think it would be a good start.

 

Another thing is that the percentages for the concepts could be different for each region. Like the US market might have more importance on TV/PPV rating and star power and a small input from show rating while the Japanese market might be mostly show rating, some star power and no TV/PPV rating, while in Mexico all three might be of equal value.

 

I do think that the last two systems weren't great and although my system may not be the answer, I think a system with more variables would be a welcome addition.

[Guest skinsfan55]

<p>In 2016 the national battle system is kind of anti climactic because as one of the "Big Three" you could sign Marat Khoklov for instance, or Bruce the Giant or someone and push yourself over the star power threshhold. </p><p> </p><p>

But then again, there were some good things. It made star quality more important and encouraged you to invest in the talent you already had. </p><p> </p><p>

I wish there were a way to marry the two systems. Show quality is tough, because with USPW I might have the most powerful company with a ton of infrastructure, and the best rated, most watched show... but I can't get great show ratings. </p><p> </p><p>

There isn't really a universal rating scale in real life, sure you have to gamify it... but if I run a show in USPW where Nicky Champion fights Steve Frehley in the first PPV of 2016 and I have a hot angle behind it... it's hardly going to crack a B rating because they don't have great psychology. </p><p> </p><p>

In real life, USPW fans would probably flip for that kind of show, where SWF fans would probably not. Also, it'd be cool if there was a way to promote your wrestlers. WWE makes movies and gets their stars on the talk show circuit and gets ESPN to talk about them. Stuff like that. I'd love to be able to do that kind of thing in TEW.</p>

[RingRider]

<p>So I am a little disappointed to see SQ be taken out of the National Battle calculations as well. As stated by DAVEFAN95, I think a marriage between the show ratings and SQ could be a better solution.</p><p> </p><p>

That being said, maybe the workaround is simply making "stars" more essential to broadcasters. Perhaps the biggest broadcaster demand bigger stars (both in overness and SQ)? </p><p> </p><p>

The other thing is that a lack of star power could cause fans to "hijack" shows as they demand to see bigger stars--thus hurting show ratings.</p>

[christmas_ape]

<p>Yeah I'm pretty torn on this new one too. </p><p> </p><p>

Regional ones makes sense to me just because I think it sounds more natural, smaller promotion puts on good shows > gets more buzz around them than competitors > more people go to their shows > they make more money. </p><p> </p><p>

It also makes money more important in the sense that if you are rich, losing the battles isn't the end of the world for you, which is probably true. A small indie can be putting on average shows but if they have plenty of money to not be affected by the loss in the battles then it doesn't affect them too much, whereas a poor promotion now desperately needs to win the battle in order to get more people to their shows. </p><p> </p><p>

But as others have said I'm unsure of the national changes. I really liked the 2016 system, although Darkraiders and others comments have made me rethink it. One thing is I don't think the Khoklov matter is an important point because it makes sense, it just so happened that 2016 database started at such a time. If the you have 2/3 promotions pretty level in a national battle and you have this free agent who is one of the biggest stars in the world, it makes perfect sense that hiring him is the obvious choice for anyone wanting to play that way and win the battle at any cost. I agree that seeing it happen in every game gets a bit old but I think it's impossible to have a starting database without issues like that. If there are no obvious and easy signings then that basically just means everyone already has the best people and there's nothing interesting in that. </p><p> </p><p>

I don't even know what I'm suggesting because I agree that show quality should be important in a battle but I just think the whole needing to create big stars who drive viewership/ticket sales is at least equally important. </p><p> </p><p>

Put it this way, I think most people, myself included, don't think RAW is the best weekly wrestling program and yet lots of people who also think that will still be watching RAW over other programs. Now you might say that's just silly then, but I think it's testament to the fact that star power is that important. Even if the show he is on isn't great, I'd prefer to watch my favourites like Daniel Bryan and AJ Styles over lesser known wrestlers who are on technically better shows. So yeah I think if you had to have a simple method of working out national battles I think the 2016 system was great.</p>

[Historian]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="RingRider" data-cite="RingRider" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So I am a little disappointed to see SQ be taken out of the National Battle calculations as well. As stated by DAVEFAN95, I think a marriage between the show ratings and SQ could be a better solution.<p> </p><p> That being said, maybe the workaround is simply making "stars" more essential to broadcasters. Perhaps the biggest broadcaster demand bigger stars (both in overness and SQ)? </p><p> </p><p> The other thing is that a lack of star power could cause fans to "hijack" shows as they demand to see bigger stars--thus hurting show ratings.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think that having broadcasters require star quality is better than the national battles requiring it. While I understand the importance of star quality in drawing eyeballs -- in my opinion the star quality system greatly hampered performance based companies from ever really being able to take the top mantle (thus TCW being limited). While a marriage between the two would be nice, I like seeing it be about the quality of shows put on. I look at it like this.</p><p> </p><p> TCW has put on a month of really hot shows, so they have gained popularity by putting the best shows on.</p><p> </p><p> SWF put on okay shows -- remember, their product benefits their workers, so they come in second, so some people are changing channels</p><p> </p><p> USPW came in third, so more people change channels.</p><p> </p><p> As WWE has proven recently, crappy shows mean less eyeballs on the product, no matter the star quality on the show. That would be affected in the national battles. You still gain popularity based off the success of your individual shows, so it just keeps someone with the biggest budget from being able to purchase their way to the top.</p><p> </p><p> It allows someone who continues to put on excellent shows to rise to the top because people are clicking over because of their great shows, which I think mirrors reality. Star Quality will get some eyeballs, but they won't keep 'em.</p>

[DAVEFAN95]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Historian" data-cite="Historian" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think that having broadcasters require star quality is better than the national battles requiring it. While I understand the importance of star quality in drawing eyeballs -- in my opinion the star quality system greatly hampered performance based companies from ever really being able to take the top mantle (thus TCW being limited). While a marriage between the two would be nice, I like seeing it be about the quality of shows put on. I look at it like this.<p> </p><p> TCW has put on a month of really hot shows, so they have gained popularity by putting the best shows on.</p><p> </p><p> SWF put on okay shows -- remember, their product benefits their workers, so they come in second, so some people are changing channels</p><p> </p><p> USPW came in third, so more people change channels.</p><p> </p><p> As WWE has proven recently, crappy shows mean less eyeballs on the product, no matter the star quality on the show. That would be affected in the national battles. You still gain popularity based off the success of your individual shows, so it just keeps someone with the biggest budget from being able to purchase their way to the top.</p><p> </p><p> It allows someone who continues to put on excellent shows to rise to the top because people are clicking over because of their great shows, which I think mirrors reality. Star Quality will get some eyeballs, but they won't keep 'em.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Although, I can see your point. The issue here with this system is that It's very possible where (an AI controlled) TCW, SWF and USPW all put on shows graded in the low 80's in one month and let say SWF get 83, TCW get 82 and USPW get 81. There's no way that fans are going to stop tuning into TCW or USPW based on one or two points between their show grades, mainly cause most people aren't going to change the channel if the show they watch already is putting on equal or very closely rated shows to their competition, yet in this system, TCW would lose 1 point of pop and USPW would lose 2 points of pop, which would affect their TV ratings/PPV buyrates aka people would change the channel. </p><p> </p><p> I understand that the better show should do better business, of course it should, but in this system even if there's nothing (which in my opinion one or two points is pretty much nothing in TEW) between the three shows, TCW and USPW are being hit exceptionally hard, despite "keeping up" with the competition. The only way I see this working is with the new size system that one or two pop points aren't as big a deal in this game as they were previously, like you lost a pop point or two as TCW, you were cult or you lost a few pop points with SWF or USPW, you were cult. I just feel, more variables equal more sense. It should also equal the cannon storyline, it made no sense to me how USPW were now number one in the US but would as default would come second in the national battles cause of the system.</p>

[franticloser]

<p>The last few entries have been pretty interesting, the PPV rules are great, as having more control of how events get booked, make the universe more immersible. Sticky searches are great for time/click saving. </p><p> </p><p>

Really excited to see the changes to Dojo's I like bringing the EWR feature for training facilities and being able to send down wrestlers to hone skills outside of development. I feel like this will add a lot to that side of the game. </p><p> </p><p>

As for the the battle system, I like that the regional effect your bank instead of popularity, which makes climbing up easier to do growth wise, but can also make it harder to balance the books as you go up and you aren't ready yet. As for national battles, I'd prefer a mix of 2016 and previous systems, but understand if it can't be done, and show quality is more of a fair way to do things. Basing it only star quality can kind of negate all the work you do to put on the best shows, and get your popularity/prestige higher then the other company, only to get knocked down because of a few point difference between our star qualities.</p><p> </p><p>

i.e. running a 1997-98 WWF vs WCW, you can be hitting A-A* shows building off Rock and Austin, but because WCW has Hogan, Savage, and Sting among others and they win the battle each month. Now this reflects The Monday Night Wars to a point, eventually bad booking causing poor show grades in WCW even with Hogan, Savage, Sting, and others still having high star quality, and WWF building Rock and Austin and to a lesser point DX combined with compelling story telling propelled WWF ahead and eventually allowed them to win.</p><p> </p><p>

So, TL;DR a melding of the two systems would reflect best, but having it quality of shows based is more accurate.</p>

[Historian]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="DAVEFAN95" data-cite="DAVEFAN95" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Although, I can see your point. The issue here with this system is that It's very possible where (an AI controlled) TCW, SWF and USPW all put on shows graded in the low 80's in one month and let say SWF get 83, TCW get 82 and USPW get 81. There's no way that fans are going to stop tuning into TCW or USPW based on one or two points between their show grades, mainly cause most people aren't going to change the channel if the show they watch already is putting on equal or very closely rated shows to their competition, yet in this system, TCW would lose 1 point of pop and USPW would lose 2 points of pop, which would affect their TV ratings/PPV buyrates aka people would change the channel. <p> </p><p> I understand that the better show should do better business, of course it should, but in this system even if there's nothing (which in my opinion one or two points is pretty much nothing in TEW) between the three shows, TCW and USPW are being hit exceptionally hard, despite "keeping up" with the competition. The only way I see this working is with the new size system that one or two pop points aren't as big a deal in this game as they were previously, like you lost a pop point or two as TCW, you were cult or you lost a few pop points with SWF or USPW, you were cult. I just feel, more variables equal more sense. It should also equal the cannon storyline, it made no sense to me how USPW were now number one in the US but would as default would come second in the national battles cause of the system.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I absolutely understand your point of view and I don't necessarily disagree with it being a harsh problem for the second and third place companies to lose a point or two in popularity -- but if you balance that with the popularity gains they are making from each show, it's going to come out in the wash and with the new size system I think it will balance itself out nicely, I really do.</p>

[WCGreyghost]

I don't care for the penalties attached to the area battles. I just do not like penalties in general. I'd rather see a bonus for the winner, with smaller bonuses for those in 2nd, 3rd, etc down to no bonus for last place.

[shawn michaels]

<p>I think we can all agree that more variables would be cool. But if not possible, I think that show grades should have the bigger impact and maybe in those cases where companies are close, star quality comes as a deciding point. I mean, if you are having a good product, household names may very well be a deciding factor. Signing Marat in TEW 2016 as a way to win the wars was not the issue, it is realistic to sign marquee names to try and increase viewers, revenue, etc. The problem is that it was pretty much the only required move. If more variables could be added, that would be sweet. Thinking about it I don't know at the end of the day which will have more impact. The AI might have more to lose by this system, when it comes to big companies, because they might not be able to keep up with users. For users this system is better than the previous, probably. More variables would be the ideal.</p><p> </p><p>

The theme of penalties is also an interesting discussion, tbh.</p>

[Gabriel]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="WCGreyghost" data-cite="WCGreyghost" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I don't care for the penalties attached to the area battles. I just do not like penalties in general. I'd rather see a bonus for the winner, with smaller bonuses for those in 2nd, 3rd, etc down to no bonus for last place.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> But that defeats the purpose, doesn't it? I mean, area and regional battles are essentially happening because too many companies are running too closely together. This happens in real life, and has similar effects. A company might bring in a big name, which draws a larger crowd than their rival... but their show might suck, and word of mouth from the rival show may have been better, prompting people who went to the first company's show to instead go to the other next time.</p><p> </p><p> Also, if companies are all getting bonuses for being involved in battles, nobody will ever go out of business.</p>

[Peter.1986]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Gabriel" data-cite="Gabriel" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>But that defeats the purpose, doesn't it? I mean, area and regional battles are essentially happening because too many companies are running too closely together. This happens in real life, and has similar effects. A company might bring in a big name, which draws a larger crowd than their rival... but their show might suck, and word of mouth from the rival show may have been better, prompting people who went to the first company's show to instead go to the other next time.<p> </p><p> Also, if companies are all getting bonuses for being involved in battles, nobody will ever go out of business.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I’d say in real life look at say the wwf/wcw going head to head. Wcw poaching talent certainly gave them a boost and would have them winning the battles for some part, then show quality putting wwf back on top. Although I would say when wwf went back to the top they had more star power at this point.</p><p> </p><p> It’s hard to decide what wins the battles. Star quality should attract more viewers initially, but the shows have to keep you on top. </p><p> </p><p> Maybe the battles are won by who draws the most viewers?</p><p> </p><p> Edit: totally agree there should be penalties if a company is in the battle a case of having less viewers because people are watching the other company</p>

[BrokenCycle]

<p>First real disappointment here. Not into this. </p><p> </p><p>

I was hoping that the new battles system would at least have some sort of nuance to it besides "Good show good, bad show bad." These things have always been incredibly half baked ideas built upon fairly weak game mechanics. How about just combine the two systems? Because in 2013 the complaint was that main event talent wasn't taken into account, and in 2016 the complaint was that show quality wasn't taken into account. </p><p> </p><p>

The only way I could see this actually being a significant fix is if the equations for the final show rating sees an overhaul.</p>

[lavelleuk]

<p>On a personal level I have to say I'm hugely disappointed by this announcement, the star quality system for national battles was actually one of my favourite features. I like that it meant you couldn't just put the most talented in-ring workers in the main event even if they have 0 star quality and push them over every one else and still be the biggest company in the world.</p><p> </p><p>

Hope others are happy but I'm genuinely gutted lol</p>

[Historian]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lavelleuk" data-cite="lavelleuk" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>On a personal level I have to say I'm hugely disappointed by this announcement, the star quality system for national battles was actually one of my favourite features. I like that it meant you couldn't just put the most talented in-ring workers in the main event even if they have 0 star quality and push them over every one else and still be the biggest company in the world.<p> </p><p> Hope others are happy but I'm genuinely gutted lol</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> But you still can't do that. If the most talented in ring workers on your roster are not over, they can't successfully main event at the national level. They have to have some semblance of star quality to have been able to get over to be a main event level player.</p><p> </p><p> The game still has checks and balances against that.</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="DAVEFAN95" data-cite="DAVEFAN95" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Just a heads up this may be long, but I was hugely disappointed in the devolution of the "national battle" system, while I loved the regional battle split. I wasn't a huge fan of the SQ national battle system that was there but I don't believe that show ratings are what dictates that you are winning a battle with another company. I do think it is important (show ratings are essentially how good your storylines are doing) and the previous shows success/failure should dictate the amount of eyes on your product next week (TV rating/attendance etc). <p> </p><p> I had previously made out a new idea for a national battle system (It's posted here in the suggestions section if you want to check it out: <a href="http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=537007" rel="external nofollow">http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=537007</a>) and it had three main concepts, TV ratings/PPV buyrates, star power (2016 system) and show rating (average rating of the shows held in a month) and it would be a percentage of each of these three would be converted into points, put together and the highest number of points wins the battle. </p><p> </p><p> Now, I'm not trying to push my own agenda or anything like that, but I do think that there should be more than just one particular aspect of a company that should be taken into account. I'm also aware that these three concepts may not be perfect as some things might be missing, but I do think it would be a good start. </p><p> </p><p> Another thing is that the percentages for the concepts could be different for each region. Like the US market might have more importance on TV/PPV rating and star power and a small input from show rating while the Japanese market might be mostly show rating, some star power and no TV/PPV rating, while in Mexico all three might be of equal value.</p><p> </p><p> I do think that the last two systems weren't great and although my system may not be the answer, I think a system with more variables would be a welcome addition.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="RingRider" data-cite="RingRider" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So I am a little disappointed to see SQ be taken out of the National Battle calculations as well. As stated by DAVEFAN95, I think a marriage between the show ratings and SQ could be a better solution.<p> </p><p> That being said, maybe the workaround is simply making "stars" more essential to broadcasters. Perhaps the biggest broadcaster demand bigger stars (both in overness and SQ)? </p><p> </p><p> The other thing is that a lack of star power could cause fans to "hijack" shows as they demand to see bigger stars--thus hurting show ratings.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Star qualification and broadcast deals is a good idea. As well as hijacking shows.</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BrokenCycle" data-cite="BrokenCycle" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>First real disappointment here. Not into this. <p> </p><p> I was hoping that the new battles system would at least have some sort of nuance to it besides "Good show good, bad show bad." These things have always been incredibly half baked ideas built upon fairly weak game mechanics. How about just combine the two systems? Because in 2013 the complaint was that main event talent wasn't taken into account, and in 2016 the complaint was that show quality wasn't taken into account. </p><p> </p><p> The only way I could see this actually being a significant fix is if the equations for the final show rating sees an overhaul.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I agree with this. A mix between the two would have been great. The great thing about 2016’s way is that it forced you to make stars or sign some if you were going head to head with another company. It’s a reason why TNA started signing guys like hogan when they declared a Monday night war...It was the only way they could try to compete with WWE despite having the better shows at the time.</p>

[Jaysin]

Yeah, I hope this can be changed to combine star quality requirements and best show. More realistic.