BrokenCycle Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Woah, thanks Adam! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Casey Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Interesting that the change only seems to affect area battles, and not regional battles - that makes sense, as at the smaller size it’s realistic that it’s about show quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn michaels Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="James Casey" data-cite="James Casey" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Interesting that the change only seems to affect area battles, and not regional battles - that makes sense, as at the smaller size it’s realistic that it’s about show quality.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I like the new penalty system for the regional battles, that is a must have, but I wouldn't mind seeing the change of mix of SQ with show performance inserted there too. I mean, even small companies need and/or are influenced by the card they put on and the names they have.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Casey Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 I see what you're saying, but I think the smaller feds tend (in my experience) to attract loyalist crowds who're mostly concerned with how good a show is - not an absolute, by any means, but the fans who're there show-in, show-out tend to connect with the workers who're likewise. Of course, those aren't the fans who're going to grow the company - those are more likely to be drawn in by a 'star' so... Yeah. I do see what you're saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn michaels Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="James Casey" data-cite="James Casey" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I see what you're saying, but I think the smaller feds tend (in my experience) to attract loyalist crowds who're mostly concerned with how good a show is - not an absolute, by any means, but the fans who're there show-in, show-out tend to connect with the workers who're likewise. Of course, those aren't the fans who're going to grow the company - those are more likely to be drawn in by a 'star' so... Yeah. I do see what you're saying.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Pretty much, yeah. So I do hope that part of the system is also adapted to regional battles, that would make my day.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriel Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 <p>I touched on this on another board, but in a nutshell, a 50/50 split for "National" battles makes sense, because casual fans are less likely to be influenced by the in-ring action, and more likely to be influenced by name value.</p><p> </p><p> "Regional" battles, I'm okay with being based on quality alone, but I believe that a 25/75 split, with show quality being the majority, for that would work too. Though, it depends on how popularity works in regards to drawing in fans for the live show. If names draw more fans, but you're judged on the quality alone, that's not too bad, because you can bring in a name to boost attendance, and then either win over more new fans with a good show, or lose more fans by putting on a dud.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsupial311 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 I mostly dislike how the Area Battles only bring negatives. The top company simply isn't penalized which is unfortunate. Seems like there is no advantage to being in a national battle and winning. Would love to see something like the industry rating being based on the number of companies in an Area battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 I mostly dislike how the Area Battles only bring negatives. The top company simply isn't penalized which is unfortunate. Seems like there is no advantage to being in a national battle and winning. Would love to see something like the industry rating being based on the number of companies in an Area battle. Honestly, I never saw the point of the whole area battles. Which is why they are the very first thing I turn off when I start a game. For me, and I am probably in the minority here, it makes the game less fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moe Hunter Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 I wonder whether the formula could be adjustable and linked to eras in a mod.. so in the pre 90s star quality is a bigger factor then in the 90s and early 00s it gradually requires more good performances, or perhaps by region as someone else mentioned I think, being over in the US vs Japan has often required different things etc. Just a thought. That's already covered by product settings - whether performance or popularity drives ratings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smw88 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 That's already covered by product settings - whether performance or popularity drives ratings. Not for the area (national battles) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 A shame to see that Ryland went back on the area battle change due to some vocal feedback. "Star power" is a terrible way to decide those battles. In TEW 2016, all it does is promote gaming the system and sign and push the 5 guys with the highest SQ you can find. Then you win. And that's the only way. With show grades, you can "win" in many different ways, with many different workers (depending on product settings). There's more variety, more than one way to do things - unlike the "star power" route. A compromise could be show grades + overness instead of show grades + star quality - because with overness, at least you aren't basing the whole thing on one single, arbitrary skill. There are many different skills that can get a worker over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christmas_ape Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 A compromise could be show grades + overness instead of show grades + star quality - because with overness, at least you aren't basing the whole thing on one single, arbitrary skill. There are many different skills that can get a worker over. I don't have the game on here to check, but am I wrong in thinking that the 2016 system does take overness into account? I thought it was worked out by giving a number to your top main eventers that is worked out using both star quality and overness? Because I know I have had people with amazing stats and overness but not great star quality still be a strong force in a national battle. Because I know in my experience it wasn't as simple as pushing the top 5 star quality guys you had, because how easy it would be to get them over with their stats definitely played a big part too. I don't have massive experience with national battles but from my memory people saying 2016 was ALL about star quality are over simplifying it. I think a 50/50 split is perfect and I'm happy with the change. But to play devils advocate I suppose you could tie this percentage into the pop/perf one. So for example a company like USPW is weighted heavily on star quality with show grades having less of an impact, whilst someone like PGHW is the other way round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeemuFoundation Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 A shame to see that Ryland went back on the area battle change due to some vocal feedback. "Star power" is a terrible way to decide those battles. In TEW 2016, all it does is promote gaming the system and sign and push the 5 guys with the highest SQ you can find. Then you win. And that's the only way. I'm not saying that's how the game works (and let's be real: the game isn't even finished yet, we know next to nothing about it) but what you described sounds exactly how the wrestling business works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 I don't have the game on here to check, but am I wrong in thinking that the 2016 system does take overness into account? I thought it was worked out by giving a number to your top main eventers that is worked out using both star quality and overness? Because I know I have had people with amazing stats and overness but not great star quality still be a strong force in a national battle. Because I know in my experience it wasn't as simple as pushing the top 5 star quality guys you had, because how easy it would be to get them over with their stats definitely played a big part too. I don't have massive experience with national battles but from my memory people saying 2016 was ALL about star quality are over simplifying it. I think a 50/50 split is perfect and I'm happy with the change. But to play devils advocate I suppose you could tie this percentage into the pop/perf one. So for example a company like USPW is weighted heavily on star quality with show grades having less of an impact, whilst someone like PGHW is the other way round. Overness plays a part, yes. But star quality is the deciding factor. If you have 5 guys with identical overness, the guy with the highest SQ will always give the highest bonus. So the game encourages you to only push guys with the highest star quality, which is a shame. I'm not saying that's how the game works (and let's be real: the game isn't even finished yet, we know next to nothing about it) but what you described sounds exactly how the wrestling business works. I disagree completely. I don't want to start a major discussion about this, because it can quickly derail the thread, but there's more to wrestling than just having the biggest stars on your roster. I'd argue that hot storylines is what decided viewership in the Monday Night Wars, and that hot storylines helped make wrestlers popular. But even if we say that it *is* indeed how the business works; whoever has the biggest stars will "win". Then let me ask you: does overness not represent popularity? So if a guy in TEW has 100 overness everywhere, he is by definition the most popular a wrestler can be? Then how is it realistic to say that the audiences would prefer to watch Wrestler #1 with 100 overness and 90 SQ over Wrestler #2 with 100 overness and 80 SQ? If they both have 100 overness, they should be equally popular and draw an equal amount of fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAVEFAN95 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 I disagree completely. I don't want to start a major discussion about this, because it can quickly derail the thread, but there's more to wrestling than just having the biggest stars on your roster. I'd argue that hot storylines is what decided viewership in the Monday Night Wars, and that hot storylines helped make wrestlers popular. But even if we say that it *is* indeed how the business works; whoever has the biggest stars will "win". Then let me ask you: does overness not represent popularity? So if a guy in TEW has 100 overness everywhere, he is by definition the most popular a wrestler can be? Then how is it realistic to say that the audiences would prefer to watch Wrestler #1 with 100 overness and 90 SQ over Wrestler #2 with 100 overness and 80 SQ? If they both have 100 overness, they should be equally popular and draw an equal amount of fans. What you are saying is right, in terms of draw, they would have the same and I think the game simulates that very well, but if you put in the way of attracting more fans to your product, then I think the 90 sq guy would be better, meaning that he should be worth more in a national battle. That being said, I do think the show rating and sq formula will be good and fits the majority of markets in pro wrestling, even if I believe tv rating and ppv buyrates are important too, the one going into the game is a good medium to see how it works and im sure any issues will be picked up in beta testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ryland Posted January 20, 2019 Author Share Posted January 20, 2019 To nip this argument in the bud, I can confirm that you will have the option to decide what calculation method you prefer to use for area battles. So whether you prefer show grades, star power, or a combination of the two, you will be able to pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAVEFAN95 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>To nip this argument in the bud, I can confirm that you will have the option to decide what calculation method you prefer to use for area battles. So whether you prefer show grades, star power, or a combination of the two, you will be able to pick.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Thats awesome Adam. Very cool addition.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirMichaelJordan Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 Wow that’s even better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skinsfan55 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 <p>That sounds awesome, and I think it's cool you're listening to suggestions, but I'm afraid I'm going to cheat, lol.</p><p> </p><p> As a USPW player I'm gonna set it up for whatever benefits them</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn michaels Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>To nip this argument in the bud, I can confirm that you will have the option to decide what calculation method you prefer to use for area battles. So whether you prefer show grades, star power, or a combination of the two, you will be able to pick.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I see this as good, but ultimately gamey. The mix between SQ and show grades seemed the best solution for me. Either way, I am glad I will be able to choose that and for those who like the "EWR mode" this is good news and a way to show you are caring about our input. Kudos.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeemuFoundation Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 Congratulations to Adam on the great workaround that should make everyone happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter.1986 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>To nip this argument in the bud, I can confirm that you will have the option to decide what calculation method you prefer to use for area battles. So whether you prefer show grades, star power, or a combination of the two, you will be able to pick.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You have to give Adam a hell of a lot of credit for engagement with the community and making changes to the game to suit</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peria Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels" data-cite="shawn michaels" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I see this as good, but ultimately gamey. The mix between SQ and show grades seemed the best solution for me. Either way, I am glad I will be able to choose that and for those who like the "EWR mode" this is good news and a way to show you are caring about our input. Kudos.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't agree with gamey, but I do agree that the mix between SQ and show grades make the most sense, as it is the closest thing we have to how it works realistically. I'm excited for it too, because it means you aren't stuck only pushing 80+ SQ guys.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moe Hunter Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="smw88" data-cite="smw88" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Not for the area (national battles)</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> So you would set up your areas to reflect your view of what gets over within them. AJPW and NJPW would be performance based, WWE and WCW would be popularity based.</p><p> </p><p> You can also already set up areas and eras to prefer different product types.</p><p> </p><p> There's no need for an extra layer here.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djthefunkchris Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 <p>I'd like to weigh in on this discussion, as it is close to something I've never been able to put into words.</p><p> </p><p> When we talk about hardcore vs casual viewers I think we leave out another group that would probably be called casual, but not by definition of how we talk. I can use myself as an example of this since I haven't been watching as much as I used to.</p><p> </p><p> I watched wrestling in the 70's really into it in the 80's, then around late 80's early 90's didn't watch it as much. What got me back into it was seeing Rey Mysterio doing his crazy moves (at the time) on a friends TV that was watching it. If not for the seriously great in ring wrestling on the same show I was watching, I wouldn't of got back into it at all. Never really cared about work ethics and such before, as in the 80's it was "bigger than life" wrestlers fighting giants, etc. The new guys caught my eye.. didn't know them at all.</p><p> </p><p> Anyways, I really believe a wrestling program doing some serious athletics, be it spot monkeys, cruiserweight style matches, just great in ring wrestling, or even great mic work that you can't seem to change the channel until over. I think these things can catch a persons eye that wouldn't normally watch wrestling. It wouldn't matter to them if it was a big name or not. </p><p> </p><p> I've never been able to explain how that could be emulated in a game though.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.