Angle momentum question

[nerodragomir1]

Is there any actual benefit or reason to have someone have "negative" effects from an angle? I've been playing since TEW2013 & never understood what the reason would be to make someone take a negative hit in an angle. Do they get a bonus on the next angle where they got a positive boost? I've always wondered but never took the time to ask.

[BrokenCycle]

Nope.

 

The game mostly uses the honor system.

[RatedRKO16]

My own rule for playing the game is to have a balance in angles.

 

Basically:

Major success +3

Success +2

Min success +1

Neutral 0

Min Defeat-1

Defeat-2

Major defeat-3

 

The added up successes and defeats must equal 0.

 

Just feels more realistic to me that way.

[Derek B]

My own rule for playing the game is to have a balance in angles.

 

Basically:

Major success +3

Success +2

Min success +1

Neutral 0

Min Defeat-1

Defeat-2

Major defeat-3

 

The added up successes and defeats must equal 0.

 

Just feels more realistic to me that way.

 

That's the exact rule I use.... did you steal things from my brain?

[soxfan93]

I would have used the same rule, but I had a hard time justifying a 2 on 1 beatdown on Vader being a -2 for the big man. If it takes 2 to take him out, be in no way looks weaker for it; in fact, one might argue that could be considered a success rather than a defeat

[Teh_Showtime]

I would have used the same rule, but I had a hard time justifying a 2 on 1 beatdown on Vader being a -2 for the big man. If it takes 2 to take him out, be in no way looks weaker for it; in fact, one might argue that could be considered a success rather than a defeat.

 

True, though that same consistency would say perhaps the attackers didn’t gain anything either, so it still comes out to 0.

[soxfan93]

True, though that same consistency would say perhaps the attackers didn’t gain anything either, so it still comes out to 0.

 

That is a good point, Showtime. I suppose an angle like that is context-sensitive based entirely on those involved. In Vader's case, you're right, nobody really gains anything from that.

[RatedRKO16]

Great minds think alike!

[redhilleagle]

If I remember correctly, the success / failure side of story lines is cosmetic only and has no impact at all on the story or the workers involved.

[Derek B]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="redhilleagle" data-cite="redhilleagle" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47146" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If I remember correctly, the success / failure side of story lines is cosmetic only and has no impact at all on the story or the workers involved.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The tracker for success in storylines doesn't do anything on it's own, but the results in individual angles DO, being the driving force for gains and losses in momentum. That's what we're talking about here so I thought it worth clearing that up. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> As for the example above of a 3 on 1 attack... in TEW terms it is best to rate on their win/loss type situation in the situation it's presented. What I mean is that if someone loses a fight, they take a defeat there. If they win, they gain a victory. Doesn't matter if seven people are beating down one person, the one person still lost. But also, the level of a victory should scale with the level of the defeat... a few posts back someone posted the same scale I use for that, so 1 major defeat would scale to 3 minor victories. If seven people are doing the attacking some of them are pretty much doing nothing, so you should (IMO) pick a few people to be the main focus while the rest gain nothing. While arguments about someone looking stronger in defeat CAN be made, they were not the intended purpose of the feature and it only serves to muddy the waters a bit in TEW terms. If Roman Reigns gets beaten down every week, it doesn't matter if he narrowly loses every time... he's still losing every time. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> If you look at WWE, and particularly the way they have struggled to bulid top tier stars for the last couple of decades, a lot of their storylines follow a similar path in a way that relates strongly to this. They pick a babyface to present as a top guy (Cena, Bryan, Punk, Reigns, Rollins....) and they become almost unbeatable in matches. That's great as it builds momentum there..... but then a group of low momentum heels usually unite to try to take them down. At that point it's 3 guys getting minor victories in angles as the main babyface gets major defeats in angles.... this dilutes the momentum heavily until they get nearer the end of the story, where the babyface gets the win. But all through that, no one gets near peak momentum (and peak bonuses) so matches and angles are getting lower grades than they could be. Let's not forget that equates to how much that audience enjoys that segment, so WWE is essentially cooling off 1 worker in the hopes of raising 3... which has never worked in this scenerio ever. The latest example is Reigns vs Corbin/Ziggler/Roode on Smackdown at the moment but it's been done so many times in so many combinations and none of the heels ever get over in this scenario because they never get a big success on their own.</p><p> </p><p> There are a few other real life factors that play in, but TEW16 doesn't account for those. Things like the swell of support for Bryan and Punk that went above and beyond anything that could have been predicted for them. It could be argued that was a Legendary gimmick rating, but I think it's beyond that myself. And that just highlights that the game isn't perfect.... it will never be because real life is so messy and impossible to model in a way that is simple enough and fun enough to play as a game. But I hope this post highlights what is intended and why. As well as giving a little insight into WWE's real life struggles too. I always find comparing a game feature's nuanaces to a fairly well known real world issue helps to understand the game better. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>