Un-nerf Sex Appeal

[SirMichaelJordan]

Your doing the same thing that SirMichaelJordan is doing (love the name by the way), and concentrating on the who and what they do instead of the "How is this possible".

 

Get that it doesn't have to be a bikini contest, it doesn't have to be Rosanne Barr (and I feel bad, like I'm picking on her, but I'm just trying to pick someone somewhat famous that's not sexy to make my point). The point is that the way it is now makes it completely useless, and if Menace is in the same boat (someone mentioned that earlier), than it's useless as well. I say lets just get rid of the stats if they don't mean anything, or make them mean something. That's all I'm saying. I Have absolutely no problem taking them completely out of the game if they aren't meant to have any real effect.

 

But they do something lol. Maybe not at the rate you would like but it matter. It’s just that a person with sex appeal but with 0 popularity is less important than a person that someone actual wants to see...This is why you build popularity in the game.

 

Sex appeal

Menace

Charisma (I’m not sure)

Overness

 

Are all non-action things that you can be rated on in angles and have a cap of 5 or so minutes if the angles are only based on those ratings.

 

Let’s say I just hired an unknown model in the game and her sex appeal is 100. She sucks at wrestling so I’m not going to get her over by putting her in the ring. That’s fine, I’ll place her in a quick 4-minute angle based on sex appeal. She scores a 20. On a man that was horrible but probably would have been worse if she had a match. The idea, let’s make her a valet. She’s now a valet and when there is an angle with her new buddy, he’s rated on entertainment because he’s a talker. She’s rated on sex appeal. Segments do much better and she’s gaining popularity. Many shows later, she’s has enough rub from her buddy that people are familiar and fantasize about her. She can now hold her own segments and rate them on sex appeal and score high. Maybe even place her in some eye candy matches to benefit from the lust from the fans.

 

 

In ECW, if Dawn Marie and Francine just randomly came to the ring and started fighting and stripping each other. Fans who laugh at the segment. These women were in hot storylines that got them over and people were invested in them to actually wanted to see them exposed...

 

It’s the same situation for all the other non-action things that a person can get rated on. A menace shouldn’t score high just because he looks intimidating. Lol, imagine a random brute just walking to the ring and just stand there looking. If Fans were confused about the time Jericho ran around the ring without saying anything (charisma) I’m sure that they would be put off by a brute nobody. This is why you would rate him on fighting (attacking someone). Or place him with a talker and rate him on menace so he can get the rub to be able to pull off a stunt like that...

 

Popularity is king in the game. This one trick pony model is only good at one thing, thanks to smart booking she now has enough popularity to be featured in the program to do that one trick...I can’t rate her on anything else other than overness but I’m better off just rating her on sex appeal because that would boost her grade in the segment if she’s has 100 sex appeal. That is hardly a “do not matter” it just doesn’t matter for a unknown person as it should.

 

 

BTW Kelly Kelly is rated on Entertainment here because she’s talking (action) Segment is boosted by CM Punk’s Entertainment skills...

 

https://youtu.be/jmHKMSKQz-I

 

 

 

She was in a storyline with one of the best young talent in the company. Whether she’s rated on Entertainment or sex appeal, she’s getting the rub from that storyline.

[franticloser]

So what you are saying is if we book like WWF did with Sable, by having her show up with Mero and get more recognizable then her ratings will naturally do better then they would then if she was just one of Godfather's hos for the night? And on Menace, Chyna got over because she was a menacing looking woman, who hung out with Triple H. If she had just showed up and stared someone down, there would be small reaction but nothing else. It would take weeks to start building pop that way and have your angle be rated lower. By putting her with Triple H and inserting in the feud with Goldust and Marlene, it allowed fans to latch on quicker to her and helped carry the angles until she was over enough to carry them herself. It isn't useless it makes perfect sense when you compare it to the real world. Put someone who is unknown and no matter how sexy or menacing they look their first few times out there alone isn't going to do a lot of ratings. But if you pair them up with someone more over and let them leech off of that you can build them up so they can use their assets and their popularity for bigger ratings.

[SirMichaelJordan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="franticloser" data-cite="franticloser" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So what you are saying is if we book like WWF did with Sable, by having her show up with Mero and get more recognizable then her ratings will naturally do better then they would then if she was just one of Godfather's hos for the night? And on Menace, Chyna got over because she was a menacing looking woman, who hung out with Triple H. If she had just showed up and stared someone down, there would be small reaction but nothing else. It would take weeks to start building pop that way and have your angle be rated lower. By putting her with Triple H and inserting in the feud with Goldust and Marlene, it allowed fans to latch on quicker to her and helped carry the angles until she was over enough to carry them herself. It isn't useless it makes perfect sense when you compare it to the real world. Put someone who is unknown and no matter how sexy or menacing they look their first few times out there alone isn't going to do a lot of ratings. But if you pair them up with someone more over and let them leech off of that you can build them up so they can use their assets and their popularity for bigger ratings.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> Precisely. Oldest wrestling trick in the book.</p>

[Bull]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Your doing the same thing that SirMichaelJordan is doing (love the name by the way), and concentrating on the who and what they do instead of the "How is this possible".<p> </p><p> Get that it doesn't have to be a bikini contest, it doesn't have to be Rosanne Barr (and I feel bad, like I'm picking on her, but I'm just trying to pick someone somewhat famous that's not sexy to make my point). The point is that the way it is now makes it completely useless, and if Menace is in the same boat (someone mentioned that earlier), than it's useless as well. I say lets just get rid of the stats if they don't mean anything, or make them mean something. That's all I'm saying. I Have absolutely no problem taking them completely out of the game if they aren't meant to have any real effect.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> They have their uses in game, but how they are described in the handbook they aren't super actively useful nor are they intended to be</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

<p>Forgot one thing...</p><p> </p><p>

You can also place a high sex appeal popular wrestler with a high sex appeal low popular wrestler in angles or eye candy matches to give them their rub...</p><p> </p><p>

That’s exactly how they booked Kelly Kelly with Brook and Layla. Literally after the storyline with Punk.</p>

[Thane of Fife]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="cwamaniac" data-cite="cwamaniac" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I’m curious if anyone else decided to to run tests to see how or if the sex appeal stat affects angles?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I ran a brief test with a handful of different women rated on Entertainment, varying their popularity, star quality, and sex appeal. Their charisma and microphone skills were locked at 50, the others were either 0 or 100. I also checked with three different products - classic sports entertainment, risque adult, and attitude entertainment - to see if there was a difference (I wouldn't expect a huge difference).</p><p> </p><p> In each angle, there was one person with 0 pop and one with 100 pop; otherwise, they had the same sex appeal and star quality. Not sure why I didn't just put one person in the angle.</p><p> </p><p> </p><pre class="ipsCode"> ............................Classic Risque Attitude Low SA/Low SQ................41..................43.................42 Low SA/High SQ...............49..................48.................48 High SA/Low SQ...............48..................50.................47 High SA/High SQ..............54..................51.................49 </pre><div></div><p></p><p> </p><p> There clearly is a gain with a higher sex appeal and star quality (as I would expect, given that the handbook says there is). There is some variability in the results, so it's hard to tell exactly which is more important, but to me it looks like Classic Sports Entertainment puts a bit more weight on Star Quality and Risque maybe a bit more on Sex Appeal. But it also looks like there's a diminishing return for having both (at least in terms of ratings - I didn't check popularity gains).</p>

[awesomenessofme1]

I think there's a bigger issue beyond just Sex Appeal in that how much of each Rated On category is based on popularity and how much is on the relevant skill seems totally arbitrary.

 

Acting, Selling, Menace - 25/75

Star Quality, Sex Appeal - 30/70

Entertainment, Fighting, Microphone, Charisma - 40/60

Overness - obviously just popularity

 

Why are some of these so much more popularity-based than others?

[Bull]

I think there's a bigger issue beyond just Sex Appeal in that how much of each Rated On category is based on popularity and how much is on the relevant skill seems totally arbitrary.

 

Acting, Selling, Menace - 25/75

Star Quality, Sex Appeal - 30/70

Entertainment, Fighting, Microphone, Charisma - 40/60

Overness - obviously just popularity

 

Why are some of these so much more popularity-based than others?

 

Because you need workers that people want to see.. Undertaker vs. Goldberg wasn't sold on their skill set, it was sold because it was to super popular guys facing off for the first time, and I don't imagine many folks went into that expecting a Taker vs. Michaels quality match. .

[awesomenessofme1]

Because you need workers that people want to see.. Undertaker vs. Goldberg wasn't sold on their skill set, it was sold because it was to super popular guys facing off for the first time, and I don't imagine many folks went into that expecting a Taker vs. Michaels quality match. .

 

I don't understand what you're saying here. How does this have anything to do with the post you're replying to?

[SirMichaelJordan]

I think there's a bigger issue beyond just Sex Appeal in that how much of each Rated On category is based on popularity and how much is on the relevant skill seems totally arbitrary.

 

Acting, Selling, Menace - 25/75

Star Quality, Sex Appeal - 30/70

Entertainment, Fighting, Microphone, Charisma - 40/60

Overness - obviously just popularity

 

Why are some of these so much more popularity-based than others?

 

Balance.

 

The categories that are weighted much more on pop are all non-actions and shouldn’t last more than 5 minutes by itself.

[Croquemitaine]

Because you need workers that people want to see.. Undertaker vs. Goldberg wasn't sold on their skill set, it was sold because it was to super popular guys facing off for the first time, and I don't imagine many folks went into that expecting a Taker vs. Michaels quality match. .

I think he's asking why the ratio is different for the various kinds of skills. Like, why is acting 25/75 while Charisma is 40/60?

 

I think I'd like to see everything set at 40/60, with the "non-active" skills (menace, sex appeal, overness) getting the ding for going over four minutes.

 

(actually, what I'd really like to see is everyone rated on just their skill, combine/average them, and then factor in group popularity calculated on 70% of the most over person, 20% on the next most over, and 10% of the average of everyone else. Because people need to see a big star in an angle, but having that, they generally don't mind other people being there as long as they're good at what they're doing. With this method, an Interviewer character could help segments with their Mic skill without needing to be personally over.)

[awesomenessofme1]

I think he's asking why the ratio is different for the various kinds of skills. Like, why is acting 25/75 while Charisma is 40/60?

 

Another example: Why are two of the "purely visual" categories (Sex Appeal and Star Quality) 30% but the other one (Menace) is 25%? Why would Menace be inherently more popularity-based than the others?

 

I think I'd like to see everything set at 40/60, with the "non-active" skills (menace, sex appeal, overness) getting the ding for going over four minutes.

 

Star Quality, too. But I'd be fine with this system.

[Bull]

I don't understand what you're saying here. How does this have anything to do with the post you're replying to?

 

was just an example to say popularity is necessary for successful angles. .

 

 

From a grading perspective, Lie SirMichaelJordan says, it's a balance thing. .

 

 

The more you lean toward the skills themselves the easier it becomes to get high grades with nobodies. .

 

So if two workers have equal skills the more popular worker will very likely get the better grade and certainly will the wider the gap. .

 

Otherwise you'd see small companies pumping out super high rated angles relative to their size. .

[djthefunkchris]

Because you need workers that people want to see.. Undertaker vs. Goldberg wasn't sold on their skill set, it was sold because it was to super popular guys facing off for the first time, and I don't imagine many folks went into that expecting a Taker vs. Michaels quality match. .

 

This is best example so far. So how would you rate them? Are they even remotely in the same ball park? What kind of score would you hope TEW would give each match? We are talking match grade, not how many people are going to show up to see it. If you have ever dealt in any kind of entertainment, you know you can hype any event up, and get a great crowd at least one time... The hard part is making it worth the hype so even more come the next time.

 

Because your statement here, although I don't believe you meant it to be, in the context to what we are talking about is saying that one of the best match's in Undertakers career should be rated about the same as probably the worst match of his career. It's the only way it can be used on the side your using it for, otherwise it is proving the opposite. If your not giving them both around the same grade, your proving my point not yours.

[awesomenessofme1]

From a grading perspective, Lie SirMichaelJordan says, it's a balance thing. .

 

 

The more you lean toward the skills themselves the easier it becomes to get high grades with nobodies. .

 

So if two workers have equal skills the more popular worker will very likely get the better grade and certainly will the wider the gap. .

 

Otherwise you'd see small companies pumping out super high rated angles relative to their size. .

 

That's still not really relevant to this particular issue. Why is Acting so much more popularity-based than Entertainment? Why is Selling so much more popularity-based than Fighting? Why is Menace different from Star Quality when they're both completely looks-based? This is a separate issue from why they're more popularity-based than skill-based.

[Bull]

This is best example so far. So how would you rate them? Are they even remotely in the same ball park? What kind of score would you hope TEW would give each match? We are talking match grade, not how many people are going to show up to see it. If you have ever dealt in any kind of entertainment, you know you can hype any event up, and get a great crowd at least one time... The hard part is making it worth the hype so even more come the next time.

 

Because your statement here, although I don't believe you meant it to be, in the context to what we are talking about is saying that one of the best match's in Undertakers career should be rated about the same as probably the worst match of his career. It's the only way it can be used on the side your using it for, otherwise it is proving the opposite. If your not giving them both around the same grade, your proving my point not yours.

 

I was referring to the promotion of the match rather than the match itself to say it was their popularity that got people invested in watching it. I may be wrong as I wasn't really watching WWE at the time but I can't imagine they promoted it like it was going to be some Masterclass of wrestling, but rather as two Icon's facing off. .

 

and in a game context the matches themselves are scored according to your product settings and then there are many more factors that would play into the final grade. . just saying. .

[djthefunkchris]

was just an example to say popularity is necessary for successful angles. .

 

 

From a grading perspective, Lie SirMichaelJordan says, it's a balance thing. .

 

 

The more you lean toward the skills themselves the easier it becomes to get high grades with nobodies. .

 

So if two workers have equal skills the more popular worker will very likely get the better grade and certainly will the wider the gap. .

 

Otherwise you'd see small companies pumping out super high rated angles relative to their size. .

 

That is actually a thought. IF (small word/big meaning) that is the intention of the developer, what you are saying right here, than there is a really easy way to get the same result without nerfing certain stats. Have the popularity of the promotion, not the popularity of the individuals, have the bigger weight. Then it evens the playing field better.

 

Because if the argument is my Rock Hard starting promotion shouldn't be able to churn out ratings like SWF or USPW, than let the pop of the promotion be the weight everything. It would at least make things in the promotion your playing make sense, and let skills of the individuals mean something.

[djthefunkchris]

I was referring to the promotion of the match rather than the match itself to say it was their popularity that got people invested in watching it. I may be wrong as I wasn't really watching WWE at the time but I can't imagine they promoted it like it was going to be some Masterclass of wrestling, but rather as two Icon's facing off. .

 

and in a game context the matches themselves are scored according to your product settings and then there are many more factors that would play into the final grade. . just saying. .

 

I am not sure what you are saying, but you are proving my point more and more.

 

We aren't talking about the hype before. We are talking about the grade afterwards. Your example is probably better than anything I've said so far, proving my point. You have any others?

[djthefunkchris]

I ran a brief test with a handful of different women rated on Entertainment, varying their popularity, star quality, and sex appeal. Their charisma and microphone skills were locked at 50, the others were either 0 or 100. I also checked with three different products - classic sports entertainment, risque adult, and attitude entertainment - to see if there was a difference (I wouldn't expect a huge difference).

 

In each angle, there was one person with 0 pop and one with 100 pop; otherwise, they had the same sex appeal and star quality. Not sure why I didn't just put one person in the angle.

 

............................Classic            Risque           Attitude
Low SA/Low SQ................41..................43.................42
Low SA/High SQ...............49..................48.................48
High SA/Low SQ...............48..................50.................47
High SA/High SQ..............54..................51.................49

 

There clearly is a gain with a higher sex appeal and star quality (as I would expect, given that the handbook says there is). There is some variability in the results, so it's hard to tell exactly which is more important, but to me it looks like Classic Sports Entertainment puts a bit more weight on Star Quality and Risque maybe a bit more on Sex Appeal. But it also looks like there's a diminishing return for having both (at least in terms of ratings - I didn't check popularity gains).

 

Thank you so much for this test, but... The base we are looking at is Popularity. I see you kind of got that afterword because you were like "not sure why I didn't do them separate".

 

Having one with and one without pop gives us a medium grade, and there is virtually no difference between the products you tested. As you said, you had you tested the 100 pop and 0 pop separate, and maybe used totally different products, maybe the "Wrestling as a Sport", something that leans more on skill rather than pop, we would have seen drastic different results.

[Bull]

I am not sure what you are saying, but you are proving my point more and more.

 

We aren't talking about the hype before. We are talking about the grade afterwards. Your example is probably better than anything I've said so far, proving my point. You have any others?

 

That makes no sense, if you don't understand it how can you clam it's proving your point lol???

 

"I don't get what you're saying so I must be right." Really?

 

I AM talking about the hype because the discussion is related to angles not matches, at least that's what I thought the discussion was about lol. .

 

 

That's still not really relevant to this particular issue. Why is Acting so much more popularity-based than Entertainment? Why is Selling so much more popularity-based than Fighting? Why is Menace different from Star Quality when they're both completely looks-based? This is a separate issue from why they're more popularity-based than skill-based.

 

Apologies as I'm using Stats and Skills interchangeably here which is making my argument confusing .. I'm just meaning the numbers involved lol

 

I don't have an answer other than to say it's a balance thing. .

 

Entertainment does have the caveat that it's a combination of different stats/skills being judged on their own ratio's that is then combined with Popularity rather than a single stat/skill combined with popularity. . The affect of the persons specific stat may have more or less influence on depending on how high or low it is in those instances. . so as to say the penalties you might incur from using someone who is a terrible actor might have more of a negative effect when the angle is only focused on acting. . penalties that aren't inherently present in look based angles. . That all speculation though as it's untested on my part. .

 

and a high Star Quality is going to give it's own boost regardless of what the angle itself is rated on. . unless it's solely on SQ then I'm assuming there's no extra benefit. . and in the vast majority of cases people with high Menace will have similarly high Star Quality. . so the difference there could be to equalize the effect. .

[Blackman]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="awesomenessofme1" data-cite="awesomenessofme1" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That's still not really relevant to this particular issue. Why is Acting so much more popularity-based than Entertainment? Why is Selling so much more popularity-based than Fighting? Why is Menace different from Star Quality when they're both completely looks-based? This is a separate issue from why they're more popularity-based than skill-based.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> These are indeed just questions. Especially for acting and selling. I've seen many an angle were some low-card schmuck is beaten up. I'm not really caring who that is. Well... a little, but not 75%. So I would actually argue the opposite: that fighting is more pop-based than selling. Because it's mostly overness.</p><p> </p><p> The best argument I can find is the famous BookerT & StoneCold supermarket angle. If that was someone else, it wouldn't have been epic, obviously. But for a small angle? It really doesn't matter that much.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="SirMichaelJordan" data-cite="SirMichaelJordan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Balance.<p> </p><p> The categories that are weighted much more on pop are all non-actions and shouldn’t last more than 5 minutes by itself.</p></div></blockquote><p> I have no problem with setting time limits, etc. The problem I have is how the segment is weighted. It absolutely should enhance the worker (done right), not hinder them. For example, I wouldn't think it appropriate nor a good segment if a diva did a striptease with small children in the audience because people are expecting a PG show. However, if my crowd knows I'm doing things like this, and they expect a more rated r show, if it's good it should be good.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Bull" data-cite="Bull" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That makes no sense, if you don't understand it how can you clam it's proving your point lol???<p> </p><p> "I don't get what you're saying so I must be right." Really?</p><p> </p><p> I AM talking about the hype because the discussion is related to angles not matches, at least that's what I thought the discussion was about lol. .</p></div></blockquote>Yep, I totally missed your point. Still.... all angles aren't to hype a different show. Angles are also used to progress story lines, and these angles can be rated on Sex Appeal or Menace. <p> </p><p> Here is an example of three workers, with an unknown worker three being rated on Sex Appeal: Worker one and two are a known couple, but they are seen having heated words, not in a good way, when an unknown worker three walks by looking really good, and catches the eye of worker one.</p><p> </p><p> Interchange this unknown worker with any known worker with 0 sex appeal and over 30 pop, and they get a better rating although the segment is supposedly based on sex appeal.</p><p> </p><p> To me, maybe not you, that is totally unbelievable and takes me completely out of the game. For those of you that don't understand, maybe it's just a game to you, maybe TEW is just an elaborate game of chess or checkers, or Risk or whatever other non immersive game you can think of is out there, but I always try to get into a TEW game as if the characters are real. When I see something totally unrealistic happen, it takes me out of the game and makes the game less fun to me. It's like watching a movie and seeing cables on the martial artist leaping, or a green screen in the background instead of the landscape that was just there a second ago, etc.</p><p> </p><p> I can see this not mattering to people that just play as WWE type promotions as well, since everyone is popular on those shows.</p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Bull" data-cite="Bull" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Apologies as I'm using Stats and Skills interchangeably here...</div></blockquote>I think I'm guilty of that as well.

[Thane of Fife]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Thank you so much for this test, but... The base we are looking at is Popularity. I see you kind of got that afterword because you were like "not sure why I didn't do them separate".<p> </p><p> Having one with and one without pop gives us a medium grade, and there is virtually no difference between the products you tested. As you said, you had you tested the 100 pop and 0 pop separate, and maybe used totally different products, maybe the "Wrestling as a Sport", something that leans more on skill rather than pop, we would have seen drastic different results.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think you may be missing the point. Having one with pop and one without pop would of course mean that the one with pop would score much higher (we could guess about 60 points higher).</p><p> </p><p> The intent was to look just at the effect of sex appeal and star quality on an entertainment-rated angle. The actual ratings of the angles don't matter as much as the difference between them. Since the average pop - and the actual entertainment skills - in each case are the same, we would expect them to rate similarly. Just for you, I went back and reran the Attitude cases, but this time with only one worker, with her pop set to 50, and got very similar numbers (certainly inside the error band due to randomness).</p><p> </p><p> The reason I looked at a couple products was because of the T&A setting from TEW 2016 - I wasn't sure if there would be a variation in how much of a bonus was applied based on product. My conclusion was that it looked like there was a very small weighting between sex appeal and star quality, but it was very hard to tell, so I didn't think it would be worth running any more products.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Blackman" data-cite="Blackman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>These are indeed just questions. Especially for acting and selling. I've seen many an angle were some low-card schmuck is beaten up. I'm not really caring who that is. Well... a little, but not 75%. So I would actually argue the opposite: that fighting is more pop-based than selling. Because it's mostly overness.<p> </p><p> The best argument I can find is the famous BookerT & StoneCold supermarket angle. If that was someone else, it wouldn't have been epic, obviously. But for a small angle? It really doesn't matter that much.</p></div></blockquote><p> I honestly don't know how I feel about fighting yet, but I do know if you would have put two workers in that exact same scenario that put on something special, it would have got just as much if not more buzz, just like everything else does especially in today's age when a small clip of it ends up going viral. The CM Punk pipe bomb, the older but even better example of Austin 3:16... None of which is possible in the new TEW game mind you.</p>

[awesomenessofme1]

What if products could affect how much of angles was based on skill and how much is based on popularity, the same way it is for matches? This would probably require standardizing the percentages (I wouldn't mind that anyway, so no problem for me) but I think this could be a great way of making things work.