Un-nerf Sex Appeal

[djthefunkchris]

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).

Not if they are both in the same segment, the segment only gets one rating.

 

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).

It should have been exactly the same, as you set one at the halfway mark... The test would be to do one with those same variables, but at 0 Popularity, then another at 100 popularity with the same variables. Rate them on Sex Appeal. That would be a test that told me something I didn't know. Your running tests showing that same=same. The little bit of variance can be just the simulated effects described in the handbook, allowing for minimal things. For example, you can run the same angle and get a 40, don't save and quit, go back ready to run it again, get a 38, go back do it again, get a 43... It's not exact, but there is a randomness set in to account for -maybe a misstep/maybe a bonus nod- or something.

 

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.

 

Yeah, I think you were trying to find something that would be more "friendly" to Sex Appeal angles, I understood that. I was just saying you picked three that were all pretty "friendly" is all. I just thought we would have learned more with them being compared to products designed not to be so SA friendly.

 

I wasn't trying to pick at you, I hope your not taking it wrong. I should have said I was thankful again, so you knew this beyond a doubt.

 

I don't want anyone thinking I am getting hot, or that I want anyone else to get hot over a pretend skill in a pretend game. For example: I really did like the fight example Blackman gave, it wasn't until I thought it over and realized the flaws (at least in my opinion).

 

I am looking for the post that makes me go "Oh, ok, I get it now!" or preferably since I'm right, I make the post that makes others go "Oh, ok, I get it now!"

 

Mind you... I'm not the OP, awesomenessofme1 is the person that brought it up... I was looking through the "reaction" thread to see if anyone noticed the stats not working right when I stumbled across this.

 

I mean... I can compensate by adjusting the pop on high SA or Menace. Just go through and mass edit anyone that has over 60 menace, add maybe 15 pop, over 60 SA add maybe 10 pop... See how that goes, if not happy, add another 5 or 10 pop. To me that would make it more realistic, as long as I didn't rate them on overness... which in a tiny promotion I'm not doing anyways.

[SirMichaelJordan]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I can see this not mattering to people that just play as WWE type promotions as well, since everyone is popular on those shows.

I think I'm guilty of that as well.

 

So, is this couple that are arguing with each other are they in bikinis? I’m not sure why would you rate them on SA and not entertainment or acting.

 

Now you have what I assume is a hot lady walk by without saying anything so she’s rated on SA. Are these people unknown relative to the company or are just low in popularity but rank high within the company? If this is a small company than I’m not sure how high you expect this segment to score. In this situation it would probably be a low score but definitely inline with the company. If they are relatively unpopular within the company then why are these people on my screen and who are they? There is nothing interesting happening here other than unknown people who look good.

 

Now if the couple wasn’t rated on SA but entertainment instead assuming they are unpopular but have some decent entertainment skills and then you add the hot female rated on SA into the mix, you just now maximized the segment and might get a low score but relatively high for that small company.

 

Also by putting a known person in that situation and rated on SA despite them not having any is bad booking. Yes it will score higher in the situation you’re presenting but you are also endangering their popularity by putting them in position to get a grade lower than they would normally get. That same scene can happen with the person getting rated on SQ (or any other non action rating they may be rated better in). A male or female walking by looking like an alpha without the need of looking like Magic Mike or a Vegas stripper...

[djthefunkchris]

So is this couple that are arguing with each other in bikinis? I’m not sure why would you rate them on SA and not entertainment or acting.

Just the third one is rated on SA.

 

Now you have what I assume is a hot lady walk by without saying anything so she’s rated on SA. Are these people unknown relative to the company or are just low in popularity but rank high within the company? If this is a small company than I’m not sure how high you expect this segment to score. In this situation it would probably be a low score but definitely inline with the company. If they are relatively unpopular within the company then why are these people on my screen and who are they? There is nothing interesting happening here other than unknown people who look good.

Oh why not... Let's pretend like it's Vince and Linda, and Trish Stratus walks by. It could be anyone and anyone... The idea is that it's a hot girl getting rated on being hot. I don't care how popular the others are. They have a segment, then she has a segment walking by, then he has a segment watching her. The only segment we are actually interested in is hers.

 

Now if the couple wasn’t rated on SA but entertainment assuming they are unpopular but have some decent entertainment skills and you add the hot female rated on SA into the mix then you just maximized the segment and might get a low score but relatively high for that small company.

....

 

Also by putting a known person in that situation and rated on SA despite them not having any is bad booking. Yes it will score higher but you are also endangering their popular by putting them in position to get a grade lower than they would normally get. That same scene can happen with the person getting rated on SQ. A male or female walking by looking like an alpha without the need of looking like Magic Mike or a Vegas stripper...

What does any of THAT matter? Maybe I'm booking a new sexy girl to go up against Fabulous Moolah, and I want Moolah to act like she thinks she's just as sexy and so she is going to do the same things.

 

The new girl- "Hey all, what do you think of this new outfit I got?"

Moolah being jeolous gets the same outfit but looks no where near as good, does the same thing.

 

Moolah see's the girl get that other guys attention when she walks by, so tries to do the same.

 

It doesn't have to be this big discussion to get to the same point.

 

You can't just justify it by saying "Oh... Unknown, I don't care" when there have been plenty of times someone has done something that made you go..."Huh, ok, I'm interested now!" None of that is possible now.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Just the third one is rated on SA.

 

 

Oh why not... Let's pretend like it's Vince and Linda, and Trish Stratus walks by. It could be anyone and anyone... The idea is that it's a hot girl getting rated on being hot. I don't care how popular the others are. They have a segment, then she has a segment walking by, then he has a segment watching her. The only segment we are actually interested in is hers.

 

....

 

 

What does any of THAT matter? Maybe I'm booking a new sexy girl to go up against Fabulous Moolah, and I want Moolah to act like she thinks she's just as sexy and so she is going to do the same things.

 

The new girl- "Hey all, what do you think of this new outfit I got?"

Moolah being jeolous gets the same outfit but looks no where near as good, does the same thing.

 

Moolah see's the girl get that other guys attention when she walks by, so tries to do the same.

 

It doesn't have to be this big discussion to get to the same point.

 

You can't just justify it by saying "Oh... Unknown, I don't care" when there have been plenty of times someone has done something that made you go..."Huh, ok, I'm interested now!" None of that is possible now.

 

Sex appeal is a non action rating...What you just explained is a segment rated on entertainment and probably comedy. But I digress.

[djthefunkchris]

Rating a person on Acting, Selling, Star Quality, Sex Appeal, or Menace with someone that is 100 in those skills but minimal popularity, will get a lower rating then someone that has 0 in the skill but has the popularity.

 

We are all aware someone super popular will get a reaction by simply standing there... Michael Jackson Super Bowl for an extreme example. That's not a problem for anyone. I get it, the OP gets it, I can't think of a soul that doesn't get that. All the little nuances being injected into scenarios to make an excuse for what looks like a huge flaw, is stunning.

 

We are doing extreme examples to make a point, not something we would do in game. For example, if I want my new worker to win a bikini contest verse someone popular, I would have them win against someone that looked at the very least "ok" in one. The problem is that although my new worker is supposed to be the sexiest women in the game, the only one looking good is the one with popularity (no matter is she looks good or not), and the one that is the sexiest is bringing the segment down, a segment rated on sexiness.

 

The examples given are extreme examples to show you how bad it needs fixing, and all you can do is say "why would you do that?" we wouldn't unless it's a special case. So if the person with popularity has any SA at all, it becomes so massively unbalanced it makes the whole stat useless.

 

The ugliest person should never beat the sexiest person in the segment rated on it, weather you would do that or not. Come up with a fix, and quit asking "why" instead ask "how".

[Bull]

Just the third one is rated on SA.

 

 

Oh why not... Let's pretend like it's Vince and Linda, and Trish Stratus walks by. It could be anyone and anyone... The idea is that it's a hot girl getting rated on being hot. I don't care how popular the others are. They have a segment, then she has a segment walking by, then he has a segment watching her. The only segment we are actually interested in is hers.

 

....

 

 

What does any of THAT matter? Maybe I'm booking a new sexy girl to go up against Fabulous Moolah, and I want Moolah to act like she thinks she's just as sexy and so she is going to do the same things.

 

The new girl- "Hey all, what do you think of this new outfit I got?"

Moolah being jeolous gets the same outfit but looks no where near as good, does the same thing.

 

Moolah see's the girl get that other guys attention when she walks by, so tries to do the same.

 

It doesn't have to be this big discussion to get to the same point.

 

You can't just justify it by saying "Oh... Unknown, I don't care" when there have been plenty of times someone has done something that made you go..."Huh, ok, I'm interested now!" None of that is possible now.

 

Yea, I think it comes to a point where the game as it is can't truly simulate that initial "Wow" Factor for lack of a better term. That action/appearance that instantly grabs your attention and has you invested in someone.

 

Rather as it is, it assumes every "fan" in the world knows how known or unknown a worker is and simulates accordingly. There is no good way to truly instantly establish someone as a Player, it's all in an incremental slow build style.

 

Perhaps it would work better if on an initial debut or appearance the worker is indeed rated purely on their looks/stats/skill, whatever they are graded on, and less so on their popularity and depending on how they perform, they would get a boost to their popularity accordingly to level the field so to speak. . and it could have a better shot at succeeding or give better boosts if they are on the screen with already established workers. . To kind of establish that initial investment in someone who is otherwise unknown to the audience at large. .

[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>Sex appeal is a non action rating...What you just explained is a segment rated on entertainment and probably comedy. But I digress.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It's supposed to look pathetic, but it's made up. I like your scenario better if I were making it, but I'm trying to make a point, and somehow you run around it entirely.</p><p> </p><p> You can do what your doing for everything, and I guess that's on purpose on your half, which means your purposely ignoring evidence for some strange reason... your not on trial here. Your a good guy, everyone knows it.. you don't have to keep spinning things around.</p>

[cwamaniac]

<p>To return to this post thread</p><p> </p><p>

I took some time to think about the test I ran and I’ve thought about the charisma and entertainment focuses on angles</p><p> </p><p>

1. After some thought I can see an argument on why charisma is unaffected by the sex appeal stat (which it 100% accurate unless that got changed via patch, as I tested that), charisma to me is something that is just there, you could be born with it or just develop it over time it’s not rated on something very tangible </p><p> </p><p>

2. Entertainment however should 100% provide a boost on entertainment, it doesn’t make any sense for entertainment based angles to not get a small boost from sex appeal, simply put people listen to beautiful people a bit easier (as their easier on the eyes) rather than someone with just a 50 (average looks?) </p><p> </p><p>

Also while I appreciate that people ran their own tests as well </p><p> </p><p>

“The intent was to look just at the effect of sex appeal and star quality on an entertainment-rated angle. (Ok a fair test) The actual ratings of the angles don't matter as much as the difference between them (uh they 100% should matter, even if the difference is small, as it determines if sex appeal needs in nerfing in comparison to star quality). Since the average pop - and the actual entertainment skills - in each case are the same, we would expect them to rate similarly. (Completely Agreed, they should 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). (Fascinating) </p><p> </p><p>

..........................Classic Risque Attitude</p><p>

Low SA/Low SQ................41..................43.................42</p><p>

Low SA/High SQ...............49..................48.................48</p><p>

High SA/Low SQ...............48..................50.................47</p><p>

High SA/High SQ..............54..................51.................49</p><p> </p><p>

This data gives me the following questions</p><p> </p><p>

1. If entertainment segments provide 0 boosts from sex appeal according to the dirt sheet then what is providing the boosts? Momentum? Gimmick Effects? Natural variance? </p><p> </p><p>

2. Why are these numbers at all comparable? Classic and Attitude are supposed to be very different levels of sex appeal, with the attitude booking typically using it more, and yet for some reason it’s numbers are lower than classic?</p><p> </p><p>

3. It makes little sense that the Risqué company is also scoring less than classic on some sex appeal “boosted” segments but that could just be variance skewing negatively </p><p> </p><p>

4. Outta curiosity does Star Quality still provide a boost in angles via the dirt sheet? If the answer is yes then why doesn’t sex appeal? </p><p> </p><p>

This confuses me however </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><p> </p><p>

1. Where in the handbook does it say there is a gain for sex appeal? I’m curious to read it myself </p><p> </p><p>

2. If sex appeal does actually increase angle ratings rated on something other than sex appeal, why is there nothing in the dirt sheet about it?</p><p> </p><p>

I realize that the ratings seem to increase a bit as the stats increase but it doesn’t confirm that sex appeal is the reason for the increase </p><p> </p><p>

Honestly I still believe sex appeal is “nerfed” to an extent that is somewhat unrealistic as looks literally are the first thing one notices when looking at a wrestler, which would include star quality, menace and sex appeal</p><p> </p><p>

Star quality is fine stat wise I believe, but sex appeal and menace have both been “nerfed” when it should be rated similarly to star quality (using the same scales)</p><p> </p><p>

—————————————————————————————————————————</p><p> </p><p>

Bonus - why don’t we get a few attributes based around some stats, I won’t go overboard as it’s not the ideal place to post them (I think) but for example </p><p> </p><p>

<strong>Gorgeous</strong> - These characters get a small boost when rated on their looks</p><p> </p><p>

<strong>Dog Faced Gremlin</strong> - These characters take an additional penalty when rated on looks</p><p> </p><p>

<strong>Model genes</strong> - These Workers sex appeal decreases a lot slower than others and increase quicker when there still young</p>

[Bull]

<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 took some time to think about the test I ran and I’ve thought about the charisma and entertainment focuses on angles<p> </p><p> 1. After some thought I can see an argument on why charisma is unaffected by the sex appeal stat (which it 100% accurate unless that got changed via patch, as I tested that), charisma to me is something that is just there, you could be born with it or just develop it over time it’s not rated on something very tangible </p><p> </p><p> 2. Entertainment however should 100% provide a boost on entertainment, it doesn’t make any sense for entertainment based angles to not get a small boost from sex appeal, simply put people listen to beautiful people a bit easier (as their easier on the eyes) rather than someone with just a 50 (average looks?) </p><p> </p><p> Also while I appreciate that people ran their own tests as well </p><p> </p><p> “The intent was to look just at the effect of sex appeal and star quality on an entertainment-rated angle. (Ok a fair test) The actual ratings of the angles don't matter as much as the difference between them (uh they 100% should matter, even if the difference is small, as it determines if sex appeal needs in nerfing in comparison to star quality). Since the average pop - and the actual entertainment skills - in each case are the same, we would expect them to rate similarly. (Completely Agreed, they should 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). (Fascinating) </p><p> </p><p> ..........................Classic Risque Attitude</p><p> Low SA/Low SQ................41..................43.................42</p><p> Low SA/High SQ...............49..................48.................48</p><p> High SA/Low SQ...............48..................50.................47</p><p> High SA/High SQ..............54..................51.................49</p><p> </p><p> This data gives me the following questions</p><p> </p><p> 1. If entertainment segments provide 0 boosts from sex appeal according to the dirt sheet then what is providing the boosts? Momentum? Gimmick Effects? Natural variance? </p><p> </p><p> 2. Why are these numbers at all comparable? Classic and Attitude are supposed to be very different levels of sex appeal, with the attitude booking typically using it more, and yet for some reason it’s numbers are lower than classic?</p><p> </p><p> 3. It makes little sense that the Risqué company is also scoring less than classic on some sex appeal “boosted” segments but that could just be variance skewing negatively </p><p> </p><p> 4. Outta curiosity does Star Quality still provide a boost in angles via the dirt sheet? If the answer is yes then why doesn’t sex appeal? </p><p> </p><p> This confuses me however </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><p> </p><p> 1. Where in the handbook does it say there is a gain for sex appeal? I’m curious to read it myself </p><p> </p><p> 2. If sex appeal does actually increase angle ratings rated on something other than sex appeal, why is there nothing in the dirt sheet about it?</p><p> </p><p> I realize that the ratings seem to increase a bit as the stats increase but it doesn’t confirm that sex appeal is the reason for the increase </p><p> </p><p> Honestly I still believe sex appeal is “nerfed” to an extent that is somewhat unrealistic as looks literally are the first thing one notices when looking at a wrestler, which would include star quality, menace and sex appeal</p><p> </p><p> Star quality is fine stat wise I believe, but sex appeal and menace have both been “nerfed” when it should be rated similarly to star quality (using the same scales)</p><p> </p><p> —————————————————————————————————————————</p><p> </p><p> Bonus - why don’t we get a few attributes based around some stats, I won’t go overboard as it’s not the ideal place to post them (I think) but for example </p><p> </p><p> <strong>Gorgeous</strong> - These characters get a small boost when rated on their looks</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Dog Faced Gremlin</strong> - These characters take an additional penalty when rated on looks</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Model genes</strong> - These Workers sex appeal decreases a lot slower than others and increase quicker when there still young</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> this is just one but it's in the angles section of the handbook</p><p> <img alt="2bQs3NQ.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/2bQs3NQ.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> just to add another thing could be to not make it such a static ratio. . but have a slight possibility of variance if the person is exceptionally talented or attractive. .</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<p>Cwamaniac, I wish we could rate a segment on strength. Weird we can't, as those Mark Henry segments were pretty interesting to watch sometimes. </p><p> </p><p>

It would probably be rated 25% Strength, 75% popularity, so the guy with 25+ popularity NOT able to lift the barbells would score higher than the unknown that lifted it up with one hand.</p>

[cwamaniac]

<p>Not a bad idea</p><p> </p><p> </p><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>Cwamaniac, I wish we could rate a segment on strength. Weird we can't, as those Mark Henry segments were pretty interesting to watch sometimes. <p> </p><p> It would probably be rated 25% Strength, 75% popularity, so the guy with 25+ popularity NOT able to lift the barbells would score higher than the unknown that lifted it up with one hand.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> We’ve had wrestling matches built around a power spot plenty of times heck Hogan vs Andre the most famous match ever was based on If Hogan could slam the Giant, id be for a new rated on strength category </p><p> </p><p> But to stay on topic is it an error that the dirt sheet doesn’t list the boosts to the segment from sex appeal or intentional? After all it’s pretty easy for anyone to check, just run a entertainment segment with Emma chase to see if the dirt sheet lists a boost from her high sex appeal</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<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>We’ve had wrestling matches built around a power spot plenty of times heck Hogan vs Andre the most famous match ever was based on If Hogan could slam the Giant, id be for a new rated on strength category <p> </p><p> But to stay on topic is it an error that the dirt sheet doesn’t list the boosts to the segment from sex appeal or intentional? After all it’s pretty easy for anyone to check, just run a entertainment segment with Emma chase to see if the dirt sheet lists a boost from her high sex appeal</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Your checking it against a segment that's not rated on sex appeal. I don't have a problem with that being vague, a "small" percentage might be just a point or two. The little nuances that can occur to me is probably around five or six points different, so something that does a 70, might go as small as 64 or high as 76 depending on the "roll", with a plus, let's say maybe 2 for SA, and your looking at a roll between 66 and 78. Hope for the 78.. Consistency might have something to do with it as well. So if your high consistency, maybe another 2 points are taken from both sides so you start with a 4 point leeway, low consistency adding another 2 to 4 points so you could roll 62 to 80. I mean, This is just examples not how it is. Either way, I haven't felt like those little hidden plus/minus stuff is something to get into deeply, as it would take dozens of tests to see the overall effects of each one (because they are so minimal). Just no that if you have high SA, your probably getting a point or two higher each roll. That doesn't mean someone with lower SA and equal everything else won't beat it, because it's still a roll..... Hopefully that makes some sense. It's like RPG, only with a computer.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

—————————————————————————————————————————

 

Bonus - why don’t we get a few attributes based around some stats, I won’t go overboard as it’s not the ideal place to post them (I think) but for example

 

Gorgeous - These characters get a small boost when rated on their looks

 

Dog Faced Gremlin - These characters take an additional penalty when rated on looks

 

Model genes - These Workers sex appeal decreases a lot slower than others and increase quicker when there still young

 

My thoughts on attributes so far.... Why not just go copy sims traits and call it a day, as that's what we are doing here anyways. I blame Derek_b for them, but still expect a '97 C-Verse promptly.

 

They would be much more worthwhile if we could make our own attributes.

[Thane of Fife]

2. Why are these numbers at all comparable? Classic and Attitude are supposed to be very different levels of sex appeal, with the attitude booking typically using it more, and yet for some reason it’s numbers are lower than classic?

 

3. It makes little sense that the Risqué company is also scoring less than classic on some sex appeal “boosted” segments but that could just be variance skewing negatively

 

It may be that the Risque and Attitude companies are scoring slightly less because I had to make the angles slightly shorter to fit their products. I would recommend only comparing directly between rows (that is, compare different workers in the same product), and comparing the between-row impacts between columns. If only because all four rows were done by rerunning a show four times, whereas the columns had to be done on separate saves.

 

4. Outta curiosity does Star Quality still provide a boost in angles via the dirt sheet? If the answer is yes then why doesn’t sex appeal?

 

I didn't look really hard, but the only ones I noticed were for road agent skill and bad locker room morale.

[cwamaniac]

My thoughts

 

Your checking it against a segment that's not rated on sex appeal. I don't have a problem with that being vague, a "small" percentage might be just a point or two. The little nuances that can occur to me is probably around five or six points different, so something that does a 70, might go as small as 64 or high as 76 depending on the "roll", with a plus, let's say maybe 2 for SA, and your looking at a roll between 66 and 78. Hope for the 78.. Consistency might have something to do with it as well. So if your high consistency, maybe another 2 points are taken from both sides so you start with a 4 point leeway, low consistency adding another 2 to 4 points so you could roll 62 to 80. I mean, This is just examples not how it is. Either way, I haven't felt like those little hidden plus/minus stuff is something to get into deeply, as it would take dozens of tests to see the overall effects of each one (because they are so minimal). Just no that if you have high SA, your probably getting a point or two higher each roll. That doesn't mean someone with lower SA and equal everything else won't beat it, because it's still a roll..... Hopefully that makes some sense. It's like RPG, only with a computer.

 

I’m sorry but I have to disagree somewhat, here you start by saying I’m checking it against a segment not rated on sex appeal but the problem is the handbook literally points out that entertainment segments do use sex appeal in the calculations, without adding that to the dirt sheet how do we know it’s there however?

 

I am fine with variance in segment ratings in the boost or not I do however not enjoy not knowing if there is or isn’t a boost, that’s my opinion I know but I don’t think I’m alone on that, I have zero issues with others have different thoughts on this however.

 

I guess I use the dirt sheet a lot (maybe more than some others)

 

Fun chat curious what others think 🤔

[djthefunkchris]

I’m sorry but I have to disagree somewhat, here you start by saying I’m checking it against a segment not rated on sex appeal but the problem is the handbook literally points out that entertainment segments do use sex appeal in the calculations, without adding that to the dirt sheet how do we know it’s there however?

 

I am fine with variance in segment ratings in the boost or not I do however not enjoy not knowing if there is or isn’t a boost, that’s my opinion I know but I don’t think I’m alone on that, I have zero issues with others have different thoughts on this however.

 

I guess I use the dirt sheet a lot (maybe more than some others)

 

Fun chat curious what others think 🤔

I don't mean to dismiss your thoughts, sorry if it come over like that. I mean me personally, that's not something I'm that worried about.

 

I'm saying I know there is going to be some hidden stuff in there (might not be, but there always has been as far as I can remember), or it might be just something left over that was going to be there and isn't anymore and that is why it's not in the dirt sheet. I do know that most things only effect "other" things, if they are over a certain amount, but you tested at every level. Either way, I can see an explanation is all your looking for, but that would be something maybe to put in the technical area. I don't know how badly this effects you, the sooner the better, or if you can wait a few days to let some of the other ones get looked at first. You will either get the "Yep, overlooked, and going into next fix" or "Working as intended", but at least your question would be answered.

 

This thread is talking about something we feel is working as intended, we just don't like it's intended outcome.

[Bull]

<p>So here's what I did</p><p> </p><p>

I made 5 workers, set them all to 50 Popularity set all there's skills to 50 execept</p><p> </p><p>

Consistency was set to 100</p><p> </p><p>

Charisma, Microphone, Acting, and Star Quality were all set to 75</p><p> </p><p>

Menace to 0</p><p> </p><p>

and took away all attributes and set personality to Professional.</p><p>

Here is an example of Worker 1</p><p>

<img alt="JjEmIr4.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/JjEmIr4.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p>

The only variable was Sex Appeal as I had one worker with 100, 75, 50, 25, and 0 respectively</p><p> </p><p>

I turned off every possible setting that could influence the grade, so morale, overuse, crowd heat, and I set them all to have a standard gimmick that was rated as adequate and I made sure every segment was scripted so no bonus from improvising.</p><p> </p><p>

The only thing that was knowingly influencing the grades was the announcers, and the road agent. but I made sure to use the same road agent and announcers for every segment. and this was using SWF so the product was Classic Sports Entertainment so there's a cap on Sex Appeal Angles. .</p><p> </p><p>

These were the results again everyone here had 50 Popularity </p><p>

<img alt="WoPbqNk.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/WoPbqNk.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p>

Next I flipped the method and set all 5 to 100 Sex Appeal and varied the popularity and again it went 100, 75, 50, 25, and 0 and got this</p><p>

<img alt="BBDzNxy.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/BBDzNxy.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>

Then Finally I set all their Sex Appeal to 0 and maintained the Popularity variable. and I got this.</p><p>

<img alt="hDXyoIP.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/hDXyoIP.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>

So sure if we look at the extreme someone with 0 Sex Appeal and 100 Popularity scored a 47 while someone with 100 Sex Appeal and 0 popularity scored a 20</p><p> </p><p>

The thing to consider here is if you equate it to the size of your company. . if you're big all it'll take is someone around 50 Popularity to offset that extreme of 100 assuming you are even playing a game where people have 100 popularity in the first place, and anything lest than 75 and you're almost certainly better off using the person with actual sex appeal as opposed to the more popular person. . beyond that it's guaranteed. </p><p> </p><p>

Then if you account for smaller companies who more often than not aren't gonna have anyone with 75 and above popularity in the first place, there's no reason not to use the High SA Low Pop Worker if you are using those angles. .</p>

[djthefunkchris]

0 SA and 100 Pop scored third overall, was the last test 4 minutes or 6 minutes?

[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>0 SA and 100 Pop scored third overall, was the last test 4 minutes or 6 minutes?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> they were all rated on Sex Appeal in the last test so 4 minutes to avoid penalties</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Yea sure it was 3rd overall, but I say again it is THE most extreme scenario and one that realistically would never occur unless it's deliberately set up that way/ Plus, their is zero benefit from it as you are dropping someone with 100 popularity into an angle that's going to pull less than half their popularity in the grade. . and any company that could benefit from it isn't gonna have a worker with 100 popularity in the first place. .</p><p> </p><p> You stand to gain something from actually using the less popular workers because they at least have a chance to gain popularity from it. .</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<p>Naw Bull, you're misunderstanding my intentions. I'm trying to find that area your happy about. I just wanted to throw it up here so we can understand what you tested. I mean, look at it a different way. I think I'm not into it good enough to think about it yet, but I feel like I'm finally seeing something I like.</p><p> </p><p>

<strong>Worker---SA---Pop---4 min rating</strong></p><p> </p><p>

-6---------100---100--------61</p><p>

-7---------100----75--------54</p><p>

11-----------0---100--------47</p><p>

-1---------100----50--------41</p><p>

-8---------100----50--------41</p><p>

-2----------75----50--------36</p><p>

12-----------0----75--------33</p><p>

-3----------50----50--------32</p><p>

-9---------100----25--------31</p><p>

-5-----------0----50--------26</p><p>

-4----------25----50--------25</p><p>

13-----------0----50--------23</p><p>

10--------100------0--------20</p><p>

14-----------0----25--------13</p><p>

15-----------0------0---------0</p><p> </p><p>

Looking at it this way I think might make it easier to see what we would prefer, as to what is, or should anything be changed at all... Not going to comment on your findings just yet, but that's exactly the kind of test I was hoping to see.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

At first glance it looks like might be able to get anything from 55 to 80 with 100/100 SA/Pop. Meaning, everything lines up just right (other factors), the maximum your going to get with a sex appeal angle is an 80, which I'm not hating (if I am anywhere near right). However, that means you had some pretty bad rolls on the high numbers. Also, although I'm not hating the first couple in order of how well they did, I think the majority of the rest is trash, until you get to the end. Those top rolls though, I can't help to think they are weighed down by some kind of nerf/cap (worse than 20% at the top.. like close to 35%).

 

Ok, going to do some math that's not in my head.

[Bull]

At first glance it looks like might be able to get anything from 55 to 80 with 100/100 SA/Pop. Meaning, everything lines up just right (other factors), the maximum your going to get with a sex appeal angle is an 80, which I'm not hating (if I am anywhere near right). However, that means you had some pretty bad rolls on the high numbers. Also, although I'm not hating the first couple in order of how well they did, I think the majority of the rest is trash, until you get to the end. Those top rolls though, I can't help to think they are weighed down by some kind of nerf/cap (worse than 20% at the top.. like close to 35%).

 

Ok, going to do some math that's not in my head.

 

I used SWF with Classic Sports Entertainment so Sex Appeal Angles are capped. I think it's just assumed that it's a concrete point based cap, but It's not outside the realm of possibility that the cap scales in such a way that it limits every segment by a percentage. .

 

So rather than saying there is a cap of 80 and no segment will ever score higher, it's an 80% cap an every segment will only perform 80% as well in that Product type. .

[djthefunkchris]

I used SWF with Classic Sports Entertainment so Sex Appeal Angles are capped. I think it's just assumed that it's a concrete point based cap, but It's not outside the realm of possibility that the cap scales in such a way that it limits every segment by a percentage. .

 

So rather than saying there is a cap of 80 and no segment will ever score higher, it's an 80% cap an every segment will only perform 80% as well in that Product type. .

 

Yeah, I am in agreement I believe. I think my problem has more to do with the weight... I just can't get over ugly being sexy because.... Fame. I've never said "Oh, she looks better because she's more famous", ever. I do however agree that knowing who someone is effects your objectivity, but not to the effect that all the sudden I think Melissa McCarthy or Leslie Jones is sexier than one of these girls I see out on the beach (love them both, very funny ladies).

 

I think I would like it to cap off at 80 though (for an angle on sex appeal). It's just backwards... I think I see what they were trying to do (or Adam was trying to do). But if it's possible to do a 50/50 with a 20% cap, and weighted by SA... meaning if you have 100/100, you would be able to get a max of 80. IF you have 90SA/100POP you would get a max of 68 (68.4 rounded to whole number). The Opposite, 100SA/90POP would be 76. At least this way anything with 0 SA gets a 0 Rating in something rated on Sex Appeal. It also means someone with 100 SA and no POP would get rating maximum of 40.

 

The difference in what we see in the test would be like this

 

Worker-SA-POP-original---my way

 

1--------100---50---41--------60

2---------75---50---36--------37.5

3---------50---50---32--------20

4---------25---50---25---------7.5

5----------0---50---26----------0

6-------100--100---61--------80

7-------100---75---54--------70

8-------100---50---41--------60

9-------100---25---31--------50

10------100----0---20--------40

11--------0--100---47---------0

12--------0---75---33---------0

13--------0---50---23---------0

14--------0---25---13---------0

15--------0----0----0--------- 0

 

Although it looks like it goes down lower most of the time, to me it feels like the angle is truly weighed by SA. I would propose to do something similar with Menace. I really feel menace could be based higher (this is a base number I'm talking about).

 

Of course, it might not be possible but ... there ya go.... TIME TRAVEL!

[tormyb]

<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>I just can't get over ugly being sexy because.... Fame.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Sorry if I'm approaching this from a way that becomes somewhat tangential, but I was wondering if some of this depends on what you think an angle's rating actually means.</p><p> </p><p> I've always thought that a segment's (angle or match) rating is about how widely impactful it is, not a mere quantification of its quality. If a low sex appeal, high popularity worker gets a high rating for an angle rated on sex appeal - ugly isn't sexy because of fame - ugly is impactful because of fame.</p><p> </p><p> In TEW, segment ratings equate to show ratings, and show ratings equate to company or worker popularity growth/decline. Therefore, I would argue that segment ratings are just as much about the buzz that they create as they are about how well the angle actually went. People watching might enjoy a low popularity/high sex appeal worker's angle more, but that doesn't mean it should get a better grade because the grade is not a measure of quality or enjoyment, it's a measure of the wider attention that the segment draws which often has a murky relationship with any measure of quality.</p><p> </p><p> Apologies if my point has already been addressed, this thread is moving a bit too fast for me.</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

I pretty much been saying what the test are proving for the past 2 or so days. Thanks for doing the test because i don’t have the patience.

 

And like the above poster said, angles are rated as a segment not who is sexier just because the angle is rated on sex.

 

Same would be true with strength. (Cena vs Mark Henry in an arm wrestling match prior to the attack by outside interference; lol Cena was beating Mark Henry in an arm wrestling match)

 

I don’t think anything needs changing especially after seeing how high the ratings would become with the proposed adjustments with a 50/50 split. I trust that Adam ended up with the formula with reason. At this point we are just asking for a change just to ask. I guess because we are used to the OP ratings of prior games. This game was built from the ground up..

 

 

Looking at it from a perspective that a 100 pop 0 SA workers is going to grade better than a 0 pop 100 SA worker in a SA angle is completely ignoring the fact that the 0 pop 100 SA worker is most likely gaining popularity while the 100 pop worker would be damaged for scoring so below their overness.

 

In that situation, realistically you are not going to feature the 0 pop 100 SA worker in any important segments that are based on SA until that person gain the popularity to do so.