Un-nerf Sex Appeal

[SirMichaelJordan]

And if I didn't do anything else, I done that for you!!

 

Yeah it's a tough one here, because after all your thoughts, you have to take into consideration what Remi was talking about. We don't know EXACTLY how things are weighted, obviously product settings (like Self mentioned) have a part in this as well. All we know is the base- Tew2016= 60% of Sex Appeal and 40% of popularity, Tew2020, 30% Sex Appeal, 70% popularity.

 

If it was rated 50/50, would that make someone that is 50% popular and have a 50 SA score, get a 100 rating for a SA segment? Would that be right? I say maybe depending on what Self brought up, which is product settings.

 

All your performance skills have to be useful for what they are for. I'm fighting for SA because that's the topic. A win here is a win for any of the rest that were nerfed as well. The way it is now is like WWE on steroids. It's like the exact thing everyone was hating on when I first found GDS forums. (TnA is the bestest!!). They finally convinced me this is NOT the way to go, and switched it all around on me after convincing me. I've been scratching my head on tons of the decisions made on this version because of this.

 

For me, Charisma is charm/connecting with the crowd without verbal interaction. Microphone is cutting promos, talk with confidence, etc., Acting is acting, performance in angles/skits, etc., Star Quality is the "it" factor. People that just have an aura around them, Sex Appeal used in eye candy matches and the basis (key words here) of the worker's performance and in angles that are specifically rated on it, Menace is how menacing they look, used specifically in angles rated on it. In the handbook is where I am getting this, Menace is said not to be an important skill. I feel like it should be pretty important, as wrestling is the bad guy vs the good guy in most popular products... all over the world, everywhere, no exceptions where it's not the most popular. So I feel like Menace shouldn't be downplayed like that, although it's probably not meant to be taken the way I'm taking it.

 

My point about the "being good at being sexy" basically is the part where the handbook says it is the basis of the worker's performance is SA angles or eye candy matches. To me, popularity should matter, but no where near where it is right now.

 

It's like if we have a long jump contest, and the most popular person jumps exactly one inch, against an unknown that jumps 12 feet, we are going to pick the more popular guy as the winner of the long jump. This is what we are doing here... Are there really only three or four people that actually understand this? You can say this or that matters with it, but just reading the handbook, these things are covered in the stat. Sex Appeal means sexy, not just a pretty girl with no style, the higher the SA the more they ooze sexiness. The higher the Menace, the more they ooze menace. (sounded kind of gross, but you get the meaning).

 

Not really. We are in the world of wrestling. So we are looking at things in a wrestling & entertainment perspective.

 

Besides, looks isn’t a skill, it’s all subjective.

[awesomenessofme1]

The handbook section about angles also says that Rated on Sex Appeal is the worker doing something entirely based on their looks. . So if it's 100 SA and 100 Popularity vs. 100 SA and 0 Popularity should the less popular worker get even close to the same grade? If you alter the ratio then it unbalances that aspect to me. . The super over Super Sexy worker should get a better reaction than the super sexy unknown. .

 

Of course the massively over worker should do a lot better. And they still would with 2016's 60/40 split, effective skill of 100 vs effective skill of 60.

[djthefunkchris]

Haven't read anything but some people are confused on the sex appeal. Val Venis had a lot of sex appeal. For a big part due to the gimmick, and that's not how the game works, but he seems to have had it. The Rock and Roll express had it. Imo Tessa Blanchard has it, but she would have below average looks. So a big part is demeanor.

 

Personally I'm fine with this change. Fame does add to this. Say what you will but Rousey isn't such a looker either, but people were all over her. WCW could pick any street girl that looks smoking hot, but put her in the ring for a bikini contest, and NOBODY CARES. Thàt's why it was overpowered a little. They will eventually care more about the girl, though, and she could develop in a nice valet, but the initial segment was 'meh'.

Your right, you haven't read anything. Tests were done and everything, like really making sure we are seeing what we are seeing here.

 

All irony aside, you been here long enough to know all you had to do was read the second or third post for the automatic "you just don't understand the way it works" post. As Remi would say "Shame on you!"

[djthefunkchris]

Not really. We are in the world of wrestling. So we are looking at things in a wrestling & entertainment perspective.

 

Besides, looks isn’t a skill, it’s all subjective.

 

You come in strong, and then prove yourself wrong with the last statement. All of the skills are subjective, including Popularity. As I told Remi, we can only try to make the skills close enough to what the other thinks is right to be excepted. Doesn't mean we are right, just means me and you think it should be in that ball park and so we except it.

 

The person that said a really over worker (like Ronda Rousey) who is "so/so" not really super hot, but kind of hot, should indeed win over the unknown super hot chick. I agree. The way it is now though, Rosanne Barr wearing a thong would get a better score (in a good way, in a way that says "OOO I think she is sexy!" way) than the sexiest female on earth that has no pop. It's totally unbelievable.

 

If the goal here is to make SA not count for anything, than it's a success. We can just take it out of the game and ignore it was ever in. Let's just take all those segments and matches that were supposed to be rated on it out of the game as well. We can do the same with Menace as well while we are at it, then we can get back to what is really important... Nothing immersive.

[SirMichaelJordan]

You come in strong, and then prove yourself wrong with the last statement. All of the skills are subjective, including Popularity. As I told Remi, we can only try to make the skills close enough to what the other thinks is right to be excepted. Doesn't mean we are right, just means me and you think it should be in that ball park and so we except it.

 

I’m not talking about the game at that point. What’s sexy to you might not be sexy to me. You compared a skill of long jump to sexiness.

[cwamaniac]

Is there anything in particular related to the topic someone wants tested?

 

I got some free time if anyone wants another test for certain scenarios to help out

[awesomenessofme1]

I got some free time if anyone wants another test for certain scenarios to help out

 

Maybe test the impact of Sex Appeal on Entertainment and Charisma angles?

[Bull]

Of course the massively over worker should do a lot better. And they still would with 2016's 60/40 split, effective skill of 100 vs effective skill of 60.

 

 

I'm not saying this is exactly how it works but what happens when you account for your product caps. .?

 

if it caps a SA segement at say 70 then the whole effective skill thing is much more favorable to the less popular worker in that aspect. .

 

 

I don't know, I think it works fine the way it's set up now. . Strictly speaking on angles, I don't see how changing the ratio 5 or 10 points is gonna do anything other than make your grades look better and maybe make it a little easier to get people over. . . and anything more than that and we'll just be right back where we were before it was changed, Spamming Bikini Contests for your entire Show Lol!

 

I've made my argument to the best of my ability, and like all things if it can be added as a option in some shape or form I'm all for it. I just think it works fine now. .

[Croquemitaine]

Maybe test the impact of Sex Appeal on Entertainment and Charisma angles?

Oooo, this!

 

Like, test the same Mic/Cha/SQ values but with SA of 0, 40, 70, and 100 to see how much of a bonus SA really gives.

[djthefunkchris]

I’m not talking about the game at that point. What’s sexy to you might not be sexy to me. You compared a skill of long jump to sexiness.

 

Yeah, fair enough I'm ok (meaning I see your side) with you having a problem with that. I'm kind of debating several things at once, and been known to confuse one poster from another, not on purpose though.. as I see everyone as an individual. What I mean is I tend to read a post, than another post, and although I quote one, I am answering more than one (Now I'm confusing myself, hopefully you understand somewhat).

 

How about a real life scenario involving sex appeal. Rosie O’Donnell coming down the ramp in short shorts, with Shane McMahan would have had better sex appeal in that segment than Stacy Keibler, simply because "popularity". The wrestler she was distracting with Sexiness, we would have bought more into Rosie O'Donnell doing it better? We simulated in game the most sexy vs the ugliest. Ugliest won because "popularity".

 

You are ok with this, right? You think this is ok because it's wrestling?

[djthefunkchris]

Oooo, this!

 

Like, test the same Mic/Cha/SQ values but with SA of 0, 40, 70, and 100 to see how much of a bonus SA really gives.

 

I'd like to add on to this. Run the same tests (mic/cha/sq) if you have time with Popularity instead of SA. Same thing 0, 40, 70, 100, but using pop and no SA, with the quoted being without POP.

[cwamaniac]

Ok I’ll test angles rated on charisma and entertainment

 

With 0, 40, 70, and 100 sex appeal

 

I’ll test with zero pop first then 100

[djthefunkchris]

I'm not saying this is exactly how it works but what happens when you account for your product caps. .?

 

if it caps a SA segement at say 70 then the whole effective skill thing is much more favorable to the less popular worker in that aspect. .

 

 

I don't know, I think it works fine the way it's set up now. . Strictly speaking on angles, I don't see how changing the ratio 5 or 10 points is gonna do anything other than make your grades look better and maybe make it a little easier to get people over. . . and anything more than that and we'll just be right back where we were before it was changed, Spamming Bikini Contests for your entire Show Lol!

 

I've made my argument to the best of my ability, and like all things if it can be added as a option in some shape or form I'm all for it. I just think it works fine now. .

 

I love the way you debate things, and I enjoy your point of view, even if I don't agree, you acknowledge both sides which to me is key if someone were to change my point of view, it would be because they truthfully seen mine (and you do).

[djthefunkchris]

With 0, 40, 70, and 100 sex appeal

 

I’ll test with zero pop first then 100

 

From handbook stuff, most skills aren't noticeable until after 60, so I think these are great numbers to work with.

[cwamaniac]

Hmm test results

 

First to make sure we’re on the same page all workers have no entertainment stats barring sex appeal which is what the test is checking and no popularity (all segments will be 5 minutes for ease of tests)

 

To start off my Zero popularity and Zero sex appeal girl scored a zero when rating the angle on entertainment (this is to be expected)

 

Girl number 2 with Zero Pop & Zero entertainment stats except for 40 sex appeal also scored a zero when rated on entertainment (hmm no bonus to segments with 40 sex appeal)

 

Girl number 3 with zero pop & zero entertainment stats except for 70 sex appeal also scored a zero when rated on entertainment (this is strange as again no boost at all in the dirt sheet but 71 was the old cutoff for “attractive “)

 

Girl Number 4 with zero pop & zero entertainment stats except 100 sex appeal scored a 2 when rated on entertainment (THAT IS ALL!? Checking the dirt sheet shows there is no boost related to sex appeal the only reason she got a 2 was she randomly started with high momentum)

 

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

 

Girl number 1 again (zero pop, stats or sex appeal) scored a zero when rated on charisma

 

Girl number 2 (Zero Pop, Stats And 40 sex appeal) scored a zero too on charisma segment

 

Girl number 3 (zero pop, stats and 70 sex appeal) gave me a zero when rated on charisma

 

Girl number 4 (zero pop, stats and 100 sex appeal) scored a 4 on charisma segment (which again came from her momentum and not a non existent sex appeal boost)

 

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

 

Girl number 5 (100 pop, zero stats, & 0 sex appeal) scored a 47 on entertainment segment

 

Girl number 6 (100 pop, zero stats and 40 sex appeal) scored a 55 on entertainment segment

 

Girl number 7 (100 pop, zero stats, 70 sex appeal) also scored a 55 on entertainment segment?

 

Girl number 8 (100 pop, zero stats, 100 sex appeal ) scored a 59 on entertainment (it should be noted though that there is no sex appeal boost at all in the dirt sheet)

 

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

 

Girl number 5 again but rated on charisma this time scored a 50

 

Girl number 6 again but rated on charisma this time scored a 50 as well

 

Girl number 7 again but rated on charisma scored a 55

 

Girl number 8 again but rated on charisma got a 53? (Must be the momentum)

 

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

 

Thus the data concludes that there is no boost from sex appeal in entertainment based segments or charisma based segments according to the dirt sheet

 

Also not entirely related but charisma gets the “nothing interesting” penalty for some reason

 

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

 

As a bonus I ran two tag match one with girls 1-4 and the other with girls 5-8 which got the following grades

 

The 1-4 girls gave a 41 rating which acknowledges there sex appeal despite zero popularity (or the high basics and psychology boosted it)

 

And the 5-8 girls scored a 76 which means a 100 pop difference results in a 35 match rating difference

 

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

 

Gonna take a break from testing but I’ll keep checking the thread from time to time to check others thoughts on my experiment

[awesomenessofme1]

Maybe check it again but with a baseline level of skill in the relevant category (50, let's say)? Just to make sure it's not a special case.

[cwamaniac]

I may test that later

 

But right now I gave myself a migraine so I’ll see about maybe testing this later

[cwamaniac]

<p>Just wondering if anyone else ran any tests?</p><p> </p><p>

I’m curious if anyone else decided to to run tests to see how or if the sex appeal stat affects angles?</p>

[daddytorgo1]

<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><p> </p><p> The person that said a really over worker (like Ronda Rousey) who is "so/so" not really super hot, but kind of hot, should indeed win over the unknown super hot chick. I agree. The way it is now though, Rosanne Barr wearing a thong would get a better score (in a good way, in a way that says "OOO I think she is sexy!" way) than the sexiest female on earth that has no pop. It's totally unbelievable.</p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> So much this. This is the crux of the problem.</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

Just like a popular wrestler with poor skills but decent enough basic would score higher than an unpopular technical master in an entertainment company...I really don’t see the point.

 

If Rosanne is in a bikini (as if she’s any popular right now) showed up in a bikini, it would be a comedy considering she’s a comedian and should be rated on her best skill. I don’t really get these far out unrealistic comparisons.

[djthefunkchris]

Just like a popular wrestler with poor skills but decent enough basic would score higher than an unpopular technical master in an entertainment company...I really don’t see the point.

 

If Rosanne is in a bikini (as if she’s any popular right now) showed up in a bikini, it would be a comedy considering she’s a comedian and should be rated on her best skill. I don’t really get these far out unrealistic comparisons.

 

I agree, you don't get it. It's not about what she does that mattered in the comparison. Pretend like she's not a comedian, has her best pop, and the contest is about sex appeal. If that is too hard to do for you, bless your heart.

 

Use your example but take away any wrestling ability including basics to 0 skill, and win would be the equal my example.Let the celebrity win the wcw title.

[Bull]

I agree, you don't get it. It's not about what she does that mattered in the comparison. Pretend like she's not a comedian, has her best pop, and the contest is about sex appeal. If that is too hard to do for you, bless your heart.

 

Use your example but take away any wrestling ability including basics to 0 skill, and win would be the equal my example.Let the celebrity win the wcw title.

 

Not to dive back in but again I don't understand your logic here. . I understand your reasoning for wanting it buffed, but these aren't good examples to me because it's a completely unrealistic scenario. . and leans more towards a need to penalize those segments for using people with an incompatible skill set rather than a need to buff them for the people you should be using in them. .

 

I understand your argument from a purely numbers perspective because that's how the game simulates it, plug in your stats, plug in your variables, and here's your score, but at the same time you're using flawed logic here because from a real life perspective there isn't a promoter alive(unless it your kink lol) who would put Rosanne in a bikini for any reason remotely related to sex appeal. . and I certainly wouldn't expect the unfortunate souls watching it would find it sexy either... The game lets you do it sure, but should you really be using it that way just because it doesn't stop you?

 

There are other rating options you should realistically be using for different people.

 

If they look like a Star rate them on Star Quality,

if they are menacing rate them on Menace

if they are sexy rate them on sex appeal

so on so forth. .

 

 

 

for the most part, under identical circumstances, they're going to have nearly identical effects and scores anyway . . at least in the context of this debate, again I have no idea how exactly it works in game. .

 

 

And anyway the way it actually does works now angles have to be at least 5 minutes to have a consequential effect on the worker involved, and these looks based angles can't run for more than 4 if it's the only thing the segment is being rated on. . so any benefit's you'd want to achieve would be negated in the end whether you run it short and get a good rating or run it long and let it bomb. If we're talking purely numbers the only benefit here would be in the segment score and, ultimately show score. .

[awesomenessofme1]

And anyway the way it actually does works now angles have to be at least 5 minutes to have a consequential effect on the worker involved, and these looks based angles can't run for more than 4 if it's the only thing the segment is being rated on. . so any benefit's you'd want to achieve would be negated in the end whether you run it short and get a good rating or run it long and let it bomb. If we're talking purely numbers the only benefit here would be in the segment score and, ultimately show score. .

 

First of all, this isn't true. It's 4 minutes for a consequential angle, meaning you absolutely can make consequential pure sex-appeal angles. But even if you couldn't, it would still matter, because you can use sex-appeal roles within a larger angle that doesn't get the "nothing interesting happened" note.

[Bull]

First of all, this isn't true. It's 4 minutes for a consequential angle, meaning you absolutely can make consequential pure sex-appeal angles. But even if you couldn't, it would still matter, because you can use sex-appeal roles within a larger angle that doesn't get the "nothing interesting happened" note.

 

 

My mistake as I read that wrong in the handbook. .

 

At that point though your using someone else to carry the angle anyway. . so wouldn't you choose someone with the popularity and related skills needed to do well depending on what your rating them on? Brawling for fighting, Charisma & Mic for Entertainment, etc. The person rated purely on looks is less important by default in those segments because more of the score is going to come from the people actually doing something. .

 

that's the only reason I jumped back in here lol. . My argument is purely based on angles where the only involvement is from workers based solely on their looks. . so again isn't it more logical to put people in the type of angle that benefits them most?

 

Yes you can put Butter McBagface with 0 sex appeal and 100 popularity in a sex appeal angle and get say a score of 70, but they also have 100 menace and you can get a score of 100 by putting them in a menace angle, what logical reason would you have to put them in a angle were they are rated on sex appeal just because the game lets you do so?

[djthefunkchris]

My mistake as I read that wrong in the handbook. .

 

At that point though your using someone else to carry the angle anyway. . so wouldn't you choose someone with the popularity and related skills needed to do well depending on what your rating them on? Brawling for fighting, Charisma & Mic for Entertainment, etc. The person rated purely on looks is less important by default in those segments because more of the score is going to come from the people actually doing something. .

 

that's the only reason I jumped back in here lol. . My argument is purely based on angles where the only involvement is from workers based solely on their looks. . so again isn't it more logical to put people in the type of angle that benefits them most?

 

Yes you can put Butter McBagface with 0 sex appeal and 100 popularity in a sex appeal angle and get say a score of 70, but they also have 100 menace and you can get a score of 100 by putting them in a menace angle, what logical reason would you have to put them in a angle were they are rated on sex appeal just because the game lets you do so?

 

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.