PSA: It's OK to get penalised for things in segments!

[cwamaniac]

<p>I kinda agree but not completely</p><p> </p><p>

When it comes to the no-style Er Style, it does allow some more freedom that’s for sure but there are 5 things that concern me about it</p><p> </p><p>

1. Cinematic Style Matches- If the fans don’t care as long as they get variety why do cinematic matches get penalized (is this by default?) it should by all logic I can think of be something we can book without a penalty if we don’t care about match style but maybe I’m wrong on that</p><p> </p><p>

2. Comedy stars are limited? If we’re able to use all styles with the fans liking it all why are comedy stars limited on how perceptive they can become?</p><p> </p><p>

3. “Matches less than 15 minutes have caps on how high a rating they can achieve” this one is pretty minor for me depending on what these caps are, I’d hate if the cap makes short squash matches (5 minutes or less) to be penalized heavily as that just wouldn’t really make sense to me</p><p> </p><p>

4. Match and Angle Ratios should be customizable though this isn’t a product specific issue</p><p> </p><p>

5. I have a very bad feeling about the No-Style Style being the most used product by default, which would make it so a lot less players would experiment with other products do to its versatility compared to day family friendly. Just seems like if I wanted to book a family friendly promotion I’d book it as a no style product as its pros far out-way its cons, but at the same time we can’t just add more cons or that wouldn’t make sense to the product</p><p> </p><p>

I know it’s been said to death already but I feel custom products need to return as otherwise the vast majority will be booking with this style by the end of the year</p>

[tryker2710]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="cwamaniac" data-cite="cwamaniac" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48383" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>When it comes to the no-style Er Style, it does allow some more freedom that’s for sure but there are 5 things that concern me about it<p> </p><p> 1. Cinematic Style Matches- If the fans don’t care as long as they get variety why do cinematic matches get penalized (is this by default?) it should by all logic I can think of be something we can book without a penalty if we don’t care about match style but maybe I’m wrong on that</p><p> </p><p> 2. Comedy stars are limited? If we’re able to use all styles with the fans liking it all why are comedy stars limited on how perceptive they can become?</p><p> </p><p> 3. “Matches less than 15 minutes have caps on how high a rating they can achieve” this one is pretty minor for me depending on what these caps are, I’d hate if the cap makes short squash matches (5 minutes or less) to be penalized heavily as that just wouldn’t really make sense to me</p><p> </p><p> 4. Match and Angle Ratios should be customizable though this isn’t a product specific issue</p><p> </p><p> 5. I have a very bad feeling about the No-Style Style being the most used product by default, which would make it so a lot less players would experiment with other products do to its versatility compared to day family friendly. Just seems like if I wanted to book a family friendly promotion I’d book it as a no style product as its pros far out-way its cons, but at the same time we can’t just add more cons or that wouldn’t make sense to the product</p><p> </p><p> I know it’s been said to death already but I feel custom products need to return as otherwise the vast majority will be booking with this style by the end of the year</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> I think the one strong counterargument to your logic that everybody will use that product is that it needs 3 different match aims on every show, and I think there is a large portion of users who will be intimidated by or just not interested in doing that a bunch.</p>

[cwamaniac]

<p>Good point</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="tryker2710" data-cite="tryker2710" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48383" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think the one strong counterargument to your logic that everybody will use that product is that it needs 3 different match aims on every show, and I think there is a large portion of users who will be intimidated by or just not interested in doing that a bunch.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Though I have to say it be quite simple as I could for example book</p><p> </p><p> Wild Brawl/Mayhem/Deathmatch?</p><p> Story Telling</p><p> Steal The Show/Car Crash/Spectacle/Epic</p><p> Comedy/Eye Candy - (instead of calming the crowd)</p><p> Wild Brawl (if I hadn’t already)/ Technical/ Highspots/Storytellin (if not done yet)</p><p> Ending with a Steal the Show/Car Crash/Spectacle or Epic</p><p> </p><p> My point is once you use them a bit it’s very easy to hit the 3 match requirement (may be a little tricky if you only book an hour a show though)</p>

[Tom Bombadil]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="SirMichaelJordan" data-cite="SirMichaelJordan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48383" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Lol that’s actually a great idea. The penalty notes can be virtual Dave Meltzer lol</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This, except I propose Jim Cornette instead.</p>

[jonnycosmic]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="cwamaniac" data-cite="cwamaniac" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48383" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>My two cents though there a three major types of Tew players some players will have qualities of more than one.<p> </p><p> 1. The fantasy bookers - These guys just wanna book their dream matches they typically won’t care on their ratings too much as its for their own enjoyment anyways.</p><p> </p><p> 2. The Power Gamers- These players hate penalties as they see it as an imperfection , they will most certainly avoid any potential penalties to the point that their show becomes very stagnant, if they are a pure power gamer they won’t care too much on this fact however </p><p> </p><p> Or </p><p> </p><p> 3. The Good Time Gamers- These players hence their name just wanna have fun in the game, penalties to them may or may not be an issue, but a rating drastically lower than they expect could take away some of their fun as these kinda players aren’t necessarily looking for a challenge.</p><p> </p><p> If your the type of player who has no power gaming qualities the penalties wouldn’t be a major concern unless they are drastically off base (which is subjective as much as some people won’t admit it), if you have power gaming qualities though then this game is stagnating your booking a lot harsher than Tew 2016, thus eliminating some of the enjoyment from these players.</p><p> </p><p> Fantasy bookers May see these penalties as restrictive if they have any power gaming qualities and as such will avoid branching out and trying too many new things in their booking or feel hindered by the products strictness (a different discussion though), the good time players will literally just adapt to the game over time as long as they are enjoying it more than the previous game </p><p> </p><p> So to summarize penalties may or may not be tolerable depending on how you book if I had to suggest a particular change I’d have to agree with the person who suggested penalties not be red (as silly as that sounds), as it is a harsh color to see after a match you booked especially if there’s a lot of them, perhaps color coat the dirt sheet instead? That way the penalties are there but the first thing you see after booking is <span style="color:#FF0000;">YOU DID BAD</span></p><p> </p><p> Did you notice the color text immediately? Congratulations you have some power gaming qualities lol</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Love this post. And I love this comment. </p><p> </p><p> For me, it is frustrating because matches and segments that I am booking are getting 40-50, but when I play through the demo on the opposite side, the AI is booking the same matches I would and getting 60-70. </p><p> </p><p> It is a real concern that players, myself included, are now getting annoyed that they aren’t able to get a decent grade because these certain penalties are bringing down the rating.</p><p> </p><p> I’m a casual player. I like play RW mods and booking ROH and getting 60-70 shows. I’ve never had a 100 segment in any version of any game. I think the best I’ve had in 2016 was 89. That’s the way I play. I’m not very good at it, but I am now much worse at this one, because I’ve played through the demo on 8 occasions with different promotions (RW and CV) and the best match I’ve put on was a 48. </p><p> </p><p> The road agent note that annoys me the most is “the crowd really cr***ed all over (insert wrestler name) and have them a hard time” just because they are a rookie, or don’t have much popularity. My argument is, aside from a WWE show, I’ve never been to any indie show, and I go to a lot, and experienced any hatred towards any single wrestler for not being a) popular or b) experienced. It just doesn’t happen.</p>

[cwamaniac]

<p>Thanks jonnycosmic</p><p> </p><p>

Also the fans crapping all over a worker I imagine should be only used in certain promotion styles, perhaps they should change the text depending on the promotion style “Worker A was not to people’s standards” for example sounds a little less harsh and could apply to say NJPW style promotions as typically to be in those promotions you need to know how to at least put on a decent match, where wwe has in the past had a very hostile audience and the old penalty could suffice </p><p> </p><p>

So I guess for that penalty I’d suggest they simply include a lesser version for workrate style promotions with less harsh terminology</p>

[Lo-Drew]

This is a good thread. I'm playing my TCW save and I started a women's division. There's no one available with good starting pop. So I signed some girls and basically decided I would push a few girls knowing it'll get a low rating. It's not punting but more of just eating the penalties now in hopes that it'll pay off come end of the year. So far I've seen it work in some ways. I put Becca Barton in Sinner's Society. Hasn't wrestled a match yet. The first two months, I've made her the third mouthpiece for SS behind Floyd and Peak. I always make sure she's speaking during their segs. Within two months, she's gone from 10 to 18 popularity with a 25 in Mid South. Doesn't seem like much but jumping up 8 is pretty good. It'll take a lot of patience but I think being persistent and sticking with it will help.

[daddytorgo1]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Lo-Drew" data-cite="Lo-Drew" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48383" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>This is a good thread. I'm playing my TCW save and I started a women's division. There's no one available with good starting pop. So I signed some girls and basically decided I would push a few girls knowing it'll get a low rating. It's not punting but more of just eating the penalties now in hopes that it'll pay off come end of the year. So far I've seen it work in some ways. I put Becca Barton in Sinner's Society. Hasn't wrestled a match yet. The first two months, I've made her the third mouthpiece for SS behind Floyd and Peak. I always make sure she's speaking during their segs. Within two months, she's gone from 10 to 18 popularity with a 25 in Mid South. Doesn't seem like much but jumping up 8 is pretty good. It'll take a lot of patience but I think being persistent and sticking with it will help.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm having Alina America squash (male) jobbers to boost her popularity. Pretty fun to hire a local worker and book him to get squashed by a woman (bonus points if he's a heavyweight, extra bonus points if he's a former pro).</p>

[jonnycosmic]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="cwamaniac" data-cite="cwamaniac" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48383" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Also the fans crapping all over a worker I imagine should be only used in certain promotion styles, perhaps they should change the text depending on the promotion style “Worker A was not to people’s standards” for example sounds a little less harsh and could apply to say NJPW style promotions as typically to be in those promotions you need to know how to at least put on a decent match, where wwe has in the past had a very hostile audience and the old penalty could suffice <p> </p><p> So I guess for that penalty I’d suggest they simply include a lesser version for workrate style promotions with less harsh terminology</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Is it realistic though for a crowd to crap all over a workers match? I was booking an ROH show and everyone got completely crucified by the crowd. Even if it was a worker from the ROH Dojo vs a development talent in a 6-minute match, the ROH crowd wouldn’t boo the “jobbers” just because they don’t know who they are. In that case, there is no point signing any workers from your dojo because they are never getting over.</p><p> </p><p> Same with jobber from ROH Dojo versus ROH Champion. The jobber would have a rating of saying 20 for in-ring and the champion would have a rating of 50. This then has the overall match rating at 22/23. I just don’t understand it.</p><p> </p><p> This isn’t the games fault. It’s my fault. I just need a “how to play” guide like they do with the Assasins Creed games haha.</p>

[cwamaniac]

<p>Mixed Tag man</p><p> </p><p>

If your ok with the occasional bad rating for the men stick them in mixed tags with some of your Women’s roster, if the men wins they beat the other man (unless you wanna do inter gender then be my guest) but you can use this to give the women higher rated wins thus speeding up their popularity growth,</p><p> </p><p>

Another consideration though some don’t enjoy doing this , if you can find 1 popular female with decent sex appeal and charisma you could start booking eye candy matches in your cool down spot, with them either</p><p> </p><p>

1. You make them put over the other women constantly , and use promos to get them some popularity back (while also likely paying them a lot of cash to keep them happy)</p><p> </p><p>

2. You have them beat other women and use her as your establisher for the division </p><p> </p><p>

The reason I mentioned some players don’t like doing this as it requires a popular female with high sex appeal and charisma, of which most of the ones in the us are managers <span class="ipsEmoji">😁</span></p><p> </p><p>

Just a few suggestions for you, wish you luck on the women’s division and hope you achieve the fabled 100 female match (obviously won’t be eye candy though at that point lol)</p>

[Lo-Drew]

I put Higa in the Syndicate. I just have her in segs with Wolf and rate her on SQ until she becomes fluent. Went from 2 to 19 in pop in a span of two months,

[Lo-Drew]

I put Higa in the Syndicate. I just have her in segs with Wolf and rate her on SQ until she becomes fluent. Went from 2 to 19 in pop in a span of two months,

 

Even someone like Marina Del Ray, who I signed to manage Devine Fortune. She's gone from 2 to 21 in pop over two months.

[Donners]

So to summarize penalties may or may not be tolerable depending on how you book if I had to suggest a particular change I’d have to agree with the person who suggested penalties not be red (as silly as that sounds), as it is a harsh color to see after a match you booked especially if there’s a lot of them, perhaps color coat the dirt sheet instead? That way the penalties are there but the first thing you see after booking is YOU DID BAD

 

Penalties vary in impact.

 

I don’t mind having the major penalties, the sort of things which can tank a rating, in red in the match result - they’re things the user needs to be alerted to and try to avoid.

 

If they’re relatively minor, though, put them into the dirt sheet or otherwise deemphasise them.

[gord]

While I don't think this thread was directly in response to me, it does address a post of mine (http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2412313&postcount=82). I had an idea where I'd buy the DAVE Unified title and have it defended under 'hardcore' rules for workers that had a high hardcore rating. Then I scrapped it after I realized SWF audiences wouldn't like hardcore matches.

 

I would probably put myself in the Power Gamer category - I'll not book a feud or match if it won't get me a good rating or will not fit my audience's preferences, which is why I don't want to do a hardcore division. However, my reasoning (in this instance) is that I don't want a belt defended on a regular basis using rules that my audience won't like. Besides, a wild, violent brawl can be just that without being a 'hardcore' match, and it opens the title/division up to many more workers.

 

All that being said, D-Lyrium made some excellent points - ones I will take seriously.

[MainOffender]

While I don't think this thread was directly in response to me, it does address a post of mine (http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2412313&postcount=82). I had an idea where I'd buy the DAVE Unified title and have it defended under 'hardcore' rules for workers that had a high hardcore rating. Then I scrapped it after I realized SWF audiences wouldn't like hardcore matches.

 

I would probably put myself in the Power Gamer category - I'll not book a feud or match if it won't get me a good rating or will not fit my audience's preferences, which is why I don't want to do a hardcore division. However, my reasoning (in this instance) is that I don't want a belt defended on a regular basis using rules that my audience won't like. Besides, a wild, violent brawl can be just that without being a 'hardcore' match, and it opens the title/division up to many more workers.

 

All that being said, D-Lyrium made some excellent points - ones I will take seriously.

 

Hmm. At least based on what I'm seeing, SWF audiences wouldn't have any problem with you using the Hardcore match aim. You just can't increase the Match Injury or Content Risk beyond average. So, it needs to be somewhat sanitized and it can't be a ~DEATHMATCH... but they can handle hardcore. Now, SWF doesn't factor the Hardcore skill into match grades, because their audience doesn't know what's good, so hiring the best hardcore dudes won't make a difference to your division... but you won't get penalized.

 

EDIT: Also, good thread!

 

EDIT2: Also, that note about SWF not factoring Hardcore skills specifies "Regular" match aims, so they probably would look at them in a match with the Hardcore aim.

[cwamaniac]

That’s seems agreeable

 

Penalties vary in impact.

 

I don’t mind having the major penalties, the sort of things which can tank a rating, in red in the match result - they’re things the user needs to be alerted to and try to avoid.

 

If they’re relatively minor, though, put them into the dirt sheet or otherwise deemphasise them.

 

Major penalties being red could work as they are the ones to potentially avoid the most something more minor like “Worker A was slightly tired by the end of that match” however could stay but not be red as it’s a minor penalty (if that)

 

A major penalty I image would be something like “Worker A was crapped on by the fans who didn’t want to see them wrestle “

 

Minor question though is there a reason eye candy matches are limited to women? I’m sure somewhere out there is a men’s eye candy promotion even if it’s not my my cup of tea

[Cyhort]

Major penalties being red could work as they are the ones to potentially avoid the most something more minor like “Worker A was slightly tired by the end of that match” however could stay but not be red as it’s a minor penalty (if that)

 

A major penalty I image would be something like “Worker A was crapped on by the fans who didn’t want to see them wrestle “

 

Minor question though is there a reason eye candy matches are limited to women? I’m sure somewhere out there is a men’s eye candy promotion even if it’s not my my cup of tea

 

You've never seen those pictures of Seth Rollins, I take it

[cwamaniac]

No I haven’t

 

I’m good though like I said not my cup of tea lol,

 

Sometimes when I play games though I like to role play a bit for example one of my favorite promotions I played was SWF with Gargantuan as the user character booking himself to to immediately bury Jack Bruce with screwjobs and make him an immediate main eventer lol, but to avoid getting to off topic I just wonder if the male eye candy penalty should be removed? Or tweaked at least as the wrestling fanbases in real life is closer now on gender

[Tom Bombadil]

well at least you can put them in bra and panty matches now!

[cwamaniac]

Time to book

 

Pat Paterson vs Gerald Briscoe - Bra And Panties Match at wrestlemania a rematch decades in the making I can see it now lol

[HarryFandango86]

Concerning the match aims, such as having to produce a ‘storytelling’ match every show, is it still not a thing that you could just book them on the pre-show? I actually haven’t tried, but maybe there is that work around if you were looking to avoid that aspect of the gameplay.

[DarK_RaideR]

Took me ages to stop stressing over penalties in TEW16. Disabling the dirt sheet helped ease myself into it, wish I'd seen another post like this one back in the day.

[Slim Jim]

I think D-Lyrium's original post is an excellent analysis of certain facets of this particular debate, and I apologise if what I am about to add has already been discussed - I don't have time to read the whole thread but want to add a couple of thoughts before I forget them!

 

I don't mind getting penalties. In fact, sometimes I actively try to get them if I'm building a series so that matches can gradually improve, which is essentially trading off minor penalties earlier on to avoid the bigger repetitive booking penalty but it is also 'good' booking in my mind. A couple of cheap or tainted finishes, a draw, a flash pinfall, whatever it is that i) knocks the rating down a little and ii) gives storyline reasons for there to be another match. Absolutely fine with getting penalties.

 

My issue with penalties is how static and fixed they are. If you go one minute over the stated time expectation, you get slammed with a multi-point penalty. There is no gradual increase in penalty as far as I can tell. It just doesn't fit right for me that there are fixed jumps at arbitrary time limits.

 

Step one for making it a more reasonable and enjoyable process (yes, penalties can add to the enjoyment from a strategic level, for me at least) is to have them applied gradually. Whether that's linear or on a curve, fine. As long as there is a consistent progression rather than blocks that incur fixed amounts across their entire range.

 

Step two would be to factor in other data. Ideally, use the Attributes feature to allow the road agents or workers involved to have particular impact on it. Average Joe Main Eventer might be impacted by the default penalty points but Long Match Specialist Main Eventer might get two or three more minutes before the crowd realise they are annoyed at how long it has been and penalties apply. This then helps distinguish between two guys who are both capable of going longer but only one is good at going longer. Arguably that is already covered by psychology and experience but if that is the case, then use that as the way of providing cushion before a penalty hits. And the reverse can be true as well, so the penalties can hit certain workers earlier to stop it being purely a way of avoiding losing points.

 

Essentially, I want different rules to apply to different individuals because that is how the real world works. Fans have less issue with seeing Shawn Michaels vs Bret Hart go 60 minutes than they would seeing Goldberg vs Brock Lesnar go 60 minutes, and it isn't just that the skills and benefits and positives of the former workers outweigh the negatives of them going 60 minutes - the annoyance at having a longer match itself is lessened. And on the flip side, the fans would not only be annoyed at the match going long, and that the workers involved are gassed/lack the psychology for the match, they are also additionally annoyed at the length because the match is so bad. It's like compound interest. I'd be annoyed that the match was too long, and annoyed that the workers' performances sucked so much, and the two together make me even more annoyed than those two things on their own.

 

I see it as being similar to the repetitive booking penalty. Your match has to be this good to soften/avoid the penalty for going too long. If your match is this bad, you will get an additional penalty for going too long.

 

It just adds more flexibility, variety and strategy to booking. Okay, I can trust these two experienced, talented, popular veterans to go 60 minutes if I use my most trusted general as road agent because the fans won't even notice they've gone well over their expected time. Hmm, maybe I can get away with putting these guys in the ring for a bit longer because I've got a trusted agent that can mitigate the additional time. Oh man, if I put these guys in the ring for that long, these fans will literally fall asleep.

 

It also adds more worth to having a varied roster because it stops every individual being penalised in exactly the same way.

 

I wish I had time to explain with more clarity but hopefully that vaguely gets the point across!

[tormyb]

Step two would be to factor in other data. Ideally, use the Attributes feature to allow the road agents or workers involved to have particular impact on it. Average Joe Main Eventer might be impacted by the default penalty points but Long Match Specialist Main Eventer might get two or three more minutes before the crowd realise they are annoyed at how long it has been and penalties apply. This then helps distinguish between two guys who are both capable of going longer but only one is good at going longer. Arguably that is already covered by psychology and experience but if that is the case, then use that as the way of providing cushion before a penalty hits. And the reverse can be true as well, so the penalties can hit certain workers earlier to stop it being purely a way of avoiding losing points.

 

I think this is a really interesting. At the risk of over complicating things, modifying by match style might be interesting. The reason for a high spots match ideally being shorter than some other types of match isn't just that workers run out of stamina quickly - the nature of the match means that it can burn out the crowd quicker. Whereas a more technical slow build match doesn't go longer merely because the wrestlers have the stamina to do so.

 

In reality, the wrestlers (skills and popularity), the context, the type of match, the card placement, etc. all impact how long a crowd will enjoy a match for, and not simply because these things compensate for their dislike of the length.

 

 

..........................................

 

On a slightly different note, I was just thinking about the balance between receiving penalties for things you realistically would, and TEW's quite volatile popularity.

 

What I mean by this is, that in previous editions TEW's popularity (both for workers and companies) seems to change quicker than it does in real life, although I can't judge this for TEW 20 yet as I haven't been able to play enough. I like this and think that it makes the game more enjoyable, as it means that your actions as the booker have larger and more immediate consequences. This results in both penalties and successes feeling more punitive or rewarding, as they have more impact on rapidly shifting popularity. Perhaps, for some, this makes penalties seem harder to palate, as they feel that their company is being unduly negatively impacted for a skill point here or a minute there.

 

The flip-side is that positives are also enhanced by this more rapid growth or decline model. However, sometimes people (and by people I mean me) ignore this side of the coin. I know that I see the good grades that I receive because of skilled workers in appropriate matches as being a result of my amazing booking, but then blame the game mechanics when I get penalties, ignoring that fact that somewhere along the line I probably got an equal and opposite reward that just isn't in bright red text.

[ChrisPMWBenoit]

Interesting discussion about the two different 60 min matches (Hart/HBK & Lesnar/Goldberg).

 

I see the time length in what the average fan of your product enjoys/expects. So for Hart/HBK in 96 you would still get a penalty because the match is longer than expected from a WWF main event. You’d get the same penalty no matter the competitors. However, the positives (Hart/HBK can tell a better story over a slow burning long match and they have the stamina to pull it off) outweigh the negatives of the time penalty so it results in an incredible rating.

 

Goldberg/Lesnar however gets a crappy rating as their stamina and psychology can’t hold a 60 min match so the match falls apart. On top of that, with the time penalty, it gets a terrible rating.

 

On the other side of the coin, a 3 minute Lesnar/Goldberg match ala Survivor Series 2016 should get a time limit penalty for going too short. However, this short match brings out their strong points, and it scores an incredible rating despite the short duration.

 

So it works both ways. Take the time limit penalty if it’s worth the positives.