How do I get my child company to hire it's own roster?

[1986Eternal]

How do I get my child company to hire it's own roster?

 

Thanks

[1986Eternal]

I have a company based in the US (South East) and I opened a new company in Japan. I have my booker and owner chosen, the titles were automatically created and I set up a weekly event. The screen says it is AI controlled, but they will not hire anyone for the roster.

 

Just wanted to clarify the situation in hopes for a response.

[codey_v2]

They don't this year. The AI control refers only to the booking, they won't hire their own workers.

[1986Eternal]

They don't this year. The AI control refers only to the booking, they won't hire their own workers.

 

So If i have to hire the workers and send them there, I will not be able to hire workers who are exclusively in Japan. So, that kinda sucks.

[Arber]

If child companies don't hire anyone themselves, etc then what is the purpose of the owner role? Shouldn't I be the owner if I'm doing all the work? Why am I paying extra money for an owner? Am I missing something?

[The Nickman]

It’s a pretty bad change from TEW2016, I really hope it goes back to the way it was once Adam gets a chance to work on some of the other stuff

 

Saying all that, he has accomplished a lot already. I’m pretty keen to see how the “new” converter works once I get into the office!

[Idolized]

I prefer the new way personally. In 2016, OVW always signed guys that I didn’t really want in developmental with contracted talent.

[Arber]

I prefer the new way personally. In 2016, OVW always signed guys that I didn’t really want in developmental with contracted talent.

 

I think there is a nice middle ground that could be met. As the parent company we could instruct the owner in terms of signing talent to either sign anyone, only in ring talent or only non-wrestling talent, or obviously, nobody.

 

We could then have a hiring veto. You could get an e-mail that said something along the lines of 'OVW have offered a contract to Disco Inferno' with a veto option. If we veto it, the offer is then pulled and OVW will look to someone else to hire.

 

Currently, we have to appoint an owner and a booker - but the owner role seems to be redundant if we are doing all the hiring/firing/leg work. I know it's probably a condition of the company in the database that a unique owner is required, but there has to be something that stops that role from seeming redundant?

[Idolized]

I think there is a nice middle ground that could be met. As the parent company we could instruct the owner in terms of signing talent to either sign anyone, only in ring talent or only non-wrestling talent, or obviously, nobody.

 

We could then have a hiring veto. You could get an e-mail that said something along the lines of 'OVW have offered a contract to Disco Inferno' with a veto option. If we veto it, the offer is then pulled and OVW will look to someone else to hire.

 

Currently, we have to appoint an owner and a booker - but the owner role seems to be redundant if we are doing all the hiring/firing/leg work. I know it's probably a condition of the company in the database that a unique owner is required, but there has to be something that stops that role from seeming redundant?

 

Yeah, that would be perfect.

 

That, and the use of veterans as trainers again.

[LoganRodzen]

I prefer the new way personally. In 2016, OVW always signed guys that I didn’t really want in developmental with contracted talent.

 

 

2016 had the best of both worlds in my opinion. If you set it to a child company, they could hire their own workers and take on workers you sent to them. If you had it set as a developmental territory, they wouldn't hire anyone (besides extending workers already under contract). I'm still really unsure why this was changed.

[Midnightnick]

I think that it might've been a change from 2016 as a trade-off to be able to play as a Developmental Territory itself.

[1986Eternal]

I think there is a nice middle ground that could be met. As the parent company we could instruct the owner in terms of signing talent to either sign anyone, only in ring talent or only non-wrestling talent, or obviously, nobody.

 

We could then have a hiring veto. You could get an e-mail that said something along the lines of 'OVW have offered a contract to Disco Inferno' with a veto option. If we veto it, the offer is then pulled and OVW will look to someone else to hire.

 

Currently, we have to appoint an owner and a booker - but the owner role seems to be redundant if we are doing all the hiring/firing/leg work. I know it's probably a condition of the company in the database that a unique owner is required, but there has to be something that stops that role from seeming redundant?

 

I think that is a great idea.

[bigtplaystew]

If you go into "relationships" and talk to your child company and end their agreement to accept your developmental workers they will hire their own staff.

 

In a game i'm running I have 7 child companies lol... only one is my actual developmental territory where I staff it and send people there.

 

It's a LITTLE annoying to have to staff refs and road agents and managers and stuff like that. But the trade off this year is that workers seem to complain about being in developmental a lot less.

[bigtplaystew]

Yeah, that would be perfect.

 

That, and the use of veterans as trainers again.

 

This is essentially in place in 2020. Depending on their disposition, you can send veteran workers to developmental. When you sent them to "train others" in 2016, the way I understood it, you were essentially just telling the AI how to book them. They didnt really improve at all.

 

In this game it appears they are essentially used the same way without having to make that distinction to the AI, and even if they are 40 their skills WILL improve (maybe only a little bit). I honestly think this system is far better but thats just me.

[DDS618_]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="bigtplaystew" data-cite="bigtplaystew" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="49960" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If you go into "relationships" and talk to your child company and end their agreement to accept your developmental workers they will hire their own staff.<p> </p><p> In a game i'm running I have 7 child companies lol... only one is my actual developmental territory where I staff it and send people there.</p><p> </p><p> It's a LITTLE annoying to have to staff refs and road agents and managers and stuff like that. But the trade off this year is that workers seem to complain about being in developmental a lot less.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I've been looking for this answer. Thank you!</p>

[beatingstuff88]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Idolized" data-cite="Idolized" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="49960" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yeah, that would be perfect.<p> </p><p> That, and the use of veterans as trainers again.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Dude you dont know how much i miss the "send veterans to train people" option this year!</p>

[thadian]

<p>I like the change to 2020 because Child Companies no longer sign low-safety or bad personality dorks who ruin shows and maybe even drift bad attributes and create negative situations upon your future stars.</p><p>

Since we can't set the "don't hire" filter to bias against specific attributes...</p><p> </p><p>

The one thing I don't like is that people seem to rise in popularity way above their skill, too quickly, and complain about being there. Road Agents complain about being there.</p>

[bigtplaystew]

I like the change to 2020 because Child Companies no longer sign low-safety or bad personality dorks who ruin shows and maybe even drift bad attributes and create negative situations upon your future stars.

Since we can't set the "don't hire" filter to bias against specific attributes...

 

The one thing I don't like is that people seem to rise in popularity way above their skill, too quickly, and complain about being there. Road Agents complain about being there.

 

Yes but their morale isnt effected. Road agents only complain if they are also wrestlers in my experience maybe im wrong.

 

When they complain about "developmental being too small" which is what I think youre seeing (I havent seen any other complaints in my saves), the game is telling you that the worker is working in a company thats too small for them and will effect their popularity growth and cap the financial returns you could be making off of that worker, etc. I've never seen it effect their morale negatively like it used to in 2016 nor do I see it effect their segment ratings.

 

The old system saw workers complain for being in developmental "too long" but "too long" was arbitrary based on their personality and things like that. So a worker that was promising if egotistical (and what young brash wrestler wouldnt think they are special and dream big?) could find themselves with tanking morale long before they are ready to mix it up with your big stars. There were tons of issues with the old system. This system is vastly improved IMO.

 

So the complaints arent indicative of a negative impact. They're just telling you that you could be making more money off of said worker.