Way too easy to gain pop?

[Remianen]

<p>I think codey is right here. I run a mid-month event specifically to develop my underneath talent. I run an A show, a B show, and two PPVs per month and it's almost impossible to keep any workers down. So I don't try. The way I book, losses mean nothing when it comes to popularity. My promotion revolves around stables and once a worker joins one, it's like strapping a rocket to them. I have a rookie tag team who have a win/loss record of 0-17 and they're streaking through 'recognizable' simply from being in Brooke Tyler's 'red hot' stable.</p><p> </p><p> Honestly, I think you should run TV if you're so concerned about popularity gains. If your workers are good, holding back is meaningless. I have a bunch of 99 rated TV matches which, combined with my angles, consistently give me TV shows rated 95+. I don't use sick bumps at all though (don't see a reason to do so).</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ZMAN" data-cite="ZMAN" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51888" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Seems like that once a guy hits 100 in wrestling they might be ready to move onto greener pastures (aka Hollywood) since they’ve peaked in that industry. Would be cool if that was risk for blowing up someone into being that big of a name</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm not sure this isn't the case already. I mean sure, I've had Marina del Rey, Hailey Hunter, and Juliet Balconi out for filming once they became major stars but I wouldn't be surprised if people develop the traits during gameplay that make this possible. It's a pain though because from what I'm seeing, my workers gain more pop from working for me than appearing on (outside) TV shows! Then again, I only have one person at 100 (Alina America, 100 everywhere except 98 in Tasmania) and I don't see her going anywhere.</p>

[Teh_Showtime]

In 2016 it seems like movies didn’t really help people because they’d be out so long they would fizzle back down to their caps regardless. At least that seems fixed in 2020.

[marquisdepyro]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TheChef" data-cite="TheChef" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51888" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Well, for one thing the workers hold back on TV so it's not so easy to get great matches. They often won't take big bumps either. Secondly, I don't like booking towards one important show per month (the PPV); I would rather everything feels important. But, if I don't run PPVs, it's not financially viable to run TV as weekly events because the revenue loss from PPV isn't made up enough from TV attendance, fees, etc. And here, the opposite problem would be in effect; not enough pop gain from TV shows. Also, TV shows have to be booked +5 or -5 minutes, whereas events have 25% flexibilty so I doesn't matter so much if I run over or under. Lots of reasons, really.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> For what it's worth, doing normal TV schedule I have a roster full of 90+ overness people and 99-100 rated matches.</p><p> </p><p> I think you're overestimating the limits of that style</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

It’s also pretty easy to keep workers at a high momentum. It’s almost as if 50/50 booking doesn’t hurt anyone. I currently have no problem getting multiple people at red hot momentum despite having them lose.

[TheChef]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51888" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Honestly, I think you should run TV if you're so concerned about popularity gains. If your workers are good, holding back is meaningless. I have a bunch of 99 rated TV matches which, combined with my angles, consistently give me TV shows rated 95+. I don't use sick bumps at all though (don't see a reason to do so).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="marquisdepyro" data-cite="marquisdepyro" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51888" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>For what it's worth, doing normal TV schedule I have a roster full of 90+ overness people and 99-100 rated matches.<p> </p><p> I think you're overestimating the limits of that style</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Well, the problem runs even deeper then. I thought my massive pop gains were due to the weekly events, but if you guys are getting these match grades and that much popularity on TV, then the entire concept of popularity in the game is way off. I remember a couple of months ago several people complaining about pop caps and a patch relaxed them a lot. Too much, it seems. Only a handful of workers in a generation should be reaching 100 pop and 99-100 matches should only happen a few times per year.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="SirMichaelJordan" data-cite="SirMichaelJordan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51888" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>It’s also pretty easy to keep workers at a high momentum. It’s almost as if 50/50 booking doesn’t hurt anyone. I currently have no problem getting multiple people at red hot momentum despite having them lose.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Maybe this, then, is the real issue. I also have workers that I book as midcarders, ie 50/50ish, who have red and white hot momentum. I don't give them much success in angles either, so it's almost all from matches. The whole momentum system seems very vague and kind of unpredictable. So many workers with high momentum leads to huge popularity gains even when not trying. I hope this issue is addressed; I don't really enjoy this complete lack of challenge nor the unbalanced game world.</p>

[Turkeyninja]

I've found that it is pretty hard to raise someone's momentum if you have them win/lose an equal amount of matches. Most of my midcarders have well known popularity, which is where I want them.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Well, the problem runs even deeper then. I thought my massive pop gains were due to the weekly events, but if you guys are getting these match grades and that much popularity on TV, then the entire concept of popularity in the game is way off. I remember a couple of months ago several people complaining about pop caps and a patch relaxed them a lot. Too much, it seems. Only a handful of workers in a generation should be reaching 100 pop and 99-100 matches should only happen a few times per year.

 

 

 

 

Maybe this, then, is the real issue. I also have workers that I book as midcarders, ie 50/50ish, who have red and white hot momentum. I don't give them much success in angles either, so it's almost all from matches. The whole momentum system seems very vague and kind of unpredictable. So many workers with high momentum leads to huge popularity gains even when not trying. I hope this issue is addressed; I don't really enjoy this complete lack of challenge nor the unbalanced game world.

 

 

Yea maybe something is wrong with momentum. This year there are two different momentum’s I believe and one of them we do not see similar to recent fortunes in the past.

 

Also the ability to reach higher popularity with limited or no TV exposer is a big one too. I believe on Tiny coverage or less than 1500 people watching (Live or TV), you can get someone to at least 80 or so popularity and that is pretty much elite level in TEW.

[marquisdepyro]

Well, the problem runs even deeper then. I thought my massive pop gains were due to the weekly events, but if you guys are getting these match grades and that much popularity on TV, then the entire concept of popularity in the game is way off. I remember a couple of months ago several people complaining about pop caps and a patch relaxed them a lot. Too much, it seems. Only a handful of workers in a generation should be reaching 100 pop and 99-100 matches should only happen a few times per year.

 

 

 

 

Maybe this, then, is the real issue. I also have workers that I book as midcarders, ie 50/50ish, who have red and white hot momentum. I don't give them much success in angles either, so it's almost all from matches. The whole momentum system seems very vague and kind of unpredictable. So many workers with high momentum leads to huge popularity gains even when not trying. I hope this issue is addressed; I don't really enjoy this complete lack of challenge nor the unbalanced game world.

 

To be fair my company has 98 pop throughout USA and I'm running thirty minute matches with people like kc glenn, gino montero, Ernest youngman, and Tommy Cornell Jr, so I find the ratings reasonable

 

My only issue is it seems people I'm not doing much with take a long time to lose much popularity, so too many people "stick" at high levels

[TheChef]

To be fair my company has 98 pop throughout USA and I'm running thirty minute matches with people like kc glenn, gino montero, Ernest youngman, and Tommy Cornell Jr, so I find the ratings reasonable

 

My only issue is it seems people I'm not doing much with take a long time to lose much popularity, so too many people "stick" at high levels

 

 

Yeah, I think this is closer to the heart of the matter. It's not so much the very top guys with huge pop and great match ratings that's the main problem; it's that too many 2nd tier guys (upper midcarders, I guess) are pushing into the very top level. You're right that it takes a long time for them to cool off by not using them or even jobbing them out a bit. Once you get someone red or white hot (not difficult at all) they seem to stay there for a long time. I think the combination of easy-to-gain, hard-to-lose momentum plus loosening the popularity caps has led to a lack of challenge and imbalance. Even with the guys you mention though, 99-100 rated matches should be rare and not something that can happen every week.

[MikeSc]

I think you guys are onto something.

 

In my BCG game I have 7 guys who have high enough Psych and top row to drag a 90+ match out of somebody on the midcard and up. When three of them are in a match it is over 95 unless I book really badly leading up to it and 99 all the time. And it should be, they are in the high 90s in Psych with at least one top row stat in the 90s and good SQ/Charisma.

 

I have 2 guys who have really good psych (low to mid 90s) but their top row is not quite good enough to make it to the next tier. And their SQ/Cha is low. Along with them I would put my resident "big guy". His top row and psych are slightly lower than the two just mentioned, but he gets booked strong due to his stature. This set of guys will take occasional losses to the big 7.

 

I also have 4 or 5 guys with good enough top row (and still developing) to make that upper tier but their psych stopped too early. And most of them have one really good SQ/Cha. When i put them in matches with anyone with good enough psych there is going to be a 95+ score involved. SATO is ridiculous due to being a Dynamo. These guys job to the 10 above to keep them hot and by all rights should be Star instead of Major Star due to the losses.

 

There are also the 2 newly promoted midcarders who never lose pop despite losing 65% of their matches. And the unlikely tag team guys who somehow manage to keep up with everyone's match scores despite having more midcard top row stats. Great chem goes a long way.

 

The main 7 guys sit at 99 to 100 pop, which is right. By my estimate, that second tier ought to be around a 90-95 range, still really strong but not at the level above. And anything below that should not go over 90 due to the losses.

 

The fact that most of them are in the 96-99 pop range makes 3 of my matches almost guaranteed 97 scores (again, crowd control can change this). Since 35% of their grade in the match is pop it would drag a lot of match scores down after you got past the first 7 and even more after those next 3 bubble guys.

 

And it seems like anything 90+ or 95+ (needs experimenting), even if it involves a loss, results in a net gain for the worker's momentum. I kind of get this, given that you don't want guys taking huge hits after major losses on PPV, etc. I just wish it didn't skew the upper card ratings as much as it does once you reach a certain amount of great workers on the roster.

[TheChef]

The main 7 guys sit at 99 to 100 pop, which is right. By my estimate, that second tier ought to be around a 90-95 range, still really strong but not at the level above. And anything below that should not go over 90 due to the losses.

 

 

This, I respectfully disagree with. I think that 99/100 pop should be reserved for the absolute elite of their generation and there should never be more than 7 guys at this level in the whole game world at one time. Same with 99/100 matches - no more than 10 or 12 per year in the whole game world. This is what imbalances the game world, the wages, the refusals to job, etc. Too many people with huge popularity is the problem.

 

The rest of your post is absolutely spot on, though. Those top guys give too much pop and momentum to the other workers, even when they beat them. Once you have a main event scene with 7 or 8 elite workers, that rubs off on everyone else, so the guys who aren't quite good enough to be major stars are becoming major stars anyway. Two elite workers should be able to put on a five star match but one elite worker should not be able to carry a lesser worker to an all-time great match. This happens regularly in the game and the loser still gains pop and momentum from a 95+ match.

 

In my save, the most recent power 500 has 12 of the top 20 workers from 21CW. At least 7 or 8 of those guys have no business being there other than the fact they've been working with Tommy Cornell and Adam Matravers all year. They score 99s vs those two guys but can't pull much more than 75-80 with anyone else. I am, of course, aware that a great worker makes others look good, but my point is that those others are rated by the game as major stars even though they're not really.