Broadcaster Rating Requirements

[Henderson]

Where in the data is the minimum show quality listed? Is it based solely on the size of the coverage?

 

For instance, in my 1995 mod, Time Warner requires a minimum quality of 84. I'm only at medium size, also. I find this to be incredibly unrealistic to the point it isn't even a fun challenge, it's just impossible to maintain. I'm going to end up being dropped by them because I can't spam a 84 show grade. While I'm still considered to be "striking gold" with my shows, I'm going to turn around and be dropped. This is ridiculous.

 

I'd like to go in and edit the required rating, but I can't find it anywhere. There's no reason why a 65 rated show wouldn't be acceptable to any broadcaster. Hell, a 50 would be acceptable in real terms. Is this a hard-coded rating that can't be edited at all?

 

This game's fun and detailed and all, but it seems with each version it becomes more and more unrealistic to maintain levels. What is meant to be challenging just turns out to be unattainable, while the AI spits out 90+ rated shows easily, though they make no sense at all.

 

How do you guys seriously even maintain a global rating without spamming the same thing repeatedly?

[Jaysin]

Not sure if you can do it once a game has been started, but it's not hard coded. You can change it to whatever you want in the editor before starting a game by editing the Broadcasting Deals.

[Vinsmoker]

Where in the data is the minimum show quality listed? Is it based solely on the size of the coverage?

 

For instance, in my 1995 mod, Time Warner requires a minimum quality of 84. I'm only at medium size, also. I find this to be incredibly unrealistic to the point it isn't even a fun challenge, it's just impossible to maintain. I'm going to end up being dropped by them because I can't spam a 84 show grade. While I'm still considered to be "striking gold" with my shows, I'm going to turn around and be dropped. This is ridiculous.

 

I'd like to go in and edit the required rating, but I can't find it anywhere. There's no reason why a 65 rated show wouldn't be acceptable to any broadcaster. Hell, a 50 would be acceptable in real terms. Is this a hard-coded rating that can't be edited at all?

 

This game's fun and detailed and all, but it seems with each version it becomes more and more unrealistic to maintain levels. What is meant to be challenging just turns out to be unattainable, while the AI spits out 90+ rated shows easily, though they make no sense at all.

 

How do you guys seriously even maintain a global rating without spamming the same thing repeatedly?

You need to adjust the time slot in your brodcasting contract. That's nothing new. If you're on the prime time slot for Time Warner 84 as requirement sounds actually quite low, tbh

[Adam Ryland]

As the above poster said, 84 for a prime time slot on a major broadcaster is pretty gentle in terms of TEW show grades; you'd expect a company big enough to hold that slot to be able to nail that most weeks without resorting to any sort of spamming techniques. If you're not able to do that then I don't think it's ridiculous that they'd be unhappy given that you're objectively producing a poor show for such a high profile slot.

 

If you don't have a roster capable of hitting that on a regular basis then you should really be on either a lesser slot or a smaller broadcaster. Certainly if you're thinking more along the lines of a 65 rating as being your comfort level then that would indicate that you're pretty far out of your depth with a prime time Time Warner slot, which suggests that either there's a bit of a balance issue with your mod (if it was a broadcasting deal that was there from the start) or you've been quite overambitious (if you signed the deal during gameplay).

[Henderson]

I agree that the balance of the mod may need tweaked. It is the original deal that started with the mod.

 

The problem I have with high requirements is looking at it from a realistic level. As far back as when wrestling first went mainstream in the 80's, there were far more "misses" on shows than successes. Could you really rate the overall show grade of most PPV's higher than and 85?

 

I think it's very short-sighted thinking to say it's because of my lack of ability in playing the game. I'm not putting on bad shows. I'm considered to be "striking gold" in my overall show rating, yet the network is still unhappy because I scored a 77 as opposed to an 85. Would it not make more sense to be viewed on success by how the overall show was viewed or came off, rather than a subjective number?

 

Additionally, in the case of Time Warner, where they actually own the wrestling company, it would make no sense from a business standpoint to kick your own company off your network. WCW put on very lackluster shows prior to the wrestling boom and they remained Prime Time. WCW Saturday Night was a B show after Nitro kicked off and they remained on at 6:05 PM for two hours.

 

65 isn't my comfort level, I was just using that as an example as compared to real life. Wrestling in general puts on very poor shows, yet they continue to hold their TV deals. If the WWF was kicked off programming for poor shows, they wouldn't have survived after 1995.

[H3power]

Perhaps an idea for the future would be to change the mechanic for minimum show rating requirements to something like a minimum average over a span of time? So you can have some bad lows but as long it's balanced out by some high highs you're in the clear. Just thinking out loud.

[Acamality]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Henderson" data-cite="Henderson" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="53565" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I agree that the balance of the mod may need tweaked. It is the original deal that started with the mod.<p> </p><p> The problem I have with high requirements is looking at it from a realistic level. As far back as when wrestling first went mainstream in the 80's, there were far more "misses" on shows than successes. Could you really rate the overall show grade of most PPV's higher than and 85?</p><p> </p><p> I think it's very short-sighted thinking to say it's because of my lack of ability in playing the game. I'm not putting on bad shows. I'm considered to be "striking gold" in my overall show rating, yet the network is still unhappy because I scored a 77 as opposed to an 85. Would it not make more sense to be viewed on success by how the overall show was viewed or came off, rather than a subjective number?</p><p> </p><p> Additionally, in the case of Time Warner, where they actually own the wrestling company, it would make no sense from a business standpoint to kick your own company off your network. WCW put on very lackluster shows prior to the wrestling boom and they remained Prime Time. WCW Saturday Night was a B show after Nitro kicked off and they remained on at 6:05 PM for two hours.</p><p> </p><p> 65 isn't my comfort level, I was just using that as an example as compared to real life. Wrestling in general puts on very poor shows, yet they continue to hold their TV deals. If the WWF was kicked off programming for poor shows, they wouldn't have survived after 1995.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> You're still ignoring the main point two other posters have made here. If you can't confidently hit 85 for your Prime Time spot, which isn't that unrealistic, you should be looking to take a different slot or make a deal with a smaller broadcaster. Prime Time needs to have the best shows to keep their audience, so obviously the broadcaster should be looking for top-tier wrestling from one of the best companies while filling out the other slots with smaller companies. An afternoon slot might be more your company's current level until you can more consistently have better shows without spamming.</p><p> </p><p> If one company is hitting 77's, but 3 big companies are hitting 89s, it makes sense that prime time would be an 85 minimum.</p>

[Adam Ryland]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Henderson" data-cite="Henderson" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="53565" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think it's very short-sighted thinking to say it's because of my lack of ability in playing the game.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think either you've misread my post or I've not been clear enough, as there's nothing in it that I can see that references your ability to play the game. I said that if you don't have the roster capable of doing it then you've got a problem - if your mod is not balanced correctly and the workers you have available make the rating required an impossibility to achieve, that's an issue with the mod, not how you're playing it.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Henderson" data-cite="Henderson" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="53565" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm considered to be "striking gold" in my overall show rating, yet the network is still unhappy because I scored a 77 as opposed to an 85. Would it not make more sense to be viewed on success by how the overall show was viewed or came off, rather than a subjective number?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> No, I disagree. </p><p> </p><p> Firstly because giving a specific number means that you're not in the dark about what's required of you. You know you need to hit X. Having it hidden behind a vague "we won't tell you exactly what you need to do but we'll complain if you don't hit it" would be precisely the sort of thing people criticised earlier games for doing, and that's what you'd get if it was rated on some nebulous concept of how a show came off.</p><p> </p><p> Secondly I think your suggestion doesn't work because the feedback you get - like "striking gold" - is only in the context of your current size, not the game world as a whole. A 35 rated show is <em>fantastic</em> for a tiny company but <em>dreadful</em> in the wider gaming world, so it'd be silly for a broadcaster to give them a pass just because you a small company has much lower expectations. In your case, your 77 rating may be subjectively good in the context of your roster, but objectively it is a pretty average show in TEW terms, so it should get pinged by a major broadcaster as being a problem.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Henderson" data-cite="Henderson" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="53565" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Wrestling in general puts on very poor shows, yet they continue to hold their TV deals. If the WWF was kicked off programming for poor shows, they wouldn't have survived after 1995.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> True, but that doesn't really work in the context of this being a game. If you could put out years of dire shows with no real consequences then nobody would ever lose their TV deal or be in the slightest danger of doing so, so it'd make it pretty pointless. Same deal if the requirement was down at the 50 or 60 mark like you suggested - nobody is ever going to fail to hit numbers that low with any decent sized company, which would therefore make it all but pointless.</p>

[DrRDuke]

How do you guys seriously even maintain a global rating without spamming the same thing repeatedly?

 

Speaking for myself, I'm currently playing in 2031 with CWA and routinely putting on shows that rate in the high 80's and low/mid 90's. It takes a lot of work to plan out and book shows that continue to meet those requirements...and I have yet to put on a show above 95...but to me, it should be very difficult to put on a show that gets a 95+...that, in terms of the game is a 'perfect' show. I certainly don't spam the same match-ups, but I've got a very solid roster of Main Event stars that I try and feature regularly...be it in singles, or tag matches. I've also adjusted my Product so that my Match Focus is Ensemble and Angle Focus is Highlight. That way, I have to make sure that I have at least 3 or 4 matches that rate very highly...as well as 2-3 promo's from my top promo guys so that I can score in the mid-high 80's at least...while also allowing myself some room for error when it comes to booking my mid card and lower card matches. From my experience, if you keep booking the same Top guys all the time, then your younger workers or mid card guys who put on matches in the 60's, for example, never grow...and then when your top guys age out, then you can really find yourself in trouble. I look at it like if WWE constantly just booked Roman, Randy Orton, Seth, Brock etc. (which they do) then if they ever lost those guys, either through retirement or them going to another company, they'd be left with a roster of people they haven't taken the time to develop and audiences might start turning away because who wants to see R-Truth v. Shorty G for the World Title?

 

By having spots on each card reserved for my mind card guys and younger guys, I'm slowly able to get them to grow their own popularity as well as their other stats, without it drastically effecting my overall score. They get a chance to be on my weekly A show, but even though they are scoring in the 60's for their matches or promo's, they end up gaining popularity and skills because the overall show grade is in the 80's and 90's thanks to the big boys.

 

In my opinion everything Adam has said in this thread makes absolute sense. If a major broadcaster has you on in prime time, they are going to be cutthroat when it comes to you meeting their ratings requirements. If AEW, for example, were putting on shows that were only getting 300,000 - 400,000 viewers, TNT would be much more critical of them and they'd risk losing their TV deal. But they've been able to get their viewership numbers to regularly top 1 million as of late because not only do they have big names on every Dynamite, and are adding big names to the roster (CM Punk, Danielson, Adam Cole, Andrade, Black) but they always make sure that they are also featuring lesser known names, or younger wrestlers on the show as well. Look at that Garcia kid that they've had main event the past few Rampages against big names. From a cynical fans' perspective, they look at that and wonder why this no-name kid is getting to Main Event against Darby Allin on Dynamite or Rampage...but what it does is it makes him way more recognizable to the casual wrestling viewer...and thus, he is now much more popular moving forward. They can now rely on him to, using TEW metrics, put on 60 or 70 ratings matches against almost anyone now...rather than just stick him in the mid card or low card where if he was matched up with another mid card/low card wrestler, he might be getting 40's or 50's. Booking in this game is all about balance...and what kind of product you are putting on...and what your Match and Angle ratings are.

 

Just look at the amount of shows on Cable TV, or even Netflix that 'seem' to be popular, but get canceled because they weren't meeting some ratings or popularity threshold. Conan O'Brien, a very popular Late Night host, had The Tonight Show taken away from him after less than a year because the network wasn't happy with his ratings. Brooklyn 99 was a very popular and well received show but got canceled from it's original network, but was popular enough that it got picked up by another network and got to finish its run. That's showbiz.

 

And as Adam said, if the threshold for TV contracts with Major Networks were lower, then everyone would have a TV show on a Major Network and that just makes the game too easy...OR there wouldn't be any open spots because everyone would be able to hold onto their 'spot' because all they need to do is put on a 70 rated show.

 

The game, at the upper reaches of popularity and making money SHOULD be hard, and the challenge is finding the right formula or booking strategy or product that will allow you to keep your match scores high.

 

edit: And just to add, in my experience you can still make a lot of money and be popular not being on a 'major' network. Working out TV and PPV deals with other countries not only makes you money, but it increases your global popularity as well. By the time I left ACPW to take over ownership of CZCW, I had put ACPW on such good financial and popularity footing that they are now, in 2031, one of the top companies Worldwide. Sure, it can take a long time to slowly build up your popularity, but to me that's part of the game. Signing popular FA's who 'fit' with your product is part of that as well. Again, there are a lot of variables that you have to be aware of and keeping tabs on in order to grow your company...and that includes if you start out with the big boys. When I took over CWA after running CZCW for a few years, I decided I was going to go the Company Owned Broadcaster route because I wanted a bit more freedom with how I booked my product...and at the time I took over, CWA was in a bad way and just didn't have the horses that would have allowed me to meet the higher requirements to stay on a bigger broadcaster...not to mention it being very, very hard to grow the company in other regions to earn TV/PPV deals there. So, by starting my own broadcaster and spending the money to get med/big coverage in places I wanted to grow CWA (Japan, US) I've slowly been able to get them up to a point where I'm close to being able to sign PPV deals with providers in those countries. My Broadcaster only broadcasts TV Shows, so PPV's aren't even shown anywhere outside of Canada at the moment. I take the hit financially now, so that, in time, I'll be able to sign PPV deals in those countries and really start making some money. It's how I wanted to play the game. I could have just broadcast my 'Events' on my broadcaster to those countries, but I wanted my PPV's to actually be PPV's and not be part of my broadcaster. Just how I wanted to do it.

[Henderson]

Thanks for your feedback on this. Adam, I see your points and appreciate it. I agree in the end with the things you said.

 

I think overall it just has to do with how this mod is balanced. I'm not sure if it was just a transfer from 2016 or if the maker sat down and did all the data.