Less ruthless popularity swing causing drop in size

[wphill]

Let me try and explain...

I was playing a real world mod as WWE who were rated 77 in size across the US.  My first two shows were rated above my size (Raw 81, Smackdown 79).

The following Raw I had a bad show and the rating was only a 74 which caused me to drop in size after literally booking just three shows. If you take the three shows, I had an average of 78 (above my size of 77) which I feel is a much fairer way of calculating popularity swings and size changes. 

Dropping size after just one bad show was way too harsh and I just ended up giving up on the save. Would it be possible to change to a much fairer monthly average for popularity and size where for example, all 'A' shows and the PPV for August would be added up and divided by the number of shows to give an average popularity across the month rather than show to show? This would stop you going into a shock phase after one bad show.

[newbiezness]

5 hours ago, wphill said:

Let me try and explain...

I was playing a real world mod as WWE who were rated 77 in size across the US.  My first two shows were rated above my size (Raw 81, Smackdown 79).

The following Raw I had a bad show and the rating was only a 74 which caused me to drop in size after literally booking just three shows. If you take the three shows, I had an average of 78 (above my size of 77) which I feel is a much fairer way of calculating popularity swings and size changes. 

Dropping size after just one bad show was way too harsh and I just ended up giving up on the save. Would it be possible to change to a much fairer monthly average for popularity and size where for example, all 'A' shows and the PPV for August would be added up and divided by the number of shows to give an average popularity across the month rather than show to show? This would stop you going into a shock phase after one bad show.

Absolutely agree. This was a nightmare for me when I started booking SWF or TCW in the Cornell Verse in some of my first saves in TEW2020. I'm sure this is discouraging for new players.

Another concern is that it seems when you have a low popularity, let's say 30, if you get a rating of 58 in a show or you get a rating of 70 there's not enough difference (I mean you should grow MUCH faster in the second scenario but you won't perceive much difference). This is discouraging for new players too.

These problems (that I think should be easier to change than other aspects) don't let many people enjoy this game or even make some people dislike it and it's a great game even with these gameplay problems.

Edited August 24, 2023 by newbiezness

[Skummy]

8 hours ago, newbiezness said:

Absolutely agree. This was a nightmare for me when I started booking SWF or TCW in the Cornell Verse in some of my first saves in TEW2020. I'm sure this is discouraging for new players.

Another concern is that it seems when you have a low popularity, let's say 30, if you get a rating of 58 in a show or you get a rating of 70 there's not enough difference (I mean you should grow MUCH faster in the second scenario but you won't perceive much difference). This is discouraging for new players too.

These points are contradictory, though - you're arguing that changes in popularity should be less significant in one direction but more significant in another; there's no balance or consistency there, that's just asking for the game to be made easier. 
 

I do agree that changes in company size should be less abrupt - maybe some warnings before it happens, or some potential "buffers" in place to offset falls in company size; just thinking off the top of my head, but there could be some bonuses that add an extra (invisible) point or two to your popularity. Something like having a deal with a TV network of a certain size could add a point or two, having a certain number of wrestlers above a certain popularity, or having your figurehead be a certain popularity, might add a point or two, that's not enough to push you up a size but could stave off dropping down to a smaller size. A run of bad shows for WWE aren't going to make them a smaller company overnight if they still have great TV contracts and the biggest stars in the world, so that could protect them for a while, but if you don't turn the ship around, you end up in a late stage WCW situation where it doesn't matter how popular your stars are and how good your TV deal is, the show just isn't good enough.

[newbiezness]

6 hours ago, Skummy said:

These points are contradictory, though - you're arguing that changes in popularity should be less significant in one direction but more significant in another; there's no balance or consistency there, that's just asking for the game to be made easier. 
 

I do agree that changes in company size should be less abrupt - maybe some warnings before it happens, or some potential "buffers" in place to offset falls in company size; just thinking off the top of my head, but there could be some bonuses that add an extra (invisible) point or two to your popularity. Something like having a deal with a TV network of a certain size could add a point or two, having a certain number of wrestlers above a certain popularity, or having your figurehead be a certain popularity, might add a point or two, that's not enough to push you up a size but could stave off dropping down to a smaller size. A run of bad shows for WWE aren't going to make them a smaller company overnight if they still have great TV contracts and the biggest stars in the world, so that could protect them for a while, but if you don't turn the ship around, you end up in a late stage WCW situation where it doesn't matter how popular your stars are and how good your TV deal is, the show just isn't good enough.

There's no contradiction, it's exactly how it works in real life. A popularity point for a 77 pop company shouldn't be easy to achieve with 78 or 79 shows, that grow should be very very slow. The same to decrease popularity, if you have a 75 show nobody notice the difference in RL. How can you lose size with a difference than nobody would notice in RL? We are talking about shows that were almost the same! That kind of change should be very slow upwards or downwards.

The other scenario, if you have a 30 pop company and you are able to deliver a 77 rating show, then your company should be rewarded much more in the game. Just one fantastic show can change things for a company in RL! In this case 30 pop company and 77 show, maybe the company should be at 35, 36, after the show? I don't have the perfect answer but I think it would be much more realistic.

I know this is a game, but a little more realism wouldn't hurt. I think this is a simulation game, the popularity changes should reflect reality. This wouldn't make the game easier, it would make it realistic. If you have a very unknown company your potential to grow would be higher, just as it is, if you have a very big one it'll be difficult for you to make a big difference.

[Dave Mac]

On 8/25/2023 at 4:17 PM, newbiezness said:

There's no contradiction, it's exactly how it works in real life. A popularity point for a 77 pop company shouldn't be easy to achieve with 78 or 79 shows, that grow should be very very slow. The same to decrease popularity, if you have a 75 show nobody notice the difference in RL. How can you lose size with a difference than nobody would notice in RL? We are talking about shows that were almost the same! That kind of change should be very slow upwards or downwards.

The other scenario, if you have a 30 pop company and you are able to deliver a 77 rating show, then your company should be rewarded much more in the game. Just one fantastic show can change things for a company in RL! In this case 30 pop company and 77 show, maybe the company should be at 35, 36, after the show? I don't have the perfect answer but I think it would be much more realistic.

I know this is a game, but a little more realism wouldn't hurt. I think this is a simulation game, the popularity changes should reflect reality. This wouldn't make the game easier, it would make it realistic. If you have a very unknown company your potential to grow would be higher, just as it is, if you have a very big one it'll be difficult for you to make a big difference.

Personally I feel it should be harder to gain pop but much easier to lose it.  I think we live in times where attention spans are much shorter.  For example if my fed is 70 in pop to me I need a 70 rated show to maintain that, ie my audience tunes in next week.  If I put on a 75 rate shows thats drawing a few more bods in as my show is of better quality than usual, but not going to move the dial alot.  I think if i put on a 65 rated show that is below what people expect.  I think that is more likely people will turn off the following week.  I get the swing should probably be the same, but I think for the purposes of the game it puts the emphasis to maintain your show quality.

 

That said I can see why people would want it to be levelled out. 

[newbiezness]

2 hours ago, Dave Mac said:

Personally I feel it should be harder to gain pop but much easier to lose it.  I think we live in times where attention spans are much shorter.  For example if my fed is 70 in pop to me I need a 70 rated show to maintain that, ie my audience tunes in next week.  If I put on a 75 rate shows thats drawing a few more bods in as my show is of better quality than usual, but not going to move the dial alot.  I think if i put on a 65 rated show that is below what people expect.  I think that is more likely people will turn off the following week.  I get the swing should probably be the same, but I think for the purposes of the game it puts the emphasis to maintain your show quality.

 

That said I can see why people would want it to be levelled out. 

That's fair, but I think that reflects audiences, not popularity. Maybe you should lose more audience and TV gains if you had a weak show. But I think you don't lose popularity IRL that quick if a show is just slighly worse. I mean everyone knows WWE, if they have a show that is slighly worse than the previous one 🙄 I don't think their popularity suffers that much.

Anyway I think what is pretty clear is that if you put good workers, money, etc in an unknown company and your show have high rankings your company should grow faster than it does now.

[Dave Mac]

6 hours ago, newbiezness said:

That's fair, but I think that reflects audiences, not popularity. Maybe you should lose more audience and TV gains if you had a weak show. But I think you don't lose popularity IRL that quick if a show is just slighly worse. I mean everyone knows WWE, if they have a show that is slighly worse than the previous one 🙄 I don't think their popularity suffers that much.

Anyway I think what is pretty clear is that if you put good workers, money, etc in an unknown company and your show have high rankings your company should grow faster than it does now.

I do agree about the y known company part. I’ve played local to global style stuff and even having the odd insanely over guy doesn’t help much. But I guess that’s to nerf it being too much of a cheat. Although I think if your local high school gym start up fed had CM Punk turning up all the time it would grow very quickly.