Some game balance issues and suggested tweaks / fixes

[Derek B]

This is probably better suited to suggestions as it covers a lot of ground, but I think the overall balance of TEW IX is a little off and reduces the number of potential ways to play the game due to some issues with finances, popularity changes and product imbalances.  Below are a few issues I’ve picked up on and ways to fix them that I think can be done with a future patch.

 

Issue #1: Products that are rated 80:20 or 20:80 absolutely do NOT balance each other out (until you reach the highest levels of popularity).  It’s true all along the scale (70:30 vs 30:70, etc) where products should be equal and opposite, but performance in TEW is king and always has been.  This leads to situations where at lower levels it makes no sense to play as a popularity-based promotion because they will always get lower ratings than a performance based one AND cost a lot more money to run.

Potential Solutions

Increase the amount made from sponsorships in more popularity-based products to pay for bigger names, and therefore increase segment and show ratings.

increase the potential boost to attendance for having bigger names (either for all companies, or specifically more for popularity-based ones), with knock on effects being an obvious increase to ticket sales and merchandise sales.  Having feedback from the assistant during a show about how many extra tickets may be sold would also be popular as this information exists, and the handbook provides guidance on it too.

It probably doesn’t need to be said, but the products that were added / changed with a 90:10 split would need to be changed, and some of the 80:20 or 20:80 products probably toned down too.

A much more difficult idea would also be to have the AI use more angles in their shows specifically catering to the people with the strong skills. It would be an angle-based push instead of a match based one, but I doubt this would be feasible, though could potentially be linked to a booker’s skill.  (maybe this is even in, and I’ve not fully understood some stuff from the journal and handbook about booking skill)

Another potential fix would be to have workers be smarter about their wage demands.  They seem to be largely based on popularity rather than talent levels, which is fair, but being able to increase their prices based on their talents would bring them more in line with non-wrestlers like referees and commentators, who seem to largely base their prices based on actual talent.  Having talented performers costing more would help to balance the issue significantly, though may be difficult to implement.

(PS: I’m aware we can change a lot of financial settings in the era section, but as this is universal and not product specific, this wouldn’t address the balance issue)

 

 

 

Issue #2: Popularity-based products accidentally penalise anyone who isn’t popular, relative to performance-based products.  Popularity plays a factor in every angle, and in popularity-based promotions it plays a huge factor in every match too.  Compared to a performance-based product where it only matters in angles, and you are left with a situation where popularity-based products have an entire undercard incapable of getting equivalent ratings to a performance-based promotion.  The handbook doesn’t give exact values for how much overness plays into segment ratings (due to the complexity involved, I assume) but if a match rating can be as high as 90:10 (as of the latest patch) while angles seem to be at be limited far below that, it leads once again to performance-based products getting better ratings at every card level, and players being less likely to use popularity-based products as a result.

Potential Solutions

Make the value of skills vs popularity more even between angles and matches.  If a match can be rated 80:20 on skills vs popularity, then angles should be roughly the same too based on relevant skills vs popularity.  If angles are fixed at a lower rating for the skill side (maybe 70% relevant skill vs 30 pop), then products should be limited to that range too with very few exceptions.  This would bring the different product types into balance and make each more viable at any level of the game.

(PS: I’m aware on the game side of things that things like creative energy can be used to help the undercard, but that can be used in any promotion, and as such doesn’t address the balance.  I’m also aware that physical wear and tear plus injuries are more likely in most performance based products, but the higher ratings also lead to more rapid popularity gains in those promotions, further tipping the balance in favour of performance-based promotions)

 

 

 

Issue #3: Ticket pricing and company popularity changes.  TEWIX seems to use the same ticket pricing mechanic as TEW20, and it was clear in 20 that the best option for maximum growth for anyone was to change to very cheap.  Growth limits were introduced to prevent wild changes, but the meta-mechanic of simply changing to cheaper prices for quicker gains in the short term, leading to far greater ticket sales six months later remains.  With a few tweaks to the growth formula, I think the game would be better balanced and push people to make different decisions based on their situations.

Potential Solutions

I would propose slightly quicker company popularity changes at Normal ticket prices, and slightly slower at Very Cheap and Free, while slightly reducing the attendance gains for Very Cheap and Free too.  This would tighten up the margins where people can actually charge less per ticket to gain more in merchandise at relatively low levels, and bring players closer to playing in the same way that I believe the AI promotions play, which is by always using Normal ticket prices since there is no way in the main editor that I can see to change this.  Bring the players and AI into a closer balance and removing the meta-play should help the game become better balanced overall.  With growth limits on, the game would then become a balancing act between number of shows, ticket prices, merchandise levels (see below) and product, pushing people to make decisions about what their budget can afford rather than changing one setting at game start and forgetting about it forever.

 

 

 

Issue #4: Rapid worker popularity changes.  TEW and even EWR before it have always had very fast changes to worker popularity, that when you look at the real world, generally don’t make a lot of sense.  A lot of the time a major jump in popularity can be explained as a combination of different factors that each contribute towards a segment rating, rather than purely being a jump in popularity.  In TEW we can model this with a combination of popularity changes, momentum changes and gimmick rating increases along with attributes like Hot New Move, Hot New Catchphrase, Flavour Of The Month and so on… and similarly, when people cool off we can use all of those in reverse.  But sometimes in TEW what we can see is a worker get a couple of big wins over someone and suddenly gain incredible amounts of popularity almost overnight, which has always felt wrong to me, especially when we have so many other ways to model rapid growth and cooling off now.

Potential Solutions

I propose that workers have a Natural Growth Limit in a very similar way to how companies do since TEW20.  So while Company X might be able to gain a couple of points of popularity in an area per month, a worker would only be able to grow so far too.  Since overness is meant to represent a combination of name value and how deep a worker’s bond is with the audience, I believe that bond can only deepen so much over a short period of time.  I would suggest a maximum change of 5 points up OR down per month, though I could see the case for maybe 6 (an old TEW letter grade) to 10 too.

Related to this, if a worker has already lost as much popularity as they can within a short period of time then the gains for beating them should be minimised, which I think is how the popularity floor system works in general.  By using this it could also be possible to have workers become upset at their booking even if they were alright with all the situations that led to them losing that much popularity in the first place.

The knock-on effect of this is that it would also eliminate a tactic that a lot of people use when they absolutely bury someone who is about to leave the company by having them lose to people over and over.  Smart bookers could just start having people lose further out from the end of their contract of course, but at least that’s a longer-term decision.  Getting rid of the meta-tactic feels like a potentially big improvement to the game and will make workers feel more like people who understand that they need to protect their own brand.

And the biggest benefit, in my eyes, is that even when you choose to megapush a worker then they can only go so far, so quickly.  There are many examples of workers getting strong pushes but it takes time to truly build a star.  My go to example is always Goldberg, who was beating everyone in sight in seconds and even at his peak he wasn’t near 100 popularity even after 18 months of that.  Meaning less than 5 pop per month overall… it might not have been a straight line growth, which is why I’d not mind the upper limit of 10 to help with those early wins, but even Brock Lesnar at his best in early career was still building his name value right up to where he left WWE, it’s just that he was so good that he kept delivering great results all the time.

 

 

 

Issue #5: Squash matches are broken.  In the sense that the thresholds for making gains from squashes are too high.  Booking squash matches should be a good way to introduce a worker to the roster, having them dominate someone in a couple of minutes to build them a little momentum.  But the requirements for this to be a success are so high, and seem so variable that more often than not workers who win end up in a worse position than they started.  I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve tried to debut someone with some squash wins only to see them LOSE popularity from it, and not even noticeably gain momentum, and I’ve seen similar reports from others too.  Other than feeding someone more over to the dominating worker, which often still results in a net loss between the two workers, dominating wins seem almost useless and that shouldn’t be the case for one of the most basic booking tricks in the book.

Potential Solutions

Lower the charisma requirement on squashes so that workers aren’t being penalised more than they are gaining.  I can’t find the number in the handbook, but I think it used to be 72 in TEW20 and the problem was there too.  Monsters are tried and true everywhere, and this should be a way to introduce them to any roster, at any level of the game.

Apply a maximum cap to momentum gained from the Dominate note that is based on charisma… perhaps at 40 you can’t get past neutral, 50 can get you to Warm, 60 to Very Warm and so on up the levels…. So Goldberg with his huge charisma can squash people all the way up, but Ryback has a much lower ceiling and Snitsky just won’t get far at all.  Combined with mechanics like the one that helps workers rise up to a certain level of company pop just by appearing, being able to gain momentum by squashing jobbers to ultimately get past the “fans don’t care about match between two jobbers” penalty and on their way to something meaningful should be a simple standard practice as it always has been in wrestling.

Possibly add a protection against the “fans don’t care about match between two jobbers” penalty if someone is dominating the other, as it’s clear to fans that one is a jobber and one is being treated as “not a jobber” in a quick match.  (this might not be viable, and bookers maybe should just eat the penalty for the segment regardless, while knowing that it will pay off in the longer term due to the improvements above)

 

 

 

 

Issue #6: Merchandising is broken.  At least at higher levels.  In my latest sim BHOTWG spend barely 10,000 a month (at level 😎 on merchandising, but rake in over 2,000,000 a month, for approximately a 20,000% profit overall on merchandise.  That’s because there is no cost per unit on sales, the department simply gets a small budget and then the sales are based on the workers, merchandise level, attendances and company popularity. 

Issue #7: Merchandising is still broken.  Once you’ve levelled up your merchandising, it stays that way forever.  It’s rare to see a large company fail, and if their merchandise section is large enough then they can keep printing money regardless.

Potential Solutions

Introduce a cost per unit metric.  It could be as simple as a percentage of all the merchandise sales (perhaps 20% or 25%, which would still result in a significant mark-up value) or it could be a variable added within the merchandise section itself where you balance quality with markup… but since a variable would no doubt just become a meta game of finding the “right” value, adding a flat percentage would probably be the best way.  This would ensure merchandise makes more sense and help prevent runaway profits at a high level, though may require a small tweak elsewhere in the financial model to properly implement.

Increase the costs of the merchandising department monthly costs significantly at higher levels.  The baseline for running a department at the highest levels should be massive so the decision to increase makes sense.  If you’re only going to make an extra 30,000 a month by levelling up but it costs 50,000 a month for that department to run, then it would make no sense to grow the department further.  At present, if you can afford to grow your department, then you always should, as each level simply prints more money without a corresponding significant increase in costs.

Add a mechanic to reduce the size of the merchandising department.  It likely wouldn’t cost much to reduce the department, unless it’s big enough to have full time staffers on it, but it would definitely hurt company prestige and perhaps momentum to do so.  But if the department was losing money due to the above changes, then this would be a decision that a company would need to make in times of trouble.  By adding this decision on top of the other changes, it would also give players the option during an ongoing save to fix their merchandising department if any issues came up.

 

[Big Roguey]

Read through this a few times and have some counters to the points raised;
 

Issue #1

Products that are rated 80:20 or 20:80 absolutely do NOT balance each other out (until you reach the highest levels of popularity).  It’s true all along the scale (70:30 vs 30:70, etc) where products should be equal and opposite, but performance in TEW is king and always has been.  This leads to situations where at lower levels it makes no sense to play as a popularity-based promotion because they will always get lower ratings than a performance based one AND cost a lot more money to run.

To counter, this is normally roughly how it goes in the "real" world too. There are a lot more notable indie feds that lean towards performance based results than a sports entertainment feel - the example I gave was ROH/PWG always getting more critical acclaim/higher ratings than CHIKARA which would be the closest entertainment based promotion around the same time frame with Chikara's most talked about match for years coming from the Ibushi/Generico/Nick Jackson/Jigsaw four way that was more ROH in tone than CHIKARA. I'd argue as well that the only level it makes no sense to play as a popularity based promotion is if you're playing purely on a meta level and that's just one playstyle/type of player in TEW.

If you jack up things like sponsorships to pay for bigger names you're ultimately just creating an inverse of the issue wherein then it becomes the meta to just play SE and have the sponsorship money come in hand over first so it's replacing one issue with another issue. 

I'd also argue the product splits aren't massively an issue either, there are a small handful of promotions that reach a 90/10 split and it's nice to have an option like that for players who want it.

With regards to the wage demands, there is nothing stopping players offering more to workers already. It's just that the "meta" play is to take the offer the worker presents and go with it, there aren't any blocks in place other than the player themselves to stop workers getting a fair wage (and having seen people complain about wage rises requested when workers clock on to them being underpaid, I suspect that this isn't something that'd necessarily be popular).

Issue #2

"If a match can be rated 80:20 on skills vs popularity, then angles should be roughly the same too based on relevant skills vs popularity.  If angles are fixed at a lower rating for the skill side (maybe 70% relevant skill vs 30 pop), then products should be limited to that range too with very few exceptions.  This would bring the different product types into balance and make each more viable at any level of the game."

Disagree with this. Not every product should be viable at every level and those that are tougher at smaller levels are just a sort of difficulty cap on players who want a challenge. Again, if people want to play the meta then that's fine but not everyone picks the meta play to run with.

Issue #3

I don't actually have many thoughts here other than, again, if people want to use the meta then that's on them but these are all written in such a way that heavily suggests the meta is the only way to play the game which isn't correct.

Issue #4

I actually quite like the idea of a natural growth limit for workers too as long as it's toggleable like the existing function for promotions so that people who don't want to use it still have the option.

"The knock-on effect of this is that it would also eliminate a tactic that a lot of people use when they absolutely bury someone who is about to leave the company by having them lose to people over and over.  Smart bookers could just start having people lose further out from the end of their contract of course, but at least that’s a longer-term decision."

If players wanna bury someone leaving the territory, let them. It's catharsis through booking especially if it's someone who a player has sunk time into building up.

Issue #5

"Lower the charisma requirement on squashes so that workers aren’t being penalised more than they are gaining.  I can’t find the number in the handbook, but I think it used to be 72 in TEW20 and the problem was there too.  Monsters are tried and true everywhere, and this should be a way to introduce them to any roster, at any level of the game."

This was a MAJOR issue with pre-2020 games in TEW and the sole reason for why a cap was put in place. Monsters are everywhere but when they were an easy way to spin 100 pop is something that needed to be capped. Even in the examples you've given, you can't really rush to 100 pop in perf feds at low levels.

I do agree and quite like the idea that an unimportant vs unimportant match gets excluded from the penalty if there is a clear instruction in the road agent notes that there is a worker who is dominating/being kept strong and if the match is under a certain time limit (max of, like, 5 mins).
 

[Questlove]

Just to counter point #1 I actually think it's realistic product-wise that there's no point running a pop>perf product at smaller levels. Almost nobody does it irl and those that do are irrelevant because when you have a company full of nobodies (as you naturally would) the only differentiator IS how good they are. Even at the highest levels now, while you need proper stars to see serious growth, you still aren't going to make it if you suck, but if pop/charisma/SQ are high enough you'll still be printing money and seeing huge numbers with pop based products at that point, so I think it's more or less fine.

That said I do like solution 2 with the potential boost to attendance for adding stars to your show, it's one of the things that's always been sorely missing from TEW imo. I also go back and forth on whether SQ is powerful enough as a stat because I think honestly that's the real draw and always has been, you can only get so far if your roster is full of dudes who look like goobers, no matter what their skillset or popularity is

[BuddyGarner2]

Pop over performance has the benefit that it is easier on the workers, results in less injuries, you can run more angles than matches(which are easier on the workers and don’t have repetitive booking penalties), you benefit from gimmicks.

 

those don’t really matter when you don’t have written contracts and run less frequent shows.  So at lower levels performance based feds are king and at higher levels with written contracts popularity are king. 
 

You can hold a ton of events in popularity feds if you want.  I think there should be something like wrestler burnout to avoid popular guys being in too many angles.

 

instead of dominate for charisma below 72 you should use keep strong and protect.  Maybe a road agent note to the user to that effect?