Official Developer's Journal Discussion Thread

[KeyserSoze]

I do really believe that the steep declining of skills is a huge improvement.

I would use the Ric Flair example. For me the overness is not how knowledge is a worker (a loss or overness will imply that people is forgetting this worker) but that he has less appeal to sell tickets/turn the people to the X channel.

I do know Ric Flair, but maybe I won't buy a ticket/turn the channel to see him fight (while if it is Kurt Angle I would). However if it is a interview with him, probably I would see it.

I don't want to make a discussion about the declining of Flair or no. What I want to point that for me it's not the same to be know that to be over, and that it's for me ok that a "broken" worker (a la Steve Austin or Bret Hart) can be over if it is used in angles, but will bomb his overness if he fights each night.

[Adam Ryland]

Originally Posted by koragon

Regarding #26:
I don't know what the major flaw was that occured, but the new system in which importance changes on a random basis seems incredibly unrealistic.
I mean I wouldn't mind those random changes to rarely happen as a result of an event (I don't know, like "Success of California's own XY leads to huge wrestling boom"... well that's not even really random, but I hope, you get the idea), but the fact that every change is random seems incredibly unrealistic to me. I can't imagine wrestling business men sitting in a conference room and the boss asks Bob, where the future center of wrestling will be and Bob answers "Alaska... trust me."
Of course, you can limit changes with the min/max settings, but shouldn't the region where the best shows are held be the most important one? Because if everyone started holding major shows in Alaska, that would be a legit reason for an increase in importance. I mean I see that this could snowball easily (More shows => more importance => more shows (because more $) =>...) but still.
If Adam says that the original system lead to a big flaw, I understand that and I really don't want to sound like I want him to explain himself, but if he could just hint at what that flaw was it would make things a little more comprehensible.
So far I really loved this weeks entries (and all the entries before that ) because the new generator for workers, the decline feature and this Game World Development here aim at improving longterm games and that's totally awesome. I mean even with the randomness it's still a nice thing, but... well... you know.

You're reading far too much into it the word "random".

It doesn't mean that one month California is vitally important then the next month completely irrelevant, nor does it mean Alaska is going to suddenly be the center of the wrestling world. It means that over the course of a period of many months you may see one region get slightly more important than it was, maybe a little less. Statistically you'll predominantly see most regions stay within a few points of what they were to begin with but with an occasional outlier - which is exactly what is wanted.

The flaw with basing it on promotion location is that it is self-defeating in the long-term; a promotion that manages to establish itself as the undisputed #1 and cripple or kill all its major rivals will be signing its own death warrant as you will end up with one single "power region" and therefore create a game area where staying at bigger than Cult-level becomes impossible. Furthermore, it means game areas become virtually unplayable without a large cast of promotions - America would be unplayable using the TEW2010 spread of promotions as too many areas have no promotion. Nor can you base it on shows held as that creates a polarising game area where you have desirable regions and undesirable regions and nothing in between.

A small random variable therefore gives the most realistic result.

As a postscript, this is why I don't usually explain methodology, because people have this weird aversion to anything that's labelled as random...there seems to be this knee-jerk reaction that "random = bad". There's load of features in the game that "behind the scenes" are just clever (or not so clever) use of random numbers to create statistical effects; the very fact that people don't even realise that that's what's happening is a testament to the fact that it works! As long as you as the player are getting the effect that is wanted, the methodology shouldn't matter in the slightest.

[koragon]

Originally Posted by Malioc
- Regional law starts to limit wrestling scenes in TV, which reduces the impact
- A famous wrestling support disappears from public life
- A promotion closes their gates and doesn't book great shows anymore in the particular region
- A difference sport is getting dominant and substitutes the imporance of pro wrestling (not just MMA, could be any sport)
- The mixture of the regional society changes (more families, higher unemployment, poor, etc.)
- Or wrestling just loses its "hotness" in the region, for unknown reasons... happens sometimes in real life

I agree with these examples (except for the promotion closing thing, at least in terms of randomness), that's what I meant when I said I wouldn't mind random events which affect importance, on the contrary I think the game would benefit in terms of unpredictability. But as a promotion, especially a major one, I should be able to affect the importance of a region by focusing on that region. If you look at those two sides of importance change, random and induced (I think that term is somewhat fitting), it's not really the random side I see as a problem, it's the absence of the other one that bugs me. Just to be clear on that, in case it didn't come across in my previous post.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Adam Ryland
The flaw with basing it on promotion location is that it is self-defeating in the long-term; a promotion that manages to establish itself as the undisputed #1 and cripple or kill all its major rivals will be signing its own death warrant as you will end up with one single "power region" and therefore create a game area where staying at bigger than Cult-level becomes impossible. Furthermore, it means game areas become virtually unplayable without a large cast of promotions - America would be unplayable using the TEW2010 spread of promotions as too many areas have no promotion. Nor can you base it on shows held as that creates a polarising game area where you have desirable regions and undesirable regions and nothing in between.

I get what you're saying, although I can't agree on everything, because I think a decline in importance would be somewhat cushioned by the mere visibility of a wrestling product (as long as the interest in wrestling is kept up...) and the fact that there are undesirable regions is just the way it is, but then again it should be my goal as a promoter to make that region desirable again (it could even result in a popularity boost for "(re-)colonizing" a region if importance is low enough). BUT: All that is just a simple, well, thought process, I am sort of ignoring the whole coding aspect and all. I'm not in your shoes and if you say this or that is the way to go, I completly trust you that you really think it's the best way to go (and let's face it, it probably is ). Not only because I don't really have another option, but because I really do trust in you.

[crayon]

Well said Adam, and you can count me as one who enjoyed the insight to the methodology.

Cause and effect is always desirable from an idealistic point of view in sims, but at the same time I can appreciate that it's not always realistically possible to model; sometimes it's counter-productive to gameplay; and sometimes you can do just a good of a job with a "near-enough" approach. In such places some form of randomness (like Adam said, you can have clever randomness) often makes for a good replacement - at least it makes things more dynamic than they might be otherwise.

[lazorbeak]

Originally Posted by Adam Ryland

Please stop clogging up the thread with this argument, you're not even close to talking about a feature any more.

I thought I was? I quoted text from the dev. journal and everything!

[Timber]

I do like the look at the the behinds the scenes stuff. The how's and why's that go into the new features. More of that is always appreciated.


I'm ready for more.

[hellshock70]

Originally Posted by TeemuFoundation

Sting is a huge star in TNA, but is he really drawing in fans? Aren't TNA's ratings still around 1.0 every week?

Lets take a look at this for a minute.

Is Sting a huge star in TNA? Yes.
Does TNA have lower ratings than WWE? Yes.
Does Spike reach the the same audience that USA reaches? No.

Spike seems to be geared very strongly towards the male category not to mention not even being in certain markets that USA is in. I'm male and even I have a hard time watching some of the shows on there.

And I know my wife is not gonna be joining me if I decide to watch "Rat Bastards" for some odd reason.

And all the improvements that seems to be going into TEW2013, this could be another dynamic added in for TV stations besides just being for or against wrestling.

Let's see who can get SWF on Lifetime first without editing.

[NWO4until01]

regarding overness loss with old codgers... perhaps intertwining their potential of loss with HOI status could solve any problems that might arise? In other words, legends' o/ness stays high with only small losses.
Dont think this will be an issue in the C-Verse cos there is no real world comparison, but it might be with RW... or it might not, rendering this post pointless.

[Moe Hunter]

Originally Posted by hellshock70

Lets take a look at this for a minute.

Is Sting a huge star in TNA? Yes.
Does TNA have lower ratings than WWE? Yes.
Does Spike reach the the same audience that USA reaches? No.

Was Raw on Spike from 2000-2005? Yes.
Did Raw still have higher ratings than TNA when on that same network? Yes.

[Malioc]

Originally Posted by KeyserSoze

I would use the Ric Flair example. For me the overness is not how knowledge is a worker (a loss or overness will imply that people is forgetting this worker) but that he has less appeal to sell tickets/turn the people to the X channel.

That's why I believe, tickets and ratings are 2 completely different things. People buy tickets for people they know very well and who are in general famous. But since watching TV is much easier, fans go more with their sympathy for the concept there (wrestler, story, overall production ... doesn't matter).

Example:
Matthew Bloom has been wrestling prominently as Albert, A-Train, Giant Bernard and Tensai. During his first WWE run he never got very "over", but he gained fame for being on national TV a long time.
In Japan however he built up a very good level of popularity in addition to his fame. He made the difference between "yeah, I know 'em from TV" to "man, he is somebody! "

Both things are probably strongly connected. But "overness" is more of an established mixture of two different effects.

Originally Posted by Adam Ryland

It doesn't mean that one month California is vitally important then the next month completely irrelevant, nor does it mean Alaska is going to suddenly be the center of the wrestling world. It means that over the course of a period of many months you may see one region get slightly more important than it was, maybe a little less. Statistically you'll predominantly see most regions stay within a few points of what they were to begin with but with an occasional outlier - which is exactly what is wanted.

Sounds good.

Regarding the importance dilemma... Would it be possible to repair this problem with a counter effect? TEW already penalizes promotions who only do shows in one region (I believe). If multiple promotions constantly promote shows in the same region, this should "burn" the ground, i.e.
- reduce the audience due to oversatisfaction => less income
- make the fans picky & overly critical => reduces show/match ratings via critical audience (e.g. old ECW grounds)

This would still naturally leave good and bad regions. But the competition in the good regions could become so heated, that a fitting (niche?) product in a bad region could still draw more money & better shows, while with time turning the own region into a good one. Also, it would benefit larger promotions, who constantly tour with their big shows. They on the other hand are already popular and rather care about high audiences and wide coverage.

I admit, I clearly prefer the solution here, where the "show" ist the importance booster, not the location of the company. But regarding the formerly planned concept:

A small promotion will not necessarily locate itself at the "most important" place, if the benefit from the right enviroment (fans love particular style) and the reduced competition (lower + pickier audience) make it "bad business" to locate/showcase in the "old market".
In addition, if a hardcore or high-flying promotion becomes so successful in one region, that it makes it one of the top places in the current business, this could shift the importance balance. I think, this is what most people would love to achieve. I definitely do.

Originally Posted by koragon

I agree with these examples (except for the promotion closing thing, at least in terms of randomness), that's what I meant when I said I wouldn't mind random events which affect importance, on the contrary I think the game would benefit in terms of unpredictability. But as a promotion, especially a major one, I should be able to affect the importance of a region by focusing on that region. If you look at those two sides of importance change, random and induced (I think that term is somewhat fitting), it's not really the random side I see as a problem, it's the absence of the other one that bugs me. Just to be clear on that, in case it didn't come across in my previous post.

I share your point. ;-)
That's why I would really like promotions to impact their business region and country by (a) good promoting and (b) other business measures (marketing, campaigns).

Originally Posted by NWO4until01

regarding overness loss with old codgers... perhaps intertwining their potential of loss with HOI status could solve any problems that might arise? In other words, legends' o/ness stays high with only small losses.
Dont think this will be an issue in the C-Verse cos there is no real world comparison, but it might be with RW... or it might not, rendering this post pointless.

I like this idea. In reality overness constantly decreases, even for the legends. But to make the losses less severe depending on the wrestlers status in Pro Wrestling sounds reasonable. The attribute "legend" could be an addition to the already existing statuses, like "National Worker" or "International Super Star", triggered by a memorable...
- storyline
- title run
- match series
- status within the promotion
- etc.

[soxfan93]

Originally Posted by Moe Hunter

Was Raw on Spike from 2000-2005? Yes.
Did Raw still have higher ratings than TNA when on that same network? Yes.

That's incredibly unfair, as the wrestling industry was FAR more popular then than it is now.

[Irishwhiskey119]

Originally Posted by Adam Ryland

You're reading far too much into it the word "random".

It doesn't mean that one month California is vitally important then the next month completely irrelevant, nor does it mean Alaska is going to suddenly be the center of the wrestling world. It means that over the course of a period of many months you may see one region get slightly more important than it was, maybe a little less. Statistically you'll predominantly see most regions stay within a few points of what they were to begin with but with an occasional outlier - which is exactly what is wanted.

The flaw with basing it on promotion location is that it is self-defeating in the long-term; a promotion that manages to establish itself as the undisputed #1 and cripple or kill all its major rivals will be signing its own death warrant as you will end up with one single "power region" and therefore create a game area where staying at bigger than Cult-level becomes impossible. Furthermore, it means game areas become virtually unplayable without a large cast of promotions - America would be unplayable using the TEW2010 spread of promotions as too many areas have no promotion. Nor can you base it on shows held as that creates a polarising game area where you have desirable regions and undesirable regions and nothing in between.

A small random variable therefore gives the most realistic result.

As a postscript, this is why I don't usually explain methodology, because people have this weird aversion to anything that's labelled as random...there seems to be this knee-jerk reaction that "random = bad". There's load of features in the game that "behind the scenes" are just clever (or not so clever) use of random numbers to create statistical effects; the very fact that people don't even realise that that's what's happening is a testament to the fact that it works! As long as you as the player are getting the effect that is wanted, the methodology shouldn't matter in the slightest.

But then there are the intelligent people that understand your explanation clearly and appreciate it very much. The more details in the programming the better for me. I like understanding everything as it helps set up scenarios and game worlds the way i like.

[Mr T Jobs To Me]

I like the Dynamic Regional Importance feature, and random with min/maxes seems to be the best way to implement it to me. In reality there would be hundreds of factors at work, why not simplify those into "it got better" or "it got worse"?

More realistic physical decline has been high on my list for years, along with the improved gens/regens and bios, long term "organic" games should be awesome. Can't wait!

[Malioc]

I don't think, koragon intended to generally criticize the use of random circumstances for real life simulation.

It's rather the fact, that he wants the success of promotions to impact the game world in this regard. It still makes sense to simulate outside factors with random numbers. But I also share his wish for active variables (promotion success) to impact the game world.

This way the player/booker becomes part of wrestling history by shaping the wrestling business lanscape of this timeline.

However, I'd rather have it with show quality than with home location.

Originally Posted by Irishwhiskey119

But then there are the intelligent people that understand your explanation clearly and appreciate it very much. The more details in the programming the better for me. I like understanding everything as it helps set up scenarios and game worlds the way i like.

This has nothing to do with intelligence. Lets not make an insultive good user-bad user-discussion out of it.

[Comradebot]

I think I'm firmly onboard with the new decline system, even if it makes me a little sad (I'm fond of trying to push over the hill, aging slags like Mammoth or Blackjack Robbins).

Still, for gameplay, I know it'll ultimately lead to more realistic and immersive game worlds. I get absolutely sick in my longer term games, like with APWF in the super awesome 70s mod, and my rival companies still have the exact same guys at the top. Still, I'm not sure if Sam Strong not getting the push he deserves from my rivals is worth knowing that (even if he's still active, which seems like a longshot unless he gets the ol' BSS treatment of having his age dialed back) Blackjack Robbins is an even more hopeless case to get over.

Then again, maybe Ryland youthifies a few more guys this time around. I mean, sure, there'll be plenty of mods, but still... always makes me sad when a lovable C-Verse worker retires canonically. Damn, and Boris Kiriyakin, Daniel Jones, and The Big Bad will all be on the wrong side of 35 :-(


...



I'm gonna go cry now.