Hornswoggle4PM

Yeah, sounded quite serious really. Not sure if I heard right but they were questioning whether or not he'd be coming back to cricket any time soon.

It's easy enough to find them for yourself really. The last update he'd be included in would probably be March 2013 if there's a monthly update for then.

Very good win, 4 strong bowling performances and a few standout innings from Clarke, Warner and Haddin. If Anderson and Swann don't get going soon I'm beginning to think the Aussies are a serious chance to win the series.

http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/forecasts/brisbane.shtml I'm only going to say that it's happened before.

How much longer until a declaration? 514 up and getting towards the halfway point of the last session now.

If recent Ashes series are any indication, look for Tremlett and Anderson to put on a 100 run stand a la McGrath and Gillespie.

What a turnaround. One minute Carberry was doing really well, next thing it's 6/ less than 100.

I don't think the Aussies could've realistically expected any more than about 400, seeing as Johnson and Haddin had to rescue the constantly struggling batting order. From what I've heard it's a good batting wicket though, so England could easily get a 100+ run lead going into the second innings'.

They did have a few others with less synth and saxophone, doubt they were as good as Don't Change though. Looking through some of their singles I'd suggest What You Need, New Sensation and maybe Kiss The Dirt.

Australia 6/139 near the end of the second session, Broad's got the first 4 wickets and nobody has been able to reach fifty.

I think the real problem with the loyalty relationship is that it works the same for every promotion. It's perfectly reasonable to expect for example, Jeff Hardy to leave an indy fed if they fire Shannon Moore but if the same were to happen in TNA or WWE, you would expect him to stay with the promotion regardless. Given that we obviously can't change the way how the game treats relationships, which way do we lean on this? Should everyone who is over enough to appear in a major promotion such as the WWE have their loyalty relationships downgraded to friendship?

I don't think we should be expecting anything much to happen out of this, but it's one of the few reunions that I would really love to see. They'd probably still be great after all these years.

Terry Funk is not in the data. I'M LYING TO MAKE HIM FEEL BETTER! I'm going to defer to other people's knowledge on this, but as mentioned the Tough Enough/Al Snow relationships should almost all be removed unless there's evidence of them being closely linked after the conclusion of their respective series'. Elsewhere, Snuka and The Rock are probably related by marriage (I think both are part of the large Samoan family), I'd keep that loyalty in and Joe E Legend with Rhino, Christian and Edge would seem to stem from early in their careers, it's likely they'd still have some form of friendship from those days. Um... not sure what you've been reading, just about everyone has been agreeing that some workers, relationships and tag teams should be deleted, and playability is definitely more important. We're not going in circles and for the most part, getting quite close to making decisions on what could be done with minimal negative impacts. I hate to admit it, but I was thinking that too. Anyway, a moot point if they get deleted.

Firstly, some notes on what Bill said It's also easy to say that "The argument that you'd have to create their stats all over again doesn't really carry much weight" when you're not the one having to enter, delete and re-enter all of the information. Keep in mind, entering a worker isn't just brawl, speed, tech, etc. It's alter egos, tag teams, relationships, etc. The problem with "Guys you probably won't ever use, or have never heard of" is that different people play the game different ways. A guy you might "never use" or "have never heard of" might be a common choice for someone else to add to their roster. I believe I came up with an easy solution for the creating stats all over again part earlier. We can just create a list of people deleted each update so instead of creating them again from scratch, we can go to the most recent update with them included and simply copy the data over. Your second statement here is what I was trying to put across earlier too, but there were some minor issues that were pointed out with doing this for some workers. These three posts here are why I'm reluctant to remove workers... Different people play EWR different ways. It's easy to say "Nobody cares about the Mexican workers," if YOU don't care about them... But, the minute I cut your favorite indy Aussie wrestler because someone else said "Nobody cares about the Australian workers," you'd be complaining. In short, it's easy to suggest cutting someone or something (such as a worker or promotion) when you don't use it... But, someone else might think the same about your favorite worker/promotion. Another point I was intending to post but not sure if I did. Agreed again, but the point raised of EWR being a North-American simulator, therefore preference should be shown to American, Canadian and Mexican workers was a very good one. Not sure if I explained that very well These two quotes highlight it again... While one player might not care if some of the "3000 wrestlers" are cut because they don't use them, another player might use the same ones that the first player doesn't care about and vice versa. Again, I agree that some workers can probably go... I've actually been removing some here and there and nobody's had a complaint as of yet. But, the minute I cut a worker, staff member, or promotion that a player uses, I'd about bet that I'm gonna get the "Why'd you cut (wrestler X)?" I use him all the time!!! This I believe is where some people were suggesting earlier that unless there are complaints that "I use Worker X" by a significant amount of people (not sure how to judge that) then the one or two complaining can be given the responsibility of adding those workers in for themselves after downloading the update. In theory, sure... And, it might be a way to go. The problem is, using the in-game stats (such as 60 charisma) as cutoff points could become an issue. Looking at your list, I personally know who the following are: Christine LeMaster (was offered a WWE DEV deal), Destiny WSU (Ring announcer for WSU and I beleive valets as well), Jenelle Sinclair (HWA), Jennifer Bancalum (WCW Nitro Girl), Kristy Kiss (WEW and also worked for JAPW, among others) and Melissa Stripes (Wrestled for CZW, JAPW, WSU, among others). On the other hand, I have no idea who Sofy is, nor can I find any info on her... But, she gets a reprieve, simply because her entered charisma is over 60... I'm not even saying keep all of the ones I know... I'm simply saying that you're keeping one worker who I know nothing about while cutting six that I do know about, just because whoever entered that worker (she was in the database before I started my updates) gave her a charisma higher than 60. This is why I think doing it purely by criteria isn't a good idea. Instead, people who we are unable to find enough info for are much better candidates for deletion, which is I think what you're getting at here. Also a good point made about the Nitro Girls, when I noticed they were in EWR I was a bit surprised as most would have entirely left wrestling or should at least have lower overness than they do. More people who can (I think) be safely deleted amongst them.

Agreed, ring announcers always seemed like a strange thing to have in EWR, seeing as I can't remember any of them being used as a regular announcer. Potentially they could be transferred into something like 'production' or road agents if there aren't enough people for those roles.

For staff who are purely play-by-play announcers, road agents, trainers etc. I don't mind having them under staff, but for people who do regular colour commentary and/or still make occasional on-screen appearances, I agree that for the WWE at least they could be shifted to workers. But then that just creates an even more bloated workers roster, which means they do even bigger roster cuts at the start of a game. I might be missing something here, but it seems like a bit of a lose-lose situation when they actually have as many people working for them as that.

Very happy for George Bailey, he's deserved a spot in the test team for quite a while now. Otherwise, still pretty much the same team that's lost before, a little disappointed but not surprised that a few such as Warner and Haddin retain their spots. Warner's been in good form at least though, so it's fair enough to give him another chance.

Not sure how to break up a quote into individual parts on the new board, so I'll include my responses in the original quote. Maybe I'm missing something, but if someone is "fairly unknown", I can't see how they could also have a "notable background"? Sorry, I should've worded that better. When I said fairly unknown, I meant workers with low overness. I only bring this up because a few people were suggesting earlier in this topic deleting a list of low-overness workers before it was pointed out that they had worked regularly for companies such as PWG or ROH. In terms of deleting workers, it should come down to two things - when they last wrestled, and how much information is available about them. This. A million times this. Deleting workers should be based mainly on these two principles. Scott Snot, for example, isn't even on the first page of Google results for the name "Scott Snot", so clearly isn't "notable" in the slightest. Raj Ghosh, your other example, hasn't wrestled since 2007. It's not a case of "just because you haven't used them, someone might have done", as conceivably that covers every worker in the game, but it brings up what's basically the key discussion of this entire thread - what's more important to people, something exhaustive in size, or something tailored to suit the game's mechanics? I agree 100%. The point I was trying to make here was that some posters were assuming because most players had never used these types of workers, they should all be deleted which I think is a ludicrous idea, as it would leave the game with under 1000 workers in it. Plus, we can always add in these sort of people again ourselves provided there is some kind of record of when they were last in the database. As for deleting foreign workers - it's an interesting point. I disagree with the notion that foreign workers should be deleted just because it's a North American simulator, as plenty of workers from all over the world could conceivably go to work in North America. However, the argument that a promotion based outside of North America could be simulated in the game by running it "as if" it wasn't doesn't work for me. Again, that's looking to the game as something you can tailor to the needs of a stats update, rather than looking to the stats updates as something there to make the most of the game. EWR is a North American wrestling simulator, so should not be used to simulate international promotions, as it's not designed to do so. That does not mean, though, that international workers should definitely be deleted to accomodate for that. But I would suggest that more obscure workers from outside North America could possibly be a candidate for deletion prior to active North American workers. I get where you're coming from here, and in principle I agree. But most of the people who would be potentially deleted are American, so nationality should not really be a deciding factor. I've not played EWR in years, but I don't remember ever coming across wrestlers automatically becoming non-wrestlers when they turn 50? I know that wrestlers are more likely to become non-wrestlers after a certain age (35?), rather than going straight into full retirement, but I didn't think it was as set in stone as "when they turn 50". Probably worth looking into. Yeah, I was very surprised by this myself and would greatly appreciate if someone else could run a full year's simulation just to make sure this is actually a game mechanic and my data isn't corrupted. My thinking is that at age 35 is when workers can first decide to either retire or become a non-wrestler. Mostly un-related to that, but I recall hearing that Terry Funk never retires, presumably until he reaches the maximum age in the game. Can anyone confirm or deny? As for tag teams...there's some common sense you can apply there, I think. I don't think it's as simple as "delete them if they've not teamed together in X years". It depends on the nature of the team. It should probably be a combination of experience and time since they teamed; so, for example, if a team like The Midnight Express only come out of retirement to do a tag match every few years, that shouldn't warrant them being deleted in the interim, because they've still got 1000s of matches worth of experience before that. It's a rule that, I'd think, you could apply common sense to more than anything, though a lack of common sense in stats updates and the requests made of them is what necessitated this thread in the first place, so perhaps not. My point entirely, just put far more eloquently.

Yeah, I was surprised to not see Robert Gibson listed as a worker, he should probably be put back to there and given a tick in the "trainer" box so when he does retire that can still happen. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Okay, so I've just read through this whole topic and have picked out a few things I'd like to add my voice to. Spoilers purely because I hate when people clog up the pages with long posts. Sort of. I've briefly tested some of the game mechanics just out of interest, and on easy level they do shift up or down one option (eg. Linda McMahon hires technical wrestlers instead of "going for sports entertainment"), but on medium it certainly does not change the owner preferences. Haven't played for a good deal of time on either Hard or Rock Hard so I'm not sure about those, but that's easy to test out. I think the first thing though is removing some of the relationships, then we can weed out some of the retired workers. I think maybe if a 5 year limit would be good. If they haven't wrestled or been used more than a couple times since say 2008, we could start removing them. I think this same rule could apply to tag teams, I mean there are teams like Heidenreich/Rodney Mack and Al Snow/Kane who to my knowledge haven't teamed up in years and who I think very few would even use. I have a lot of time on my hands so I could take a look at the teams that could be removed and list them here. There's currently over 4000 teams so I think this would be in order. So I think teams that have one or more of these should be removed: A) Haven't teamed together since 2008 (Al Snow and Kane) B) Have very little experience and/or were randomly thrown together (Mysterio and HBK) C) Have very little chance of ever teaming again (Bret Hart and Goldberg) D) Superstar-Diva teams (AJ and Punk) how does this sound? ofc teams like Edge and Christian, New Age Outlaws etc are safe from this one. I've removed parts of your post(s) that didn't seem to be heavily related to what I'm posting here. Firstly, are you seriously suggesting that we'd have to add in 4 or 5 people each month who have been deleted based on some pretty decent criteria we're setting out here? I'd think about 10 a year would be the absolute maximum people would ask to be re-added into the game. Also, plenty of people who were in wrestling and are alive would not considering going back to wrestling, like the example posted with Lash LeRoux. You're right, dodgy relationships should be a higher priority than old tag teams getting deleted. Having said that, 5 years without teaming together should not make any team immediate candidates for deletion. When combined with other criteria, then yes but if for example a team with 50+ experience or a team of relatives don't team together for this time, it is still reasonable to assume that they'd gel well as a unit if and when they reunited, and by removing the team you lose this dynamic which is quite important for the match quality ratings of tag matches. This is also why I'm in favour of keeping teams similar to Rey-Batista where one wrestler has decided to retire and could conceivably work a match in future. Being a non-wrestler shouldn't have anything to do with deleting this team unless the non-wrestler is physically incapable of stepping into a ring and throwing a couple of punches, in which case it should be dealt with in the worker's stats foremost anyway. TL;DR, 5 years alone and one of them is a non-wrestler are not sufficient on their own for a team's deletion. I realise I'm not an average player of EWR but I actually do create tag-teams every time I put two workers in a 2 vs 2 match. I feel it leaves my options open for if they've teamed together in the past and allows me to look at their history together (not a lot in 70-80% of cases, but I think you get my point). I've tried the same for 3 vs 3 matches, and they do not count towards any tag team experience whatsoever. This is an idea that could easily work, but we need to allow for a rare example when there is a team with under 10 experience is clearly going to last for longer. Most of the time you can tell when there is a team put together if they are intended to be a one-off, but if they work together 3 times in a month or actually win a title, there's a case for adding them. Yes, very long-winded but I'm interested in this and want it to amount to something at least.

Now I know the international teams include people with very tenuous links to the original countries but... the USA have now beaten both the Cook Islands and Wales and have the first quarter-final spot. Have I missed something here?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013-14/content/story/685975.html Yeah, we're fucked. Again.

No, bizzarely that's the only way they're allowed to serve chips. With the Olympic lanes, it also seems that none of the bus drivers know where to take the athletes to anyway, so that's even more a waste of space than it seems.

While he may be admitting that he was doping before, I still think that the fact he did it in the first place would lead me to not respect Millar as much. But having admitted it and campaigning against drug use in cycling makes him instantly more likeable than Contador, Landis and the like who deny it vehemently and/or are repeat offenders.

That was incredible to watch, such a pity Kasper got given out when he missed it. But they really shouldn't have done as well as they did. His partnership with Andy Bichel in 03-04 to win an ODI was amazing too, and as spectacular as his bowling was Brett was better to watch when he was hitting sixes onto the Gabba roof.

I've never bought a physical single, only had a couple given to me. I've got a few individual songs via free offers off music websites, the first of which I think was a Baker Street cover by the Foo Fighters. First EP was Just A Song About Ping Pong by Operator Please. First album was probably a compilation, Fast Forward Indie Trax Vol. 2. Was pretty good overall and had a couple of songs I really wanted. Then there was Stadium Arcadium by RHCP and Costello Music by The Fratellis, which is great too.