Reply to Thread
Return to thread view
Return to main page

Forum: VOW Development & Design
Thread: Stable too big?
Post by: yar(35506)
2007-07-19 20:04:34
A few of us were chatting about stables and James brought up the idea that stable were getting to big and should be capped. I agree this would be a good Idea. Then it would be about who could get the best people in your stable to have the best stable.
Personaly I usually only add people in my stable that I am friends with, and I know that alot of people make stables with friends. If this is what you want to do it really shouldnt have any effect in building the best stable because your not trying to do it for any other reason than to unite with friends.
Would it be fair to take slots away from big stables if for instance the stable cap was 10 members? Probably not since it cost so much money to get them in the 1st place.
what are your thoughts?
Post by: gruchul(66928)
2007-07-19 20:22:20
I'm slightly confused about this idea. What makes you think stables are getting too big? I can't see the reasoning right now, could you help me out?
Post by: denzil(82151)
2007-07-20 02:49:43
Exit Light is a group that have been through the rounds, they know what it takes to be the best. This isn't a group of the elites, this is a pack that are above the ranks. They don't think they're the best, they know they're the best and there's not a soul on VOW that will prove them wrong otherwise.
Carpe Noctum

Hi all My view on stables.

I like the idea of a cap. How ever setting a cap really should be thought about. In exit Light we have spoken about doing a self cap of 20 members... we are not there yet but well on the way. Donít cap at 10 members. Cap at 20 or 25 if others want to get bigger.

If you cap at ten members I will be rather upset because of the money put into the stable from me and others is going to be wasted. This is not a small amount of money too. To get the last 3 members of exit light will cost 280000$ then take off all the money going back to ten chars. man this is a massive drain. Its not like stables do anything yet any way. If I new this was going to happen I would be a legend with Vlad and Hell spawn now because of money spent on Exit Light. This is something in Exit we have done. Sacrifice money to make our stable better. If Exit gets kulled this is just what I expect from smaller stables that donít whish to do the hard work.

Donít punish the Best to suit lesser stables I say. Set a cap! By all means but not 10! Answer to add a cap at 10. NO. 25 Yes. at least this is a numbber and a goal for all stables.

Post by: yar(35506)
2007-07-20 02:50:08
Well it was james idea origionaly, we were talking about the possability of stable tournys in the future and how a cap would make things more fair for everyone. I personaly see it both ways, I like being part of a big stable and have worked hard to get Apoc where it is today. And on the other hand I can see james point that they are getting too big for smaller stables to be competitive.
I guess if I had to make a choice, I like stables having the opportunity to grow as big as they want. There are several good large stables now that could give EL a challenge if there ever is a stable tourny.
Post by: The Mad Hatter(237592)
2007-07-20 03:19:16
No, no, no, no, no.

I am totally against this idea. Restricting gameplay in anyway I am against.
Post by: Syrjis(80123)
2007-07-20 03:45:14
I don't like this either. Stables are useless anyways at the moment so what's the point of capping them?
Post by: Dyna Mike Duncan(127082)
2007-07-20 04:51:53
I'm not sure what good Capping Stable numbers will do to be honest - unless the rumoured Stable Wars facility does come in where it will be the FULL stable that takes part and not a subset of them.

If this does happen, obviously those stables with more members will have a big advantage - and advantage that has been bought + paid for over time, so that's fine by me.

The negative sides of having every stable member involved in a Tag Team style format would probably be:

- after so much complaining about there not being a match option for stables, what incentive would the smaller stables have to join anyway if they are going up against the 10+ members of EL, Accel, Toy Box etc? Odds are the battles would almost certainly end up between the Stables with larger numbers (especially if the Tornado style matches were introduced)
- Would it be a straight-forward, one-off Stable sign-up (ie Stable Leader enters the whole Stable) or would each Stable member have to sign up individually? (I think the individual sign-up option would be better as this gives the choice to each player rather than to one potential dictatorial leader and also means any inactive players in Stables would be automatically left out)
- Would entry costs come from individual wrestlers or from Stable funds?

I'm sure there are other pro's + cons to this and a lot depends on the format of the Stable Battles if/when they are introduced.

And finally - capping Stable numbers at say 20/25 - once the cap is reached, what do players do with their cash when they retire? Unless there are additional facilities for using the Stable funds (entry into Stable Wars for example) then what happens to their excess money? Maybe players leave one Stable temporarily, join another and give them the cash, before rejoining their original Stable? Not saying that's a bad thing, but it's what I would probably do.
Post by: yar(35506)
2007-07-20 06:03:39
Well I can see there are alot of differant thoughts on this subject, and alot of good points. If there were a cap I could go for a 20 - 25 member cap. But is a cap really neccessary? at 20 members+ we are talking about over 100 k per new slot added. At first, I was in favor of the idea, but when looking at the big picture, I just dont think a cap is needed.
The question still remains, if there ever is a official vow stable tourny, how many memmbers a stable can enter in the tourny. Maybe 5 members per team since that is the total slots any stable starts with, and larger stables are able to put in more than one team as long as each wrestler is entered only once in a team.
Post by: Dyna Mike Duncan(127082)
2007-07-20 06:07:35
I would agree with Ray on the maximum 5 members per team and no limit on the number of teams a Stable can enter nto a tournament as long as no wrestler appears more than once.

I really do like the idea of a Texas Tornado style match though - that would be a very good addition to the site :)
Post by: legendary wolf(38655)
2007-07-20 10:31:46
you all write too much :|

I'm sort of 2 ways on this i don't know wether i want em capped or not.
Post by: Syrjis(80123)
2007-07-20 10:36:44
Aiden, pick the latter one. "No cap".
Post by: tay ncfc(183846)
2007-07-20 15:15:40

Lower Stables Cant Compete - Check Profits, Bullodogs and 'Accel', they were small and are now competing.

Extra Money Option - Why not have another payment box, so stable leaders can get there stable to donate to, instead of the expand member 'bank', to help toward entry fees towards stable tournys.

Stable Tourneys - Also, we could have a cap on 5 people from a stable being entered, but a random 5 ;-) So could be anyone from the stable, I think thats both fair and fun.

Member Cap - There should be no cap, unless its over what Exit Light have, because they have made their stable with their own money which could of helped towards retirement, so if there is a cap, i agree, should be for 20 or 25. After that is getting a little too much.
Post by: The Mad Hatter(237592)
2007-07-20 17:35:22
There is a natural cap for stables. Organizing everyone in the stable to keep donating is hard. That is why the farthest any stable has gotten is 17(or 18) so far. Putting an actual cap is not really needed.

Also, there could maybe a variety of different stable fights.

And I agree, there are several small stables that prove they can compete.
Post by: Syrjis(80123)
2007-07-21 03:59:00
"People need to retire."

I resent that.
Post by: The Mad Hatter(237592)
2007-07-21 14:40:54
Apologies Rikishi. That was totally unrelated. I must have been thinking of something else when I was typing and that slipped out. Let me modify to what I meant.
Post by: penguinlover(294552)
2007-07-21 17:23:16
Theres a stable with 1 member. Im furious! All stables should have atleast some amount of players!
Post by: denzil(82151)
2007-07-23 05:49:21
*Gives Ray a hug!. Hay Ray. you know in the aussi we dont get much of the wreasling. just raw and sd. please explain what this texus thingy is? is this just stuff in the main event stuff or in difrent companys. never seen one.

my thought is set a tick box for each player if he wants to donate money to the stable. then the stable leader sets the % on the $. of course no more then say 25% of winnings. 5% of loss money.

Then all money is payed for by the stable to do the stable wars. 5 members only.

just a thought.
Post by: Dyna Mike Duncan(127082)
2007-07-23 06:33:05
Texas style matches are Elimination style. So, if a team member gets pinned, subbed or KO'd, he is out, but the rest of his team remain. A team is only eliminated once ALL its members are out.

That's my understanding of it anyway
Post by: denzil(82151)
2007-07-23 21:39:38
cool. sounds good. have not seen one yet just royle rumbles in three rings at the same time. this sounds doable.

if the money is spent on matchs you will not see a great increase to stable size unless they stable wins all the time. or the pay outs are masive. so here is the question. how much is the price of the match? 500$ just like a vwo touny. at least this way you will know there will be a pay of 3000$ to 5000$
Post by: Dyna Mike Duncan(127082)
2007-07-24 04:40:46
Personally, I think the fairest thing would be if ALL the entrance money taken for a Stable War was paid out in prize money - say a $500 entry fee, if 8 Stables enter, the Prize fund would be $40k, 10 Stables $50k etc.

Or maybe even step the entrance fee - so that Stables with more members pay more to join - a cost per Stable Member entering the tourney (taken from Stable funds) - especially if the Texas Tornado match style is used.
Post by: tay ncfc(183846)
2007-07-24 15:50:17
oooooooo i like it, say 500 will get you 1 member in, who you like, tick to be in it or something. or select who to put in. 1k you pick two members, etc xD then have it as an elimination match, sorted! :P
Post by: denzil(82151)
2007-07-26 23:26:42
You would like a pay out like this but it will not happen. here is why and what i base it off. peter does not want stables to become easy to max out in . or he would have not set the cost of buying members so high. if there was a pay out of 40k this would let new stables become masive in no time. doing a short cut if you understand what i mean.

for eg. sswo and vwo are set at 5000$ This is to help buy moves and specs. because there way dear at 8 specs and up.

I mean the leader chooses his 5 man team from players that have there stable box ticked to go in the rumble. he payes out 500$ or 1000$ from the stable to enter the stable war.

so who pays for healing! where does the money go? back into the stable fully? all these things have to be finalized before Peter will even look at this proply.

just my thought.
Post by: Gator Gee Wrestling(276244)
2007-08-03 14:53:56
Stable cap should be 20...Period.
Post by: Syrjis(80123)
2007-08-03 18:09:54
There should be no stable cap. Period.
Post by: jmallonee(34807)
2007-08-04 18:01:13
I am personaly not in favor of anything that limits personal choice. aka aging. stat caps. stable cap.
this is my opinion
Post by: Syrjis(80123)
2007-08-05 13:17:04
LET'S ALSO ADD FINISHER CAP!!!!!111oneoneeleven

Post by: denzil(82151)
2007-08-06 09:17:29
well if there is a cap and i hit it and it efects what i want to do badly . i am off to a new game. why bother . a cap might be ok for some thing like stables that have no meaning. but why cap it. it does not hert or do any thing any way. if you new the costs of stables they self cap them selves any way.
Post by: Dyna Mike Duncan(127082)
2007-08-06 11:14:48
I agree completely.

The cost of increasing Stable Size is extremely prohibitive as is the cost of additional Specials - so if players decide to stay around in VWO and be impacted by the ageing element, then that is their choice. Once they have bought all the moves, all they currently have left to do with their cash is either donate it to their Stable or buy additional Special Moves.

Not everybody wants to retire + start over, so limiting what they can do with their cash may mean they stop playing altogether.

Capping Stable Membership will have ZERO impact on the game workings seeing as there is no current Stable functionality within the game.

Capping the number of Specials a Player can have restricts those players who want to grow old (dis)gracefully in VWO.
Post by: Syrjis(80123)
2007-08-06 13:04:58
Aging and stat cap still sucks.
Post by: penguinlover(294552)
2007-08-06 16:22:47
Bottle Caps?
Post by: denzil(82151)
2007-08-09 09:35:21
well i have a yellow and green cap. its a aussie cricket cap!
Post by: Syrjis(80123)
2007-08-10 10:37:45
Cricket is boring. And dumb.
Post by: denzil(82151)
2007-08-11 23:03:16
Pokes out tung and does a silly face at non cricket lovers! D:
Post by: denzil(82151)
2007-08-15 08:22:10
wow england lost again against india!
Post by: Prince Of VOW(270242)
2007-08-15 17:29:21
I think that considering stables have the occasional stable war, there should be an actual stable war function added.

For example,

Stable leaders challenge other stable leaders to a war. Once accepted the stable leaders select which stable members to use in a tag match or in singles matches etc.

Just think of it as WWE Survivor Series stuff where you have Team RAW vs Team Smackdown etc.

Just an idea :)
Post by: denzil(82151)
2007-08-16 03:33:29
i have not looked but i think something like this is going on in vow 3. ask some one that does know. i dont go over there much.
Reply to Thread

Total Users: 571
Total Forums: 20
Total Threads: 2076
Total Posts: 21663