rufas2000

<p>1) Having too many little fellas beating the big brutes. The brutes usually can manufacture their own "over" (moreso in previous games) and usually aren't great in the ring. There is no inherent penalty for being small of stature in the game (unlike in real life in the past where a smaller wrestler wouldn't be taken as seriously by mainstream fans, at least not in America). So I end up nerfing my big guys (individually and collectively) by having them job to the smaller, more talented workers. After awhile this would become formulaic.</p><p> </p><p> 2) Large roster - I really try but it always gets me.</p><p> </p><p> 3) Too many jobber matches - I do think modern wrestling has too many "equal" matches (how does one show they are at the top if they don't dominate those down the card on occasion) but I go too far the other way. </p><p> </p><p> 4) Everybody has to win - I book too many lower card wrestlers against each other to get them wins (very few on my roster are winless).</p><p> </p><p> 5) Storyline laziness - putting people in a random attack or talkie segment to advance a storyline without much thought.</p>

TEW 2020 did something daddy Verne Gagne with all his ownership stroke could never do, convince a promoter to make Greg Gagne a world champion.

I play SWF and have the shameless "Supreme Rumble" in May. Winner gets the title shot at the Supreme Challenge in July. In June I do a multiman match for the title which also involves the Supreme Rumble winner (so they get two chances). If the Supreme Rumble winner wins the multiman match (which I had him do) then he defends against the former champ (which saw the Rumble winner and newly minted champ retain, solidifying his first run with the belt). This means I don't have to "spend" a marquee match in June. I'll see about the other questions later.

Mick Muscles. I call him Mick Mars. Cause of the render. But then I started to sign Hell's Bouncer and use the Mick Muscles render and call him Mick Mars.

LOL, no he was doing an early 90s WWF TV taping. OK it was only 5 hours. Four warm up, get the camera set up properly matches, three one hour episodes of Superstars, 4 or so matches exclusively for Prime Time and Flair © vs Hogan for the WWF title in the main event (not on TV but probably used on a home video). BTW: Flair vs Hogan was one of the two advertised matches that actually happened. The other three were altered to accommodate no shows (Jake and LOD) and wrestlers that changed alignment after the matches were advertised (Sid, Taker). Still a fun night but long. I was "burned out" lol. edit to add: one interesting tidbit was that the face turns for Taker and the Natural Disasters had been taped but not shown yet (it took almost three weeks before I started seeing the matches on TV I had watched that night). So they attacked heels but the attacks weren't shown on TV. This was to get the crowd behind them so when they came out to wrestle later on the crowd would react appropriately. (That wouldn't be needed or even work today).

Unless its changed in 2020 "maturity age" is when the wrestler's stats stop gaining skills at a high rate. They can still improve by working and learning but the process will be slower. "Decline age" is as was already stated well when the wrestler begins to lose skills. 2020 is more realistic when it comes to which skills decline with age and the rate of decline. The handbook details which skills decline and how fast (or not). If anyone is curious the "relevancy age" mentioned is the age at which the character is no longer "cool" so the entertainment skills take a dip. The mannerisms and personality no longer have the same effect on the audience. The "retirement age" is obviously when the worker retires. Its there to simulate or create scenarios where a key worker retires at a specific time. Most of you know that but I believe in being thorough. For almost all workers in the default data these are set to random to make each game experience different.

From 2016 (still getting used to 2020): I used to pick 5 wrestlers at the beginning of each save and cut their remaining contract in half. First 5, not "well they don't have much time anyway" so let me pick someone else. This way I could get the people I really wanted but it wasn't so easy that it was devoid of excitement. If I wanted a tag team I would edit the contract of the worker who had more time left to match the one who's contract was ending sooner. Example: Guide has 90 days left, Scout has 553 days. I'd edit Scout so he too had 90 days left. Worse - I use to edit feds to be massively in debt so they went out of business and I could snatch their workers. That wasn't fun though, I'd just end up with a bloated roster without much excitement.

There is a happy medium between wanting pop caps turned off and wanting to make everyone a star. I and some of my fellow advocates for this still want to do the work of building a star but without a random chance we can't. I don't want to get 6 months into a game and realize no matter what I do Sammy Bach will never be a star (one of my personal faves). Or Randy Savage in a real world mod. And if someone proposed removing the pop caps entirely I would be against that as well. I see why people would like it. I personally don't. Both viewpoints are valid. And the more I think of it I think being able to set a destiny in the editor (not the in game one) is the way to go. So if I want to have Bach, Peak and Wolf be my stars I can get rid of the random chance they can't be while still retaining the challenge and the cap for everyone else. Again, especially useful in real world mods that may want to set certain paradigms (and you could edit a worker to have a severe cap for scenarios such as "What if Steve Austin never became a star"? without nerfing his skills).

My two cents: I haven't played the game much for a few reasons, the popularity cap being one. When I read that Rocky Golden & Remo were being capped 10 points below their starting pop levels I got discouraged and went back to 2016. I know Adam made the strictest cap "a little less severe" but that doesn't sound like its enough for my preference. I'm firmly in the "let people play the game in their own way" camp. If it makes the game too easy for it to be fun for you then don't do it. As far as breaking the game wouldn't it be the same if in a mod all or most workers started at a high popularity? I'm not a programmer so maybe it would break the game. Honest question. A compromise might be to be able to turn it off for certain workers or preset their destiny so someone like Hulk Hogan (or Rocky in the C-verse) doesn't end up a midcarder because he got a bad destiny roll without jacking up their relevant stats ridiculously high I've already bought the game. I'll play it at some point but I'm still enjoying the relaxing and familiar 2016. So I won't be another sale because I bought it and have no regrets. I support Adam. I just disagree on this and a few other game decisions but I still have much respect! Feedback is good. That's my take, respectfully submitted.

Kinda sorta managed to do it with 2016. First hurdle is you need to have a Windows computer (I have a desktop). If you have one download a virtual desktop (Chrome "RemoteDesktop" worked for me) to both the computer and iPad. Once done setup should be a breeze (and I wish I remembered how to do it lol). Then you should be able to access and control your computer programs such as TEW from anywhere (that's my understanding but I didn't take my iPad to a neighboring city to try it). "Control" is a relative term with 2016 and I imagine it would be worse with 2020 (the interface is smaller and more cluttered in spots). I tried this before the iPad got full mouse support and scrolling and clicking through the lists was a huge chore (plus if you are using a mouse you are negating one of the nice things about having a tablet). But I did book matches and such using the iPad without a mouse. It was not a pleasant experience and I quickly decided it wasn't worth it but I did it. Edit: if there is interest I'll figure it out (I simply have to remember how to activate the remote desktop on my computer) and try it with the new fangled keyboard (the Apple Magic Keyboard) on my iPad (so baby laptop mode). I don't think the previous Apple Smart Keyboard would be any better than just using the touchscreen since there is no trackpad. Perhaps the arrow keys would be helpful so I can use the ones on the Magic Keyboard to see if that's the case.

I assume your main event is longer than the other matches. The longer the match the more drift takes place. Also if the match is a 90 level match in other aspects but the workers' psychology is only in the 80s then the match will drift because the psychology of the workers had a detrimental effect. Many if not most bonuses / penalties in TEW are relative. Its how that particular aspect of the segment or match relates to the other aspects, not an absolute score.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="jeronullet" data-cite="jeronullet" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47503" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I have an idea for Squeeky McClean as a personality/manager.<p> </p><p> I'm thinking a heel life coach/therapist/spiritual guru combination who tries to infuse his straight edge approach, plus cheating of course, to help his clients improve/win...</p><p> </p><p> His look would be of a college professor type with a sport coat with the elbow patches, scholarly glasses and an umbrella used as a walking cane to aid his balance ,which has suffered (not really) due to his career ending concussion.</p><p> </p><p> I think I would rename him John McClean, PhD. Or maybe John McClean, Esquire. Dr. McClean.</p><p> </p><p> Thoughts? ideas? additions? tweaks?</p><p> </p><p> Also, how should I introduce him? I was thinking he offers his services to SWF in general through a meeting with Jerry Eisen or a vignette where he answers the phone in his study/office and simply says "John McClean, PhD"</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Sounds great. Or as an alternative find a worker you want to push (either a heel or a struggling face that will turn heel), probably one who can use McClean's over and charisma, and have him start talking about his "life coach". This could go on for a bit until its revealed that Dr. McClean is the life coach (using the phone answering thing you mentioned). From there you could have McClean take on different clients or build a "stable of support" around the original client so he (or she) feels "more secure" (interfering bodyguards and distracting eye candy tend to do that). </p><p> </p><p> Again, great idea!</p>

The Cornellverse is the solution to the problem of where do you get the necessary workers, companies and other stuff needed to play the game without a license to use real world workers & companies. Adam just did an amazing job with it and other players added on with pictures and mods to flesh it out.

To me Remo would be the next choice. As far as Atom Smasher I like the idea. I'd go with making him more human. Would any GM want his company headlined by a mutant? Edit: You could do both. He's taking the "nuclear growth hormone" while presenting himself as the next level of hero. The blackmail segments would be delicious (and reminiscent of the addiction A-Train of The Boys had to the super speed serum). If you are just wanting a ticked off Eisen to make Rocky's life miserable then a team of Rogue for the brains and Smasher for the brawn is perfect. Also whoever helps Rocky will get a rub from it. And be a marked man. Either way I'd have Smasher and Rogue bond separate from Eisen. You could later have them split from Eisen or one betraying the other (maybe the one is spying for Eisen). Planting seeds is important. If you don't use one it still benefits you by making your stories less predictable. BTW: I'm not a big fan of Davids either. Just doesn't do it for me as a main eventer. But with my original idea he was the best choice. I had a 2016 game where he was really getting over so I went with it.

I'd like to see celebs have a paired down stat block with overness in the outside world, what they are famous for (which in turn combined with their fame provides their in game overness) and how well they could perform each type of angle. If they are called on to wrestle use the fighting rating (this would replace the skill sets). Something a bit more than hire a celebrity and pick the level but much less than an actual worker. Or … at least let us name the celebs in each category so instead of hiring an A lister you are hiring Jason Momoa, A List Actor. Or the made up version for the Cverse. If you have or need any more info on the celebrity make them a worker with the "personality" role. As far as the question itself I agree with the first response. Figure out how the celeb would appeal to a wrestling crowd and use that for overness. Obviously different companies would have different preferences and expectations so if you can't tailor it to account for those differences (which most likely involves what their other stats are) then base it on the company the celeb is likely to work for (in Rodman's case WCW and if the WWF chose to hire him there wouldn't be enough of a difference to worry about).

With 2016 and this one its freestyle all the way for me. For 2013 and prior I did angle packs for myself and released them as mods. I added sex appeal and menace roles to many of the existing entertainment angles. "Talk Show" angles (ex: Piper's Pit, Kevin Owens Show etc.) with as many combinations of sidekicks, partners and attackers as I could muster. I added a few bizarre ones as well for laughs. I also added workers to existing angles (add someone to 3 on 1 beatdown and make it 4 on 1 beatdown). Finally I added brawl angles where everyone was equal (no winners or losers) as well as "Against All Odds" angles (the outnumbered side fights off superior numbers). With freestyle I can just do whatever I imagine. The only downside is having to name it and missing the descriptive text. I know what happened though so its cool. And … with freestyle it is easier to advance a storyline by selecting worker A and worker B which is good but sometimes I have no idea what they did. By having to choose an angle I fleshed out in my mind those details.

I like both of those. Davids is younger than Remo and looks the part more than Rogue so that's why I chose him but any of them would work. Also Davids needs a push to super stardom. Remo is already there. I do like Rogue and Eisen together as you say, more as co conspirators with Davids or another young stud being the focal point.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47503" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Eric Eisen, as commissioner, causes Golden to lose. Setting up a weird Austin/McMahon style storyline. I don't like this as much because Rocky doesn't seem like the anti-hero type, but maybe Eric sees Golden as his brother/father's choice as the face of the company and he wants to insert someone else (Crippler? Remo? Davids? Spade?) and builds a stable to keep Golden down until he wins it back at Supreme Challenge.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Start by having Eisen help Rocky succeed. Rulings, stipulations etc. Makes it look like Eric has turned over a new leaf and is going to be "by the book". Over time the "fairness" becomes "help" and the help becomes less subtle. Eventually its obvious Eric is trying to keep Rocky on top. Its revealed that Eric wants to make sure the SWF's cash cow continues to print money for the company. Rocky refuses the help which leads Eric to groom another "figurehead". I'd go with Davids (looks the part and is fairly young). </p><p> </p><p> I'm tired of the corrupt GM trying to screw the faces because she or he doesn't like them. That's not how a real GM would act. Its cartoony, maybe he can laugh maniacally and twirl his mustache while he's at it. His motivation would be to make the most money and accumulate the most power possible. Rocky would be the obvious choice. When Rocky rebuffs him the pride gets hurt and he sees the need to install someone loyal to him. </p><p> </p><p> It would have to be done carefully so the fans don't see this as an in story uber push and react like fans do when they sense someone being pushed down their throat. But it can be done and Rocky can look human and noble through this. Though it work better as a way to turn him heel (he accepts the "anointed hero" role and the help) but that's not going to happen.</p><p> </p><p> And even after Rocky says he doesn't want help Eisen apologizes (new at this, worried, want to succeed) then begins slowly building Davids up. Eventually Eisen stabs Rocky in the back (but still denies it) and gets his corporate icon on top.</p>

I haven't in 2020 and I'm not a fan of the Lobster Warrior gimmick. But I have done it in previous editions. Simply put Brandon James (doesn't have to be him but he is who I chose) beats him in a "Lobster Warrior character must retire if he loses" match. Morrisette comes back as another character (I used "Anonymous" when I did it). He and his merry band of misfit heroes make life miserable for the Chase Agency until Anonymous gets his match to reinstate Lobster Warrior (character vs career). And yes, he wins. Although losing would be cool too. I also repackaged Lobster Warrior as Lobby, not a superhero but just a crazy comedic fellow. There was no real storyline behind it as I recall.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50730" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>How is that not getting over better than a bad Tarzan gimmick that REALLY wanted to be Johnny B Badd. Not hard. Go back and watch his (literally ETERNAL) struggle with DDP back in mid-90s WCW. At one point Johnny B. Badd is the most over guy on the roster. He was limited as a worker, but he was athletic, he looked great, and he had a character.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I too was disappointed in how the WWF booked Mero. In their defense I think without being able to use the Johnny B Badd name they were limited in how much they could present Mero as Johnny. Practically for sure and perhaps legally as well. This was when the two companies were willing to sue each other so having Mero be exactly like JBB in every way but name might be grounds for a lawsuit. As well as look like they were just copying.</p><p> </p><p> As far as the game from my memory Sable is a rare case as many of the other "divas" up until then either had to have another skill (Sherri, maybe Sunny) or were dependent on their attachment to a star (Baby Doll, Missy Hyatt). Most of Sable's appeal was based on her looks. Not all but most. She was able to decouple from Mero and be over on her own merit. Part of "sexiness" is how you carry yourself and that clearly falls under the heading of charisma so a mod that assigned her an above average charisma stat wouldn't be far from the truth and allow her rise to be replicated (assuming good booking and destiny rolls). Which is again why I think Sex Appeal should modify an active stat so this could be simulated more accurately with stats that fit the worker. </p><p> </p><p> Agreed on the fact that Mero could have been so much more in the WWF.</p>

<p>Maybe angles shouldn't be rated on them (a very small part now) but rather provide a bonus to whatever the worker is doing. Especially menace as a worker's menace is always there whatever they are doing. I mean how is rating an angle based on menace work? Anything a menacing worker does will be tied to charisma, overness or fighting. </p><p> </p><p> Sex appeal might be a little different as there are angles where its mostly "look at me". Again though without charisma how much will that help? I think a bonus would be more realistic. Maybe risque promotions could be an exception or provide a bigger bonus. </p><p> </p><p> If a menacing worker or a diva appears in an angle as "support" it should be rated based on what the main person is doing with a bonus for the support person's high passive skill (sex appeal or menace) which would over time increase their popularity. I think this is how it works in real life. The main person carries the angle but the fans also notice the attractive female or scary bodyguard.</p>

Maybe instead of 15 is ok and 16 is not instead there is a point where there is a small chance the wrestler gets gassed at 13 and increases with each additional minute. Obviously the cutoff is still there (and would be higher or lower depending on stamina) but it isn't as punitive as 15 is fine but 16 is too much.

I bought 2020 but it was a slog. When I heard of suspected random hard overness caps (like Remo who starts at 84 being capped at 77 in some saves) that was when I figured I'll stick with 2016 for awhile. 2020 has some promising features but nothing so great that makes it worth the slog. Once it gets patched up a bit I'll give it another go but for now I'll stick to the game I'm having fun with. Those who love 2020 and its increased challenge that's great. Just not what I'm looking for.

So historical mods can play out correctly? So a 1984 mod doesn't end up with Hulk Hogan being a midcarder?

Can pop caps be lower than their starting popularity? I read someone who had Remo's pop cap at 77 but he starts the game at 84.