Creative Control...DELETE IT!

[Candyman]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;464891]Don't confuse real life with gameplay. Yeah, he lost by count out and DQ in real life, but in situations where it generally didn't mean anything and didn't hurt his image at all. If he would happily lose by count out or DQ in TEW all the time it would take no time at all for the user to drop his overness dramatically through all the losses. Just because something happens in reality doesn't automatically mean it's something that should be in the game.[/QUOTE] Those are two completely different things. In that scenario, what's happening in the game is not at all what's happening in reality. The fact that users can exploit something doesn't automatically mean it shouldn't be in the game. It means that measures should be taken to prevent that, if it's important that they not be allowed to do so. In this case, there are several options available. It could be putting a limit on how many such losses a wrestler will accept, or factoring in how much overness would be lost in this match and has been lost recently, or whatever. Clearly it's not the most important thing in the world given the fact that creative control is in the editor, but it'd be a nice addition at some point.

[Harmor]

[QUOTE=Rob4590;465007]If you try and link creative control to being part (or not) of a storyline, then you are totally invalidating the whole point of creative control - since then if you wish to get round CC, you just put the worker in a storyline where it is allowed to get round the CC. It would just make it a cheat mechanism to get round a feature. In real life - there would be very very few people who would have total creative control over their wins / losses - and that is how it should be in every mod (including C-Verse) - and thus it is up to the mod maker to set the correct people (with the correct personalities) with CC - thus making the mod playable. And as has already been said by someone else - if you don't like having a worker with CC in your fed - then you can edit their contract in the editor :)[/QUOTE] Dude I am sorry but I gotta ask again, have you read my post? I don't mean to sound rude or anything but I am getting a little annoyed. I wasn't talking about overriding a feature, I was talking about a worker who gets put into a storyline ACKNOWLEDGING that he actually IS in a storyline to begin with. Depending on the worker's personality and if he has CC or not (or bitches about losses), this could drastically change his view on the result of his upcoming match (maybe actually MAKE him bitch cause he is supposed to job to a certain person or whatever, tons of options here I can't be bothered to list atm). That is what I was talking about and what is acutely missing in TEW to realistically reflect any such CC feature (like I said, its too shallow). And I haven't even touched angles yet, where there too is an overabundance of possibilities left to incorporate them better into the game, cause here too the game is only number crunching and not letting a worker acknowledge he is in an angle to begin with, or let the crowd react to a severe beat up or whatever the hell you can think of. This is basically what I am talking about - make it more personal, make it more realistic at the same time, hence add more immersion. Obviously I wouldn't play TEW if I wouldn't like it or thought it was just a simple spread sheet I am playing with (well it kind of is), but as it stands there is a severe lack of what could be called 'human' factor in the game that goes beyond what I was talking about with CC, but that's one of the things. Phew. I hope I have made myself clear NOW, cause its getting a little ridiculous (no offense intended).

[Rob4590]

You could always try reading what I wrote as well so let me explain it more simply for you: Worker A has CC. So he won't lose to worker B. Easy so far? Now you put them into a storyline - lets go with a best of 7, where worker A wins 4-3 at the end. So in what you are saying - he should be happy with that - and prepared to take the losses along the way. Yes? Ok - so the story starts - its set so worker B wins the first two matches, then worker A wins 4 of the next 5. So you run the first few segments - B goes 2-0 up............. and then the player effectively cheats - by evolving the half complete story into another one and doesnt give worker A his expected wins. Now how exactly is that fitting in well with his creative control? He's just been totally screwed - and all because you've just created a loophole for getting round creative control. And there would be no way of stopping it....... Which cannot be right.:D Now whether you agree or disagree with me - don't talk down to people (which your last two posts certainly have) - we are all allowed an opinion - and just because you disagree with mine, does not make yours correct (or mine either)

[Harmor]

That would be an easily penalized thing if you do it - the worker who you screwed out of his promised SL win would for example hate you from that point on and not extend his contract. None of what I said implied there shouldn't be consequences (Flair left WCW in 1991 because he was unhappy with management for example). There are tons of ways to do this properly AND add a whole new layer of immersion to the game. As it is right now, I am unfortunately forced to edit CC in a game because it is, in my book as I said, way too shallow and just not done right with the way the rest of the game works.

[Rob4590]

[QUOTE=Harmor;465045]That would be an easily penalized thing if you do it - the worker who you screwed out of his promised SL win would for example hate you from that point on and not extend his contract. None of what I said implied there shouldn't be consequences (Flair left WCW in 1991 because he was unhappy with management for example). There are tons of ways to do this properly AND add a whole new layer of immersion to the game. As it is right now, I am unfortunately forced to edit CC in a game because it is, in my book as I said, way too shallow and just not done right with the way the rest of the game works.[/QUOTE] Again (and I'm just playing devil's advocate now) - penalising (effectively) the booker for evolving a storyline like this - wouldn't that then stop any stories that aren't totally finished from being evolved, for fear of upsetting a worker that is due a win later in the story? Sometimes a story HAS to be evolved (maybe through injury, changing a gimmick / alignment) - you would then end up with LOADS of workers never wanting to re-sign because they didn't get their storyline win, through no fault of your own? IMO this would be a huge change to the storyline feature, in order to get round a very small part of the game (the creative control part) If you've got ideas how the two reasons for evolving stories can be separated, then I'm sure Adam would be interested - but the trouble is, as it stands at the moment, that, because the game IS just number crunching (from the computer's point of view) that there is no way to differentiate the two different reasons for evolving / ending stories.

[Harmor]

[QUOTE=Rob4590;465053]Again (and I'm just playing devil's advocate now) - penalising (effectively) the booker for evolving a storyline like this - wouldn't that then stop any stories that aren't totally finished from being evolved, for fear of upsetting a worker that is due a win later in the story? Sometimes a story HAS to be evolved (maybe through injury, changing a gimmick / alignment) - you would then end up with LOADS of workers never wanting to re-sign because they didn't get their storyline win, through no fault of your own? IMO this would be a huge change to the storyline feature, in order to get round a very small part of the game (the creative control part) If you've got ideas how the two reasons for evolving stories can be separated, then I'm sure Adam would be interested - but the trouble is, as it stands at the moment, that, because the game IS just number crunching (from the computer's point of view) that there is no way to differentiate the two different reasons for evolving / ending stories.[/QUOTE] Let me split this up.. Point a) Yeah it could be a problem, but guys bitch about losses sometimes anyhow (just can't do anything about it cause they don't have CC). I was only talking about ripping a guy under CC off that such a huge penalty should occure. Others would be upset as normal. Point b) If workers acknowledged the fact they are in a storyline to begin with, you could make it so that they know what is going on in that storyline - remembering steps, noticing injuries etc what not, so that would be the way to go in my example. And c) Yeah it would be without a doubt, in fact, following my train of thought it would completely overhaul the AI and a bunch of features along with it. Which brings me to ... D) Basically I think this no longer belongs in this thread, but while we're at it: I think we're at a point in the TEW franchise that the number crunching part could be made more -- human, like I said before. We have tons of depth now with the booking of matches, the way the show is handled by the game (ratings wise etc what not) that I believe it would be a very welcome addition to the franchise if the game started feeling less like a spreadsheet, which my suggestions of significantly enhancing the storyline/angle feature could be a part of. A perfect example for this ofc are other manager sims, and one franchise I like in particular being a football (that's soccer for americans) fan is the EA Sports Fifa Manager series (I btw hate EA as much as the next day but that's not the point..). I ain't saying it doesn't have its flaws, in fact it has a lot of them, but the thing they have down fairly well is the immersion part. I can actually TALK to my players and tell them various things, tell them I liked their performance, tell them I am sending them to the 2nd team cause they suck, tell them they are gonna be in my starting 11 soon ... etc, etc, etc what not. That ADDS to the experience, simply does, and there is no (at least in my book) arguing that point. It enriches a game where you spend hours just looking at the same immobile screens if there is a human factor, despite the fact that underneath it is OFC number crunching, but in a different way. I have an influence that goes beyond TEW, much beyond. I have the feeling that everything I do can make a difference (just look at how contract extensions etc work in that game, its a charm) and prolly will, for better or worse. In TEW, while I like it, can't stress that enough, I am dealing with utterly absolute numbers for the most part and that's that (no nit-picking here please, I want to give an example ^^). I could write much more about that but I guess you guys get the point I am trying to make. So basically, that is (sorry for the rant Rob, didn't mean to insult you, I got kind of carried away) what I was talking about the whole time. This is not a change I would expect for the current game cause its way too much of course, but something I'd love to see eventually. I am actually not quite sure how much of that you can realize in Visual Basic because I am not a programmer, but I am just saying .. that what I wrote here is basically what is standard in commercial manager sims these days and why not start going that direction with TEW? I think we have the number crunching aspect quite covered (and well covered) meanwhile ...

[rufas2000]

I've been struggling with this with Sam Keith. I teamed him up with Brent Hill and had them win the TCW tag titles and now I'm having trouble getting a "real" (i.e. full time active) tag team over enough so that Keith will agree to lose. I knew this could happen going in so I'm not blaming the game. I could just have two main eventers team up to beat them then have the main eventers drop the title to whatever team I actually want to hold it (and was the initial plan). But I found a better solution that I'll have some fun with. It's a new team called Lucha Gigante consisting of Gino Montero and Bruce the Giant (renamed Bruce Almighty, couldn't resist). I just confirmed that Keith will agree to lose. So in summary the CC feature as now constituted has challenged me to find a solution that became the creation of a new tag team I'll enjoy for a bit. It also stops a respected worker from being an "overness bank" that constantly gets withdrawn from. The feature has been a challenge but that's why I play the game. I also enjoyed the challenge of getting Sammy Bach over enough to take Tommy Cornell's title. I avoid giving CC in contracts though. The workers usually accept more money in lieu of the CC clause. So since I hate to "cheat" but want the game to be fun if I were to remove CC in the editor I would give the worker a corresponding raise. Also, if its imperitive that a worker lose in order to advance a plan (storyline, title picture) I would remove it for the one or two match(es) then concentrate on giving the worker a push in response. As if I promised him a bigger push if he agreed to lose (example: dropping a tag title to begin a singles push). Sometimes you have to go "beyond the game" a bit. Having said all that it would be great if future versions of TCW allow workers to "see the big picture" better and allow for negotiation like I mentioned in the last paragraph to be incorporated in the game (example: Sam I need you to lose this one to promote the tag team scene but I'm setting you up for a big singles push). But CC for me has added to the fun and that's the point.

[Greg2511]

as much as i think the whole creative control debate is stupid, the guy may be on to comething with workers KNOWING that they are in storylines. You could have pop ups for things if the worker doesnt like the storyline because it is too risky (risk levels for story lines perhaps?) or because it involves him having to team with worker B who he hates, etc. And if you place worker with creative control into a storyline where he essentially says yeah ill do it (lose) as long as I come out on top in the long run...if you were to try and cheat by evolving the storyline before he got those promised wins, he could easily have a pop up that says "yo, you owe me my wins booker biatch" CREATIVE CONTROLLED!!!! Cant evolve? I think that would add a new level to gameplay. Because if workers enjoy the style of storylines you book, you end up with happier superstars, etc.

[Rob4590]

[QUOTE=Harmor;465080]So basically, that is (sorry for the rant Rob, didn't mean to insult you, I got kind of carried away) what I was talking about the whole time. [/QUOTE] No worries - we both agree that we want TEW to be the best game possible - but clearly we have slightly different priorities in where we see it going. Healthy discussion on these boards is what brings out different, better ideas that Adam can work from - so apology accepted, and I apologise too if any of my posts came off as attacking you. :)

[toerag]

I think one thing hasn't been mentioned that would veer things into an easier direction, imagine if a-hole wrestlers with creative would do jobs, but only to people labelled as their loyal/best friend, Kevin Nash for instance, in WCW I only remember him losing to Scott Hall (and once in a fluke win for Rey Rey, which was a ruse as booker to look like he wanted to help the vanilla midgets). Hogan, fought Flair about a billion times, never lost once, who did he lose the title to eventually? Paul Wight, his rookie friend he introduced to the business. Once again I'm sure there might be some backlash to the post due to the 'game doesnt have to reflect the real world' bit, but it's just a thought.

[castorius]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;464891]Don't confuse real life with gameplay. Yeah, he lost by count out and DQ in real life, but in situations where it generally didn't mean anything and didn't hurt his image at all. If he would happily lose by count out or DQ in TEW all the time it would take no time at all for the user to drop his overness dramatically through all the losses. Just because something happens in reality doesn't automatically mean it's something that should be in the game.[/QUOTE] Actually, I'm gonna agree with you on this one, but with a suggestion. I'm one of the biggest supporters of the notion that gameplay ultimately prevails over realism. I think a game that is a simulator should try to be as close to real life as possible up to a point, however if necessary, you should sacrifice realism for gameplay but not vice versa. A game needs to be balanced properly, even if it may not be realistic and that to me is the most important thing. Essentially, there are situations where a compromise between realism and game balance is made and that I totally understand. Now going back to the problem at hand. I don't think its so much of a direct problem with the actual Creative Control Clause, but I think its essential to look at the deeper rooted problem. Getting into the game mechanics, I'm under the impression that countouts and DQs are a reduced type of win/loss for the workers involved. Part of the problem is that countouts and DQs actual seem to have too much of an effect on the workers involved in the match. The winner by countout or DQ gains too much from the win and the loser by countout or DQ loses too much from the loss (even if the effects are not as big as a normal decisive win). From a realism perspective, a real life worker does not really gain much from a countout or DQ win and on the flipside a loser really doesn't lose that much from that same countout or DQ. In a way, a countout or DQ is in somewhat a way to stall the result of the match or just make a victor without having too drastic of an effect (in real life). I remember, I never really held it against a worker to lose by a countout because it didn't mean that they were a weaker worker, it simply meant they lost by a technicality. I still believe it kept them strong in the eyes of the audience. However going back to gameplay, even if the effects of countouts/DQs would be reduced, the player can still eventually reduce a worker's overness with countouts and DQs, albeit it'll just take a little bit longer. So that doesn't necessarily solve the problem. I can't say that my suggestions would be the best solution to this problem, so opinions and critiques are welcome. I am merely just gonna throw some ideas out. My understanding of how the game works right now: I don't absolutely know how the game mechanics work, so some of this is gonna be based on assumptions. So keep in mind, my assumptions may not be entirely correct. I assume that in the game, a countout/DQ win, the winner worker gains some momentum/overness and the losing worker loses some momentum/overness, but this gain/loss is less than with a regular decisive win. My suggestion: Now, what if a countout/DQ win was a way for one worker to gain momentum/overness without the loser losing anything. The first thing you'll say is, this won't work because it screws up game balance/gameplay, basically it would be an exploit. Players would just keep booking countout/DQ wins because there are no consequences to them (loser doesn't lose momentum). For a game strategy to be valid, it needs to have some consequence to balance the game properly. So, perhaps the consequence would be that the overall match rating would suffer from a countout/DQ win compared to a decisive win. Looking at real life, you have to admit a match that ended in a countout or DQ was always less satisfying than if it ended with a decisive pinfall or submission (thus match rating suffered). To you, it never really resolved who was better from that match. So even though the one worker was the victor (gaining little momentum), you never really held it against the loser. So going back to gameplay: Advantages: The point/advantage of booking a countout/DQ would be for a worker to gain some momentum (not as much as a decisive win of course) while making sure the loser doesn't lose his momentum. Disadvantages/Consequences: The overall match rating suffers compare to if you booked a clean victory. So if you book too many countouts/DQs, your overall show ratings would suffer. This is just a general outline of an idea/suggestion. Obviously it would take more testing and balancing to be executed properly (how much momentum gained by the winner? how much does the match rating suffer? what other effects would it have on other parts of the game? etc). Something like this could have a drastic effect on another aspect of the game, so I'm not simply saying that it should be implemented. Its just an example of what could possibly be done.

[eayragt]

[QUOTE=toerag;465098]I think one thing hasn't been mentioned that would veer things into an easier direction, imagine if a-hole wrestlers with creative would do jobs, but only to people labelled as their loyal/best friend,[/QUOTE] I'm 90% sure this is already in. It wont make them automatically want to job, but they'll accept the defeat to a friend who's at a lower overness level than a non-friend. Overall, this has been a really interesting "suggestion" thread, which shows that the more complicated you make a feature, the harder it gets to make sure it's correct. At the moment CC is relatively simple (taking into account overness, personality, relationships, momentum?), and there's been a few suggestions about how to make this more complicaited and realistic, which have brought forward downsides / exploits - storylines being the obvious one that could be used, but then turns out to be exploitable by evolving the storyline, and if you're punished for that then you're put in a position where it may be unwise to evolve onto a new storyline even if one of the key players get injured for 6 months. But, keep debates going like this and Adam might find an idea that he can adapt to work in this game. If TEW 2010 give me this message, it will have happened: "Hulk Hogan refuses to meet with you to discuss a new contract - he's furious that you never gave him a big win over HBK after he agreed to lose to him only if he got the win back"

[hakk99]

[QUOTE=castorius;465100]Actually, I'm gonna agree with you on this one, but with a suggestion. I'm one of the biggest supporters of the notion that gameplay ultimately prevails over realism. I think a game that is a simulator should try to be as close to real life as possible up to a point, however if necessary, you should sacrifice realism for gameplay but not vice versa. A game needs to be balanced properly, even if it may not be realistic and that to me is the most important thing. Essentially, there are situations where a compromise between realism and game balance is made and that I totally understand. Now going back to the problem at hand. I don't think its so much of a direct problem with the actual Creative Control Clause, but I think its essential to look at the deeper rooted problem. Getting into the game mechanics, I'm under the impression that countouts and DQs are a reduced type of win/loss for the workers involved. Part of the problem is that countouts and DQs actual seem to have too much of an effect on the workers involved in the match. The winner by countout or DQ gains too much from the win and the loser by countout or DQ loses too much from the loss (even if the effects are not as big as a normal decisive win). From a realism perspective, a real life worker does not really gain much from a countout or DQ win and on the flipside a loser really doesn't lose that much from that same countout or DQ. In a way, a countout or DQ is in somewhat a way to stall the result of the match or just make a victor without having too drastic of an effect (in real life). I remember, I never really held it against a worker to lose by a countout because it didn't mean that they were a weaker worker, it simply meant they lost by a technicality. I still believe it kept them strong in the eyes of the audience. However going back to gameplay, even if the effects of countouts/DQs would be reduced, the player can still eventually reduce a worker's overness with countouts and DQs, albeit it'll just take a little bit longer. So that doesn't necessarily solve the problem. I can't say that my suggestions would be the best solution to this problem, so opinions and critiques are welcome. I am merely just gonna throw some ideas out. My understanding of how the game works right now: I don't absolutely know how the game mechanics work, so some of this is gonna be based on assumptions. So keep in mind, my assumptions may not be entirely correct. I assume that in the game, a countout/DQ win, the winner worker gains some momentum/overness and the losing worker loses some momentum/overness, but this gain/loss is less than with a regular decisive win. My suggestion: Now, what if a countout/DQ win was a way for one worker to gain momentum/overness without the loser losing anything. The first thing you'll say is, this won't work because it screws up game balance/gameplay, basically it would be an exploit. Players would just keep booking countout/DQ wins because there are no consequences to them (loser doesn't lose momentum). For a game strategy to be valid, it needs to have some consequence to balance the game properly. So, perhaps the consequence would be that the overall match rating would suffer from a countout/DQ win compared to a decisive win. Looking at real life, you have to admit a match that ended in a countout or DQ was always less satisfying than if it ended with a decisive pinfall or submission (thus match rating suffered). To you, it never really resolved who was better from that match. So even though the one worker was the victor (gaining little momentum), you never really held it against the loser. So going back to gameplay: Advantages: The point/advantage of booking a countout/DQ would be for a worker to gain some momentum (not as much as a decisive win of course) while making sure the loser doesn't lose his momentum. Disadvantages/Consequences: The overall match rating suffers compare to if you booked a clean victory. So if you book too many countouts/DQs, your overall show ratings would suffer. This is just a general outline of an idea/suggestion. Obviously it would take more testing and balancing to be executed properly (how much momentum gained by the winner? how much does the match rating suffer? what other effects would it have on other parts of the game? etc). Something like this could have a drastic effect on another aspect of the game, so I'm not simply saying that it should be implemented. Its just an example of what could possibly be done.[/QUOTE] I agree with everything here. Gameplay > than realism, cheap finishes should be less important than clean finishes, wrestlers with CC should take into consideration how they are losing as well as to whom. Thus the "Keep Strong" note would also have another use.

[D16NJD16]

yea i just made a topic about this, once i found out it didnt make a difference I really found that odd.

[MrSelfDestruct]

[B]Here is how you take off creative control[/B] (unless someone is on loan to you). Go to the [I]editor page[/I]. Go to [I]contracts[/I]. Find your [I]worker's contract to your company [/I]and edit it. Switch creative control to [I]off.[/I] Then u may book them anyway u like.

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=Moe Hunter;464974]I'd say Hogan being an ass is about accurate. I'm sure he would just say that God laid some heavy **** on the player :P Besides, if you recall his last two matches ever - against Shawn Michaels and then Randy Orton... Who should have won? Who needed the rub? Not Hogan, but he took it.[/QUOTE] I believe there were other reasons for this. Orton needed to be put in his place, and who better to do it (Legend Wise). HBK, well, He didn't need the rub either. I don't remember the match though, so you might be dead on with HBK/Hogan. I do remember the storyline with Orton though. He was on a good role, and needed to drop down a peg. Why? Because I think he is best when he "denies" the flaw's in his theory of success. If he won against Hulk Hogan, what legend in the future could he ever go up against, and draw any viewers for? There has to be a sense that he can be put in his place every once in a while, or no one would have even cared about the Dusty match (for example). Not that it was big, but would you have thought Dusty would have had a chance, if not for the Hogan victory? NOPE. Hulk Hogan is the one person, if I was to ensure Randy Orton to stay in the Main Event... Legend wise, that I could use for this trick. Meaning, I can let Hogan beat him, and keep him at his status (Main Event level), and still sell for future Legend vs Legend Killer PPV's, because people will think he has a chance to lose.

[CQI13]

Not knowing the game mechanics, with the suggestion of cheating by evolving storylines wiht people who have CC. Theoretically, in that best of 7, the example was that Worker A (CC) would win 4-3, but the storyline is evolved after he is down either 0-2 or 0-3. What if the CC character didn't allow you to evolve the storyline after he is down 0-2 or 0-3, effectively serving the same purpose as him blocking a loss in a match, just in the storyline as a whole. This of course might be too complicated, as it would have to take into account whether the CC character gets injured, then you should be able to evolve the storyline without penalty.

[The Shape]

[QUOTE=djthefunkchris;467233]I believe there were other reasons for this. Orton needed to be put in his place, and who better to do it (Legend Wise). HBK, well, He didn't need the rub either. I don't remember the match though, so you might be dead on with HBK/Hogan.[/QUOTE] I think he refused to let HBK go over, because something made Michaels angry enough to make him look absolutely ridiculous by overselling the **** out of all of his moves. Hilarious :D

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=CQI13;467253]Not knowing the game mechanics, with the suggestion of cheating by evolving storylines wiht people who have CC. Theoretically, in that best of 7, the example was that Worker A (CC) would win 4-3, but the storyline is evolved after he is down either 0-2 or 0-3. What if the CC character didn't allow you to evolve the storyline after he is down 0-2 or 0-3, effectively serving the same purpose as him blocking a loss in a match, just in the storyline as a whole. This of course might be too complicated, as it would have to take into account whether the CC character gets injured, then you should be able to evolve the storyline without penalty.[/QUOTE] I think your getting a bit too involved, at least at this stage of development in the game. I know Adam specialized in AI, so I'm sure he could do it, but... It might take up as much time as making a whole new completely different game would for all I know. He reads every suggestion, so if he can do something, and thinks it will help gameplay (after weighing pro's and con's), he implements them or he decides that it's not important (or effective, etc) enough to spend time on when he could be using that time to add more features' that will be worth the time, and effect gameplay in a positive way moreso. Their isn't a problem with the "CC" from my viewpoint though. I think it does it's job. You dissagree with how someone would act, you have the capability to adjust things in the in game editor, and "Fix" them. That's one of the biggest reasons for an in game editor. If you want things, or think things should be a bit different, there is no reason you should feel bad about adjusting something. Drop the Ego down a little bit, throw in a bit of dedication, or whatever will help the person with CC decide to do the "right" thing. Change these things till you get the kind of re-action you want. Thinking different then the mod maker is NOT cheating. The only person you cheat is yourself if you decide to play a mod that you think has a few flaws, without changing these flaws. Remember, the data itself is purely subjective anyways. The only thing's that are 100% fact is your title lineage's and your roster's. IF you think Hogan would let something happen (and in fact has), then change it so he will. Tweaking a couple things here and there to improve gameplay is only going to help you in the long run. I would suggest that you right everything down that you do during your games, so that you can adjust the original data later down the road, and not have to keep tweaking things each time you play.

[CQI13]

I don't disagree with what you're saying. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly. I was just pointing out what someone mentioned could be exploited if that was implemented. I personally am fine with CC in it's current state for the same reason you gave (in game editor).

[Moe Hunter]

[QUOTE=djthefunkchris;467233]I believe there were other reasons for this. Orton needed to be put in his place, and who better to do it (Legend Wise). HBK, well, He didn't need the rub either. I don't remember the match though, so you might be dead on with HBK/Hogan. I do remember the storyline with Orton though. He was on a good role, and needed to drop down a peg. Why? Because I think he is best when he "denies" the flaw's in his theory of success. If he won against Hulk Hogan, what legend in the future could he ever go up against, and draw any viewers for? There has to be a sense that he can be put in his place every once in a while, or no one would have even cared about the Dusty match (for example). Not that it was big, but would you have thought Dusty would have had a chance, if not for the Hogan victory? NOPE. Hulk Hogan is the one person, if I was to ensure Randy Orton to stay in the Main Event... Legend wise, that I could use for this trick. Meaning, I can let Hogan beat him, and keep him at his status (Main Event level), and still sell for future Legend vs Legend Killer PPV's, because people will think he has a chance to lose.[/QUOTE] True, but again Hogan showed his colours by not even being there for the feud. Orton had to rely on bringing in a fake Hogan family (who were actually very accurate!) and just talking to a no-show Hogan. Also the whole story was supposed to be around him hitting on Brooke, but after SNME she also was never seen again. Hogan was supposed to lose the feud with Shawn, and he bargained his way out at the last minute saying "we'll have a rematch in a cage and you'll go over me then brother", but straight after his winning match at Summerslam (in which the most taxing thing he did was a pitiful bodyslam to the announce table, which is equivalent to just lifting Shawn to waist height and shelving him) he complained that his knee was playing up too much to even think about a rematch. Shawn knew this was likely, and so jumped around and flipped and did riciulous amounts of overselling, making the match hilarious and much better than if he sold it the way Hogan would want him to.

[CQI13]

[QUOTE=Moe Hunter;468092]True, but again Hogan showed his colours by not even being there for the feud. Orton had to rely on bringing in a fake Hogan family (who were actually very accurate!) and just talking to a no-show Hogan. Also the whole story was supposed to be around him hitting on Brooke, but after SNME she also was never seen again. Hogan was supposed to lose the feud with Shawn, and he bargained his way out at the last minute saying "we'll have a rematch in a cage and you'll go over me then brother", but straight after his winning match at Summerslam (in which the most taxing thing he did was a pitiful bodyslam to the announce table, which is equivalent to just lifting Shawn to waist height and shelving him) he complained that his knee was playing up too much to even think about a rematch. Shawn knew this was likely, and so jumped around and flipped and did riciulous amounts of overselling, making the match hilarious and much better than if he sold it the way Hogan would want him to.[/QUOTE] That sounds hilarious. Is this their SummerSlam match? Now I have to see this.

[The Shape]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyN5sAShqOA[/url] that gives you a fairly good idea :D

[aikmitt822]

[QUOTE=CQI13;468102]That sounds hilarious. Is this their SummerSlam match? Now I have to see this.[/QUOTE] I believe this is the match they are talking about. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVw6oFldVfA[/url]

[CQI13]

[QUOTE=The Shape;468108][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyN5sAShqOA[/url] that gives you a fairly good idea :D[/QUOTE] Oh dear god, now I HAVE to get that DVD. Do they still have the same thing from EWR where people would complain about someone making them look bad?