Jump to content

Matt's Mods


Recommended Posts

DiSalvo doesn't have 85 star quality, should be lowered.

 

He did have good menace though. Dude looked like a straight up murderer. Probably why he started getting crazy/violent gimmicks later on. He was also HUGE (muscular).

 

4fbdd796506ec6e2f9ba6af92defc3ef.jpg

 

Nicknames include "Sadistic" Steve Strong and "Strangler" Steve DiSalvo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Animal and Hawk should be around 70 (tag team workers, not main event superstars)

 

In the 80s, tag teams could be main event superstars and the Road Warriors were. They got over strictly on their star quality and menace. They were the team you feuded with if you wanted to make money. They brought in huge ticket sales for every company they worked for in the 80s. They were a main event tag team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 80s, tag teams could be main event superstars and the Road Warriors were. They got over strictly on their star quality and menace. They were the team you feuded with if you wanted to make money. They brought in huge ticket sales for every company they worked for in the 80s. They were a main event tag team.

 

This is a problem with TEW limitations. I make it as a suggestion every year.

 

Tag Teams need their own stats for overness at least.

 

If you make the Roadwarriors individually popular enough to replicate the Roadwarrior tag team, they will become singles superstars in TEW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a problem with TEW limitations. I make it as a suggestion every year.

 

Tag Teams need their own stats for overness at least.

 

If you make the Roadwarriors individually popular enough to replicate the Roadwarrior tag team, they will become singles superstars in TEW.

 

Exactly. Them needing to be slightly underpowered (60-70 SQ) is a product of the need to stop Road Warrior Animal from being the World Heavyweight Champion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="justtxyank" data-cite="justtxyank" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>This is a problem with TEW limitations. I make it as a suggestion every year.<p> </p><p> Tag Teams need their own stats for overness at least.</p><p> </p><p> If you make the Roadwarriors individually popular enough to replicate the Roadwarrior tag team, they will become singles superstars in TEW.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, this is my main dissapointment with TEW 2016 - that tag teams didn't get more of an overhaul. Designated tag team overness would have been a dream.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jaysin" data-cite="Jaysin" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What stops Animal and Hawk from being singles world champions is their poor in ring ability and lack of mic skills. I believe that's represented in the game already as they have chemistry together.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> First of all, Hawk did not have poor mic skills or ring skills. He was at least average in both. </p><p> </p><p> The bigger issue here is that the question was about star quality. The Roadwarriors are a unique case in history in that they were so over in the territories that they could easily main event major shows. Entire feuds with main eventers were built around feuding with them. They clearly had star quality and a great gimmick as a tag team and they worked really well together.</p><p> </p><p> However, if you gave them the skills to achieve this type of popularity IN GAME and get that them over, there is nothing that stops you from using them as main eventers as individuals. In real life that was a flop on multiple occasions. </p><p> </p><p> I've laid this out countless times, but major teams like the Roadwarriors, The New Age Outlaws, The Dudleys, the Steiners, Harlem heat, etc. have an overness attached to them that exists outside of how popular they are as individual members. </p><p> </p><p> A hypothetical match-up of The Steiner Brothers vs The Roadwarriors or NAO vs Harlem Heat would draw better than Rick Steiner and Bubba Ray Dudley vs Billy Gunn and Stevie Ray. They have overness attached to their team in real life.</p><p> </p><p> In real life, a promoter could throw together a popular tag team and give them a run and get heat way easier than if they took one member of that team and just tried to run them out there as a singles star.</p><p> </p><p> Show A: Steiners vs New Age Outlaws</p><p> Show B: Rick Steiner vs Road Dogg and Scott Steiner vs Billy Gunn</p><p> </p><p> Question: Which show has more drawing power in real life?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hive" data-cite="Hive" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yeah, this is my main dissapointment with TEW 2016 - that tag teams didn't get more of an overhaul. Designated tag team overness would have been a dream.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Same here. It is was crushing to me honestly.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="justtxyank" data-cite="justtxyank" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>First of all, Hawk did not have poor mic skills or ring skills. He was at least average in both. <p> </p><p> The bigger issue here is that the question was about star quality. The Roadwarriors are a unique case in history in that they were so over in the territories that they could easily main event major shows. Entire feuds with main eventers were built around feuding with them. They clearly had star quality and a great gimmick as a tag team and they worked really well together.</p><p> </p><p> However, if you gave them the skills to achieve this type of popularity IN GAME and get that them over, there is nothing that stops you from using them as main eventers as individuals. In real life that was a flop on multiple occasions. </p><p> </p><p> I've laid this out countless times, but major teams like the Roadwarriors, The New Age Outlaws, The Dudleys, the Steiners, Harlem heat, etc. have an overness attached to them that exists outside of how popular they are as individual members. </p><p> </p><p> A hypothetical match-up of The Steiner Brothers vs The Roadwarriors or NAO vs Harlem Heat would draw better than Rick Steiner and Bubba Ray Dudley vs Billy Gunn and Stevie Ray. They have overness attached to their team in real life.</p><p> </p><p> In real life, a promoter could throw together a popular tag team and give them a run and get heat way easier than if they took one member of that team and just tried to run them out there as a singles star.</p><p> </p><p> Show A: Steiners vs New Age Outlaws</p><p> Show B: Rick Steiner vs Road Dogg and Scott Steiner vs Billy Gunn</p><p> </p><p> Question: Which show has more drawing power in real life?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I could not agree more. Tag teams are another example of that old "the clothes make the man" cliche. The Road Warriors had star power, no doubt about it. But that's exactly what it is. Hawk <em>and</em> Animal had star power, Hawk <em>or</em> Animal did not. And since that's not possible in the game, the only way to stop the individuals from being too successful is to denigrate tag team wrestlers.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="justtxyank" data-cite="justtxyank" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div> First of all, Hawk did not have poor mic skills or ring skills. He was at least average in both. </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I always thought Hawk was wildly underrated on the mic and honestly if you gave Hawk that gimmick on his own without Animal and pushed him the same way I think Hawk becomes a BIG freaking deal on his own. Hawk had the better body, the better charisma, he could work a mic really well. Anybody his size that could get to the top rope was pretty impressive back then. </p><p> </p><p> I would say the only reasons Hawk never became a big singles star is because by the time anyone pushed him as that he had been typecasted as a "Road Warrior" so I think a lot of people would have been either wondering where Animal was or assuming he would be around shortly. I'd say the other reason is that as early back as 92 Hawk was having serious (even for that time) drug issues as well as other mental issues. Isn't it him that disappears after Summerslam 92 and leaves Animal to fulfill their dates on his own. Still though I'd say Hawk had everything needed to be a star in his own right. Not Hogan, not Savage but a big deal none the less.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I always thought Hawk was wildly underrated on the mic and honestly if you gave Hawk that gimmick on his own without Animal and pushed him the same way I think Hawk becomes a BIG freaking deal on his own. Hawk had the better body, the better charisma, he could work a mic really well. Anybody his size that could get to the top rope was pretty impressive back then. <p> </p><p> I would say the only reasons Hawk never became a big singles star is because by the time anyone pushed him as that he had been typecasted as a "Road Warrior" so I think a lot of people would have been either wondering where Animal was or assuming he would be around shortly. I'd say the other reason is that as early back as 92 Hawk was having serious (even for that time) drug issues as well as other mental issues. Isn't it him that disappears after Summerslam 92 and leaves Animal to fulfill their dates on his own. Still though I'd say Hawk had everything needed to be a star in his own right. Not Hogan, not Savage but a big deal none the less.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm fine with those arguments. I think my tag team idea would simulate this pretty well.</p><p> </p><p> <a href="http://greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=533121" rel="external nofollow">http://greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=533121</a></p><p> </p><p> Using this system would help you end up with tags teams that could get over if you pushed them well but you could run into a problem if you wanted to push Hawk as an individual. He is really over as part of a team, but as an individual he isn't close to that. You'd have to work to get him over.</p><p> </p><p> I'd argue that in Hawk's case in particular, the problem he had was promoters tried to book him as if he were as popular as the team was. When he was given a singles run it was instantly as a main eventer. It flopped. When WCW did this with Scott Steiner later they started him as a midcarder and worked him up. It frequently flops when promotions take a very over tag team worker and try to push him as a main eventer instantly.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree and I agree your system would be great. </p><p> </p><p>

I also agree that it flops. It flopped with Billy Gunn, it flopped with Hawk, etc. </p><p> </p><p>

However as you mentioned when the bigger star of the team splits and works his way up from the mid card you can have real success. Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Booker T, Scott Steiner later on,</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="soxfan93" data-cite="soxfan93" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Another thing I've noticed is Haku's Toughness. It's set to 100, and quite frankly, I feel it should be higher.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I know, it should at least be 300! <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /><img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> BTW, thank you guys for all the feedback so far. What I'm considering doing is lowering the Road Warriors' star quality, and maybe lower some of their in-ring stats, maybe. Though I have to say, Hawk was a pretty good seller in his own right, such as that shoulder into the post spot he did in just about every match. I think what would hinder the Road Warriors more than anything would be their personal habits, Hawk moreso than Animal.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="soxfan93" data-cite="soxfan93" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>For the record, Matt, regarding my list from the last page, I didn't mean they <em>all</em> needed to be looked at, I just listed them all for reference. A guy like Hall, for example, is perfect at 85.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Ah, thank you for clearing that up, kind sir. ^_^ I would agree that Hall would be in the 80s, maybe mid to high 70s (still really good) for star quality. What kept him from making it as far as he could have was his drinking problem, which seemed to get worse as the late 90s wore on. Still, I start out his drinking pretty low since it's just the start of his career and it wasn't hindering him (that we know of, anyway) at this point.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="soxfan93" data-cite="soxfan93" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>For the record, Matt, regarding my list from the last page, I didn't mean they <em>all</em> needed to be looked at, I just listed them all for reference. A guy like Hall, for example, is perfect at 85.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Pfft, Hall is AT LEAST 90. It wasn't lack of star quality that kept him down, far from it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="soxfan93" data-cite="soxfan93" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Another thing I've noticed is Haku's Toughness. It's set to 100, and quite frankly, I feel it should be higher.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Amen to that, brother!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hive" data-cite="Hive" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Pfft, Hall is AT LEAST 90. It wasn't lack of star quality that kept him down, far from it.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's where I have issues with my abilities to properly rate people. I wouldn't put Shawn Michaels any higher than 85, and I have a hard time rating Hall ahead of him.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="soxfan93" data-cite="soxfan93" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41212" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That's where I have issues with my abilities to properly rate people. I wouldn't put Shawn Michaels any higher than 85, and I have a hard time rating Hall ahead of him.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Not advocating one way or another, but with the increased power of male sex appeal in 16, couldn't that be used to differentiate between HBK (say 85 SQ and 90 SA) and Hall (90 SQ and 70 SA)? </p><p> </p><p> And then I'll just up Razor's sex appeal to 100 for my person game. No big deal.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...