TEW2020 Discussion Thread

[Self]

<p>Psyched to see there's a new game in the works.</p><p> </p><p>

I'm hoping things are a little more realistic on the smaller end of the scale. Financially things never looked right in TEW'16, with unknown rookies asking for hundred in wages. On the other end, I never liked how the game seems to insist that the WWE's monthly PPV model is the correct/only way to play top promotions, when in real life it's... I dunno, is it so good having shows so frequently? I guess what I'd like is more variety of business models. Tiny promotions. Training promotions. A risk/reward function of deciding how frequently to run big shows.</p><p> </p><p>

I have very little interest in wrestling these days, but I love TEW and am excited for a new edition.</p>

[Dolfanar]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="combatmedic" data-cite="combatmedic" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Re: Todays entry:<p> </p><p> If I am reading this right, I am more excited about the second part, because I occasionally play an 80's RW mod as 6 companies. Over time the sizes of the promotions change. Usually WCCW will rise quickly while AWA tanks. But, AWA has the third turn and WCCW the fifth.*</p><p> </p><p> I would run an AWA and not be able to use Cactus Jack, because he is at the WCCW show, even though I wanted to use him on AWA and knew I wasn't using him on WCCW.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I would have thought the ability to "switch" users would have been more interesting with 6 simultaneous feds...</p>

[Peria]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Psyched to see there's a new game in the works.<p> </p><p> I'm hoping things are a little more realistic on the smaller end of the scale. Financially things never looked right in TEW'16, with unknown rookies asking for hundred in wages. On the other end, I never liked how the game seems to insist that the WWE's monthly PPV model is the correct/only way to play top promotions, when in real life it's... I dunno, is it so good having shows so frequently? I guess what I'd like is more variety of business models. Tiny promotions. Training promotions. A risk/reward function of deciding how frequently to run big shows.</p><p> </p><p> I have very little interest in wrestling these days, but I love TEW and am excited for a new edition.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I never really thought of it like that either, but yeah. Having a "WWE" formula for every company is a bit weird. Perhaps it'll be different. I would like to see it go away from "monthly" wages and hit yearly wages. AJ Styles reportedly makes 8.5 million a year. If I remember correctly the most you can offer is 1.5m a year. Hugely different. I'd like the finances overall to get a big look at! Honestly once you hit Cult, you can realistically out cheese the AI for anyone, but if someone at National offers AJ Styles 8.5m... my Cult company has NO chance (in hell) of being able to deal with that wage.</p>

[Dolfanar]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Peria" data-cite="Peria" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I never really thought of it like that either, but yeah. Having a "WWE" formula for every company is a bit weird. Perhaps it'll be different. I would like to see it go away from "monthly" wages and hit yearly wages. AJ Styles reportedly makes 8.5 million a year. If I remember correctly the most you can offer is 1.5m a year. Hugely different. I'd like the finances overall to get a big look at! Honestly once you hit Cult, you can realistically out cheese the AI for anyone, but if someone at National offers AJ Styles 8.5m... my Cult company has NO chance (in hell) of being able to deal with that wage.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm assuming the 8.5 includes merch and PPV bonuses. As I understand it, base salaries top out around 1.5-2mil...</p>

[LoganRodzen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>(This next bit is super minor, but I'm going to throw it in as it's so closely related to the above.)<p> </p><p> In PM mode, in the past it was always split so that all the players ran their shows, then the AI. There's nothing particularly bad about this method, but it did mean there was one annoying niggle in that the AI would have to "guess" who would have been used on the big AI-controlled shows and this was not always 100% accurate - it meant that occasionally smaller companies did not have access to talent that technically they should have. </p><p> </p><p> What happens in the new game is that the shows happen in size order, regardless of whether the company is controlled by a human or the AI. This means that the guesswork is removed, so if a bigger company does not utilise one of their roster then that worker is potentially available to work for a smaller company that night. As I said above, this is a really minor change and, honestly, I doubt if most people would have even noticed, but it does get rid of a small irritation and I wanted to flag it up so that people didn't mistakenly think that they could switch player order in PM mode too.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I wouldn't consider this minor if I understand it correctly. For example, if you are running a 'Small' MAW and you hire some of the same workers as NYCW, CZCW, etc. you'd never get to use those workers if you ran a show on the same night because the AI automatically takes them away from you. I always ran my show on a different night, but now it makes it more realistic. There is no reason for MAW to run a different night then CZCW or NYCW, considering they are in different regions and aren't competing with each other.</p>

[Peria]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="LoganRodzen" data-cite="LoganRodzen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I wouldn't consider this minor if I understand it correctly. For example, if you are running a 'Small' MAW and you hire some of the same workers as NYCW, CZCW, etc. you'd never get to use those workers if you ran a show on the same night because the AI automatically takes them away from you. I always ran my show on a different night, but now it makes it more realistic. There is no reason for MAW to run a different night then CZCW or NYCW, considering they are in different regions and aren't competing with each other.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> If that is what it really means, that is huge. It sucked always seeing "Working Elsewhere Tonight" despite not even being used. Makes it a lot more friendly and less obnoxious trying to adjust your schedule around.</p>

[Jon The GOAT]

Extremely disappointed that multiplayer still feels horribly outdated and there isn't a built-in easy function for players to play together online outside of some extremely clumsy file sharing. I mean, it's 2020, man. Do we gotta cross our fingers and hope for 202X to finally be the year multiplayer isn't such a hassle to make work :/

[foolinc]

Everyone is happy about the PM order and I’m sitting here realizing my trick to keep everyone on my roster happy is going to be weakened. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/wink.png.686f06e511ee1fbf6bdc7d82f6831e53.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />

[alvarasus]

Where the go for broke show ala Wrestlemania? It seems that would be highest event and you be risking the most not Normal.

[Adam Ryland]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="alvarasus" data-cite="alvarasus" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Where the go for broke show ala Wrestlemania? It seems that would be highest event and you be risking the most not Normal.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think WrestleMania is already simulated pretty well by a Regular show with the highest level of importance. I'm not sure it'd really be a "go for broke" situation in reality anyway, as even when they put on a dire WM it doesn't seem to hurt their popularity.</p><p> </p><p> I'm open to adding a Go For Broke show where if you don't put on a truly amazing show you get nailed with a giant penalty if people really want it, although off the top of my head it seems hugely exploitable (if you've got a good roster and you know you're going to get good ratings why would you ever <em>not</em> use it? You've basically eliminated the risk and you're just getting bonus overness in that scenario).</p>

[James Casey]

<p>WM1 was a go-for-broke show in terms of financial commitment. Had it failed, the McMahons were in the hole financially and wouldn’t have been able to sustain the national expansion.</p><p> </p><p>

JCP/WCW had similar shows when chasing WWF - Starrcade ‘87s failure due to Survivor Series being set against it led to such heavy losses that JCP would eventually sell out to Ted Turner.</p><p> </p><p>

More recently, All In was likely a huge gamble for the investors as a one-off indy show with big league production values. Had that failed, we likely wouldn’t be getting the rumoured All Elite Wrestling.</p><p> </p><p>

As a feature that can’t be spammed, say as an annual event where you commit to pump in a huge amount of your savings to risk a big popularity + momentum swing, it could be an interesting feature. WM is still a huge expense to WWE, but so fiercely contested by host cities that they make money off it regardless, but two or three bad shows would still hurt the brand way more than a bad run from September-December, say.</p>

[smw88]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think WrestleMania is already simulated pretty well by a Regular show with the highest level of importance. I'm not sure it'd really be a "go for broke" situation in reality anyway, as even when they put on a dire WM it doesn't seem to hurt their popularity.<p> </p><p> I'm open to adding a Go For Broke show where if you don't put on a truly amazing show you get nailed with a giant penalty if people really want it, although off the top of my head it seems hugely exploitable (if you've got a good roster and you know you're going to get good ratings why would you ever <em>not</em> use it? You've basically eliminated the risk and you're just getting bonus overness in that scenario).</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> How about if it was only usable when a company's popularity was within the threshold for raising or dropping a level and this was a way to get over the hurdle or prevent a fall from grace?</p><p> </p><p> Maybe also limit to one per 12 months</p><p> </p><p> or Either in debt or having made a loss for 10mths straight or the like.</p>

[Adam Ryland]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="James Casey" data-cite="James Casey" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>WM1 was a go-for-broke show in terms of financial commitment. Had it failed, the McMahons were in the hole financially and wouldn’t have been able to sustain the national expansion.<p> </p><p> JCP/WCW had similar shows when chasing WWF - Starrcade ‘87s failure due to Survivor Series being set against it led to such heavy losses that JCP would eventually sell out to Ted Turner.</p><p> </p><p> More recently, All In was likely a huge gamble for the investors as a one-off indy show with big league production values. Had that failed, we likely wouldn’t be getting the rumoured All Elite Wrestling.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's all very true, but it's worth bearing in mind that this feature that I've just announced is very specifically controlling the interaction of fan expectation, show grades, and popularity change. What you're describing above are all examples of "go for broke" in the financial sense of the phrase and would therefore be linked to other features. For that reason, if I was to use the poster's suggestion, it definitely wouldn't be called "Go For Broke" as it would be misleading, I feel.</p>

[a0161613]

The equivalent of B shows for events. I love it.

[combatmedic]

<p>Adam, all these features have been amazing, and we still have a year to go. Unbelievable to think what else you have up your sleeve.</p><p> </p><p>

The newest one I like, because I also run games as a very local promotion. I live in Tampa, where there are/were 3-4 companies that would run weekly (hard to do as backyard-local in the game), but they would also have a spot show once every three or so months. "Paid Shows" from a Bike Fest or Rock concert or a charity show that doesn't affect the weekly cannon of the shows, so it's good to have this feature.</p>

[Historian]

<p>Now today has me even more excited. The ability to essentially run B live shows -- shows that I can put young/inexperienced guys on without having to worry about it tanking my popularity really excites me. In my current RMW diary, I run two shows a month. One of those is designed to be my main show, the other is designed for students of my dojo or rookies that I've signed to get experience and get better before they move to the main show.</p><p> </p><p>

So far, I've had to make sure that there are still enough quality matches on the show, at least at the top of the card, to keep the rating somewhere that it will gain popularity so as I don't lose popularity. Fortunately, I've benefitted from some good rolls on some dojo talent -- but this will really allow me to produce that 'B' live event that I've always wanted to do! </p><p> </p><p>

The 'tour' shows will be nice -- because I'm starting to think that might be a way to simulate a territory having multiple shows a week -- if they're listed as tour shows they could be 'house shows.' I'm very excited about the possibilities of 2020. It just keeps getting better and better -- and as someone who has played every iteration of the game since I discovered it when I was looking for something better than Promotion Wars -- I'm really excited.</p>

[HarryFandango86]

Now I really like today’s update about the shows importance level. It’s beginning to bug me in my long term save that like say, backlash or some crappy PPv is considered of high importance now, just cos I’ve been playing this long term save and I always aim to put on good main event level title matches to close shows, which I mean, wwe kinda does. However I mean to say there’s a few shows over my ppv season that are getting highly important which is annoying. I just end up having to dormant these ppvs. I don’t want backlash considered anywhere near the level of summerslam, really great addition today. Also I guess under this new addition you can do like tribute to the troops if you wanted.

[RingRider]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That's all very true, but it's worth bearing in mind that this feature that I've just announced is very specifically controlling the interaction of fan expectation, show grades, and popularity change. What you're describing above are all examples of "go for broke" in the financial sense of the phrase and would therefore be linked to other features. For that reason, if I was to use the poster's suggestion, it definitely wouldn't be called "Go For Broke" as it would be misleading, I feel.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Just a thought, but in all these cases--WM 1, the early Starcades, All-In, etc....the promotion putting them on would be considered cult-level. Maybe this could be a gamble that only cult-level feds could put on as way to gamble finances into overness.</p>

[Kingster]

<p>Really like today's announcement of different show levels. And I agree with previous posters that there should also be a level that is higher than "normal". Perhaps it can be something similar to the "season finale" feature where attendances and tv audiences are higher, but fan expectations are as well and which can be only be used once, maybe twice a year.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Tour shows are specifically meant to be part of Japanese-style tours (more on them in a later entry) and are not designed for use outside of a company that is running that sort of schedule. These shows are automatically not broadcast (but can be taped for highlights) and the attendance levels are much lower than normal.</div></blockquote><p> I realize there's going to be a separate entry for touring shows and maybe you'll explain this then, but is there any particular reason why touring shows can only be broadcast on highlight shows? I'm not familiar with other Japanese companies, but NJPW airs at least some of their touring shows live on their subscription service all the time.</p>

[hammerglenn]

<p><strong>#5: Event Intent</strong></p><p>

Will "Specials" still be part of events or will it be moved under TV Shows? Either way, it should be set were each special would have to sign a deal with a specific network.</p>

[K-Nection]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That's all very true, but it's worth bearing in mind that this feature that I've just announced is very specifically controlling the interaction of fan expectation, show grades, and popularity change. What you're describing above are all examples of "go for broke" in the financial sense of the phrase and would therefore be linked to other features. For that reason, if I was to use the poster's suggestion, it definitely wouldn't be called "Go For Broke" as it would be misleading, I feel.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Just a thought, but in all these cases--WM 1, the early Starcades, All-In, etc....the promotion putting them on would be considered cult-level. Maybe this could be a gamble that only cult-level feds could put on as way to gamble finances into overness. </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I say place a limit on how many times you can do it per year and make it a way to light money on fire.</p>

[Skummy]

<p>The "go for broke" idea sounds like there are too many factors in play for it to be a box-checking yes/no option, though I'm not sure there's anything to it that couldn't already be covered with existing features.</p><p> </p><p>

What made Wrestlemania bigger than other supercards? In TEW terms - it had celebrity guests, and was a larger scale show than what came previously. All of these are factors that already carry a financial risk. </p><p> </p><p>

All-In, while difficult to quantify as it wasn't promoted by a "company" in TEW terms, was about high production values, a large scale show and a large venue. Again, all carry a financial cost, and all carry a risk if you can't deliver on expectations or if you don't have the fanbase to support it.</p><p> </p><p>

In the example of Starrcade running opposite Survivor Series, would that not already be factored in with buyrates/TV ratings and the effects of the national battle between the WWF and WCW?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>

Perhaps the solution could be to consider a broader range of effects, both positive and negative, that running shows of a larger or smaller scale, or in competition with other promotions, could entail? Or to make the effects more pronounced in certain circumstances?</p>

[Teh_Showtime]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Kingster" data-cite="Kingster" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Really like today's announcement of different show levels. And I agree with previous posters that there should also be a level that is higher than "normal". Perhaps it can be something similar to the "season finale" feature where attendances and tv audiences are higher, but fan expectations are as well and which can be only be used once, maybe twice a year.<p> </p><p> </p><p> I realize there's going to be a separate entry for touring shows and maybe you'll explain this then, but is there any particular reason why touring shows can only be broadcast on highlight shows? I'm not familiar with other Japanese companies, but NJPW airs at least some of their touring shows live on their subscription service all the time.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I would consider most NJPW korauken shows (and equivalents)to be “lesser” events and not outright tour shows. Those are always advertised much more and sometimes even have title matches. It’s not the same as a single cam show in a gymnasium that other tour shows might be.</p><p> </p><p> For example, the G1 is a “tour” but hardly any of those would be considered touring level events. It’s a tour consisting of nothing but relevant matches.</p>

[alvarasus]

Marketing is a feature TEW doesn't feature control of that's why even after suggesting it agree with Adam it can't be done properly an shouldn't be added. Because you would have to have what TEW 2010 had that the last two versions don't and that's Pre event booking heat. I forget the actual name for it and apologize for that. Later I will ask Genadi what the hell it is.

[Gabriel]

<p>A Go for Broke option to add to a show wouldn't be a bad idea. Maybe it's something you can only do once a year at most without being penalized heavily... but I would do it differently.</p><p> </p><p>

If your company is sliding in popularity or very low on funds, running a show where you essentially are hoping to save your company by pouring extra in, with the benefit of a huge attendance and popularity boost if it's successful, could be a good piece of added strategy.</p><p> </p><p>

To me, Go for Broke insinuates that your back is against the wall, and something to give struggling companies a chance to turn things around quickly with one amazing show that pulls in fans from across the world would be huge.</p><p> </p><p>

I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but a lot of smaller promotions over the years have done these types of things near the end of their run, just hoping that the company can be saved. I would make this a high risk/high reward feature though, where you basically only use it if your company is nearing bankruptcy or has fallen in popularity so much that you can't even fathom getting back to where you started.</p><p> </p><p>

You'd have to bring in big names, feature big matches, and essentially spend all of your capital in hopes that it would work... but if it does, then you go from having no money left, to seeing a record attendance at your event, record PPV/On Demand buys or TV ratings, and increased eyes on your product going forward. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>

Apologies for what is essentially a suggestion, but there's been discussion about this here, so I figured I'd post it. I will also add it to the suggestions forum.</p>