TEW2020 Discussion Thread

[James Casey]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="miamarsden" data-cite="miamarsden" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>A couple of things I'd love to see added...first, the ability to potentially develop chemistry. Not all teams or pairings are gonna start out perfect. Sometimes it just happens...so that would be more realistic if it's possible. A tweener option would be good as well, or if not that, then some way to react the Roman Reigns types who get booed as a face? I dont know, but I understand Adam's bias against tweeners being a thing. That said, it's getting harder to ignore. Something else I'd like to see is maybe some way to quantify women. For example, Becky Lynch and Charlotte Flair, as well as Rousey and Asuka, are main eventers in the WWE, but with the way the game is set up, unless I do integrated wrestling, it doesnt divide the women up into pushes. The womens division isnt really a satisfying push for those of us who like to run bigger companies with 12-16 women and 60 men. And it shouldn't be a gender problem. Women can be separated into their own division already, but I dont know how the game would handle that, either, although in the WWE, some would argue Becky is more popular than 90 percent of the roster. I dont know.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> Innate tag team chemistry is replicable with sufficient experience, which also applies to commentary duos. There's nothing in for manager/client yet, but it would be interesting to see something similar.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> It seems like the Perception system in the new game will handle both women's equality (and I'm delighted to have that - I always have an integrated product so women get pushed appropriately, but have to put up with repetitive emails about the women being 'too small' as a reult) and the negative reaction thing. That, however, can be replicated by having Reigns given the wrong gimmick (The Big Dog), switching it too soon ("Suffering succotash!") and then switching it too soon again (The Big (Under)Dog).</p>

[shawn michaels]

A few interesting changes today, and one that although I was expecting it, i still dislike it to oblivion.

 

you can now start your own company whenever you like, as long as you're unemployed. However, your reputation is used to decide how successful you are at attracting investors / backers, and so your starting money is affected by both your reputation and the challenge level you select.

 

Why? What is the exact point in this? People get more or less money in wrestling much more based on their actual reputation then their booking reputation. It is how it is and will probably be. There aren't that many examples of someone getting the bucks because of their amazing booking, rather than from who they know or who likes them, or even as they perform as workers.

 

Even to get a booking job it has been working that way forever. You don't get a booking job usually because you booked 100 successful cards, you get it because you are already a big star with reputation of your own outside of booking, or because, even being relatively unknown, you know someone in a good place or position that either sees some creative potential or gives you a handout.

 

Booking reputation has always seemed like an unneeded stat to me. There shouldn't be the need for 2 stats. Characters already have their own rep, and that is the only one they should need, the one that should be affected by their performance (including booking performance) and the one that limits/increases how much money they should have available.

 

IMO, things were more bearable before this particular change. Why should I be Hulk Hogan, for example, and want to simulate starting a big company cause my big name would draw some investors and see it hindered by the fact that my booking reputation is 0 at the start of the game?

 

It's a small change but one I truly truly dislike. Anyway, those are my two cents. The free pictures change and the rest of the reputation features look cool, though.

[codey_v2]

First off, I'm stoked that area battles are back to being about show quality over star quality, because that really gives me a lot more freedom when hiring, and I think will lead to less SQ-chasing in my games (I'm looking at you, Champagne Lover).

 

That said, what's the star quality function now? It's been so long since I played pre-2016 editions that I don't remember! Is it just a vague X-factor type thing that gives a worker a nudge toward being better?

[DarK_RaideR]

Not so much a commentary, mostly a question I had when I read this:

Also, if you choose to leave the game then the character you were using as your avatar will change their booking reputation to match your user reputation, meaning they can carry on (under AI control) with the rep you built for them.

So as far as I'm aware, User Characters are essentially immortal. Still, when playing as an older character (and doing a diary, especially) it feels strange to have them go well past their 60s or whatnot and still have them around; I'd like to have the option to switch to a different UC, say from Richard Eisen to Eric Eisen or from Tommy Cornell Sr. to Eddie or Cornell Jr. This might even somehow be possible in TEW16 and I'm just not aware of it, if that's the case please let me know. If not, it would be an interesting addition to TEW2020

[Eisen-verse]

I really appreciate the new addition of starting a company of your own at any time. There are many times, within a game, where I want to splinter off and create my own company. Sadly, my reputation isn't strong enough and, in turn, I'm forced to squelch those feelings. Now, I love how I can build a company up and then, from there, create a rival to go against it.

 

Very cool.

[angeldelayette]

Not so much a commentary, mostly a question I had when I read this:

 

So as far as I'm aware, User Characters are essentially immortal. Still, when playing as an older character (and doing a diary, especially) it feels strange to have them go well past their 60s or whatnot and still have them around; I'd like to have the option to switch to a different UC, say from Richard Eisen to Eric Eisen or from Tommy Cornell Sr. to Eddie or Cornell Jr. This might even somehow be possible in TEW16 and I'm just not aware of it, if that's the case please let me know. If not, it would be an interesting addition to TEW2020

 

I think a bit of a way around that is to create a second player in the game and then leave as the first player. I've never actually done it, though.

[LoganRodzen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jaysin" data-cite="Jaysin" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Hoping the experience stat will also have an impact on workers being in development. It's so stupid that a rookie who enters the business won't stay in development.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Agreed. Even when a worker is a hotshot and I want him to learn the product before bringing him up. He won't sign the developmental because he's too good for it. Instead I sign him to a written deal and send him to work in development, hurting his morale. That should be fixed with this, I hope.</p>

[Juce]

Is there any reason to believe the experience and new perception stats will change how workers respond to being in development? For example WWE has put some decently over guys with experience into NXT in recent years. Only a couple seemed unhappy (James Storm, Andrade, Kassius Ohno) but others seemed perfectly fine with it (KO, Zayne, Finn Balor, Samoa Joe). Maybe these weren't entirely accurate but I wish I could send guys to development without it trashing their morale.

[Greylocke]

<p>Maybe it has to do with the fact that WWE stopped treating NXT like a developmental fed long ago. I mean currently there's grand total of one star on NXT TV that's actually a developed product of the Performance Center: Velveteen Dream.</p><p> </p><p>

In TEW terms, NXT is really more of a minor third brand with a slightly different product focus. It's grown as big as 205 Live, if not bigger. That's why the indy/foreign stars aren't complaining about being on that brand, because they don't see it as a developmental fed.</p>

[TeemuFoundation]

<p>NXT absolutely is a third brand, as opposed to a developmental company. If I were to book modern WWE in TEW, I'd have NXT as a brand, definitely. It basically took the place the ECW brand that ran from 2006-2010. That being said, I think smarks are also grossly overestimating the overness of guys like Kevin Owens, Sami Zayn, Finn Balor, and Samoa Joe, prior to them coming to WWE. Those guys were not over, or stars, prior to WWE. No casual fan knew who Kevin Steen, El Generico, Prince Devitt, or Samoa Joe was. Only wrestling nerds who hang around in wrestling message boards did. Like I said, smart marks always, always, always way, way, waaay overestimate both the popularity, as well as the marketability, of "their guys".</p><p> </p><p>

Like, if Samoa Joe, for instance, was such a star that the IWC makes him out to be, why wasn't TNA making any money while he was there? Why didn't Kevin Steen and El Generico face off each other in front of tens of thousands in RoH if they were so damn over? The answer is, they weren't. They were stars in minor league promotions that no one watches. They have no right to complain about being "too over" for NXT upon signing with WWE.</p>

[awesomenessofme1]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TeemuFoundation" data-cite="TeemuFoundation" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>NXT absolutely is a third brand, as opposed to a developmental company. If I were to book modern WWE in TEW, I'd have NXT as a brand, definitely. It basically took the place the ECW brand that ran from 2006-2010. That being said, I think smarks are also grossly overestimating the overness of guys like Kevin Owens, Sami Zayn, Finn Balor, and Samoa Joe, prior to them coming to WWE. Those guys were not over, or stars, prior to WWE. No casual fan knew who Kevin Steen, El Generico, Prince Devitt, or Samoa Joe was. Only wrestling nerds who hang around in wrestling message boards did. Like I said, smart marks always, always, always way, way, waaay overestimate both the popularity, as well as the marketability, of "their guys".</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Samoa Joe is a bad example. He was a big guy in TNA, and a lot of casual fans (maybe not most of them, but a lot of them) had at least a passing knowledge of that company.</p>

[zrc1]

Yeah Joe is a bad example. My gran knows who he is. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />

[TeemuFoundation]

The Six Sides of Steel encounter between Angle and Joe, I think, is still the most successful match/feud in TNA history, so I do give Joe that, but he was given the ball that night, and didn't exactly set the world on fire, or turn things around for TNA. Big fish in a small pond. Anyway, offtopic.

[zrc1]

I guess this is the part of the journal where things start to slow down a little? First time I've followed one as it goes on, I'm quite enjoying it.

[Zero]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="zrc1" data-cite="zrc1" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I guess this is the part of the journal where things start to slow down a little? First time I've followed one as it goes on, I'm quite enjoying it.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> two or three posts per week typically</p>

[franticloser]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Juce" data-cite="Juce" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Is there any reason to believe the experience and new perception stats will change how workers respond to being in development? For example WWE has put some decently over guys with experience into NXT in recent years. Only a couple seemed unhappy (James Storm, Andrade, Kassius Ohno) but others seemed perfectly fine with it (KO, Zayne, Finn Balor, Samoa Joe). Maybe these weren't entirely accurate but I wish I could send guys to development without it trashing their morale.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> In the example of Ohno(well his current run) he is there to train so you can assign him that role and it would be fine. Storm wasn't unhappy with being in NXT and rumor is he would have been used in much the same way, a veteran hand to help train and maybe get a shot at the main roster at some point. He just wanted to stick with TNA at the time due to them offering him more money. I never heard much about Andrade getting upset about being there. KO and Zayne in game terms probably had an attitude of someone who wouldn't mind a stint in developmental to learn the WWE style and get some seasoning before going to the main roster. Joe was originally brought in on an open agreement to just help out, but when his shirt sold out overnight they quickly snatched him up to an exclusive contract and he probably stayed in NXT for the time he was there under either training or just to work there for in game designation. Balor had to learn a whole new style of working, and had an injury that kept him out for awhile as well.</p>

[Juce]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TeemuFoundation" data-cite="TeemuFoundation" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>NXT absolutely is a third brand, as opposed to a developmental company. If I were to book modern WWE in TEW, I'd have NXT as a brand, definitely. It basically took the place the ECW brand that ran from 2006-2010. That being said, I think smarks are also grossly overestimating the overness of guys like Kevin Owens, Sami Zayn, Finn Balor, and Samoa Joe, prior to them coming to WWE. Those guys were not over, or stars, prior to WWE. No casual fan knew who Kevin Steen, El Generico, Prince Devitt, or Samoa Joe was. Only wrestling nerds who hang around in wrestling message boards did. Like I said, smart marks always, always, always way, way, waaay overestimate both the popularity, as well as the marketability, of "their guys".<p> </p><p> Like, if Samoa Joe, for instance, was such a star that the IWC makes him out to be, why wasn't TNA making any money while he was there? Why didn't Kevin Steen and El Generico face off each other in front of tens of thousands in RoH if they were so damn over? The answer is, they weren't. They were stars in minor league promotions that no one watches. They have no right to complain about being "too over" for NXT upon signing with WWE.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I am not disagreeing with you that people over estimate the popularity of the outsiders coming into WWE but you reference why TNA wasn't making any money and it wasn't those guys faults.</p><p> </p><p> WCW had Ric Flair, Kevin Nash, Sting, Goldberg, Scott Steiner, DDP, Booker T, and many others at the end as well as higher ratings than current WWE the final couple years and they were bleeding money. Finances are the bookers and managements mistakes.</p><p> </p><p> Outside of mainstream casual fans hardly anyone is over. It is whoever the WWE says is popular that day. WWE could put Adam Cole on RAW next week and have him go over Cena, then Orton on Smackdown, then Lesnar on RAW the next week and the fans would be like this guy is amazing! Do it a couple months and bam the casual fans think he is a star. In game terms though that would just be momentum in the current version of the game with some overness gains. It would also ruin the locker room quickly which I wish was a little more forgiving at times.</p><p> </p><p> Early 2000's Big Show was sent to developmental for awhile. Did he like it? Most likely no but he didn't hold a grudge. He worked on what needed to be done and became a better worker for it. He was fairly over too. </p><p> </p><p> It sounds like Adam has changed some things that might make some of these things a little better in the game and I am looking forward to seeing how they pan out.</p>

[shawn michaels]

NXT might be perceived as a third brand but it is still a dev company and should never be made into a third brand in TEW terms, at least not as of now. It is booked and treated as a dev company in its essentials, including with the call-ups.

[BiffJordan]

<p>About TV taping days. Adam says that the further from the taping the lower the rating. So am I to assume that no matter what I put on my week 4 show that it will get lower ratings than week 1 because of the time between air date and taping? </p><p> </p><p>

While Meltzer has more than once concluded that tapings do not hurt ratings, I understand the old school and in game reason for the penalty. But is it as simple as I've expressed above? If so that kind of stinks because no matter what my ratings will decline. </p><p> </p><p>

Or is it just a general handicap to my ratings?</p>

[shawn michaels]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BiffJordan" data-cite="BiffJordan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>About TV taping days. Adam says that the further from the taping the lower the rating. So am I to assume that no matter what I put on my week 4 show that it will get lower ratings than week 1 because of the time between air date and taping? <p> </p><p> <strong>While Meltzer has more than once concluded that tapings do not hurt ratings</strong>, I understand the old school and in game reason for the penalty. But is it as simple as I've expressed above? If so that kind of stinks because no matter what my ratings will decline. </p><p> </p><p> Or is it just a general handicap to my ratings?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm not arguing against your point, it's a pretty fair and pertinent question, but please do not use Meltzer as a source for anything. It will remove credibility out of any argument that anyone makes. I can understand the potential for losing some ratings. Live shows do attract more viewers and have no spoilers. But i also hope it is not as linear as it seems.</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BiffJordan" data-cite="BiffJordan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>About TV taping days. Adam says that the further from the taping the lower the rating. So am I to assume that no matter what I put on my week 4 show that it will get lower ratings than week 1 because of the time between air date and taping? <p> </p><p> While Meltzer has more than once concluded that tapings do not hurt ratings, I understand the old school and in game reason for the penalty. But is it as simple as I've expressed above? If so that kind of stinks because no matter what my ratings will decline. </p><p> </p><p> Or is it just a general handicap to my ratings?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> He mentioned it’s not a huge loss and if week one show is worse than the 4th show booking wise, I am sure that the fourth show would rate better. I don’t think it’s as black and white as the farthest show is always the worst.</p>

[BiffJordan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels" data-cite="shawn michaels" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm not arguing against your point, it's a pretty fair and pertinent question, but please do not use Meltzer as a source for anything. It will remove credibility out of any argument that anyone makes. I can understand the potential for losing some ratings. Live shows do attract more viewers and have no spoilers. But i also hope it is not as linear as it seems.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You're crazy if you think Meltzer hasn't influenced every aspect of this business including this game. I've read Meltzer for almost 20 years, it's something I love to do and I don't find much credibility in discrediting him so you can use your source and I will use mine. You know, the only one who has been an industry leader for almost 40 years.</p>

[Adam Ryland]

About TV taping days. Adam says that the further from the taping the lower the rating. So am I to assume that no matter what I put on my week 4 show that it will get lower ratings than week 1 because of the time between air date and taping?

 

While Meltzer has more than once concluded that tapings do not hurt ratings, I understand the old school and in game reason for the penalty. But is it as simple as I've expressed above? If so that kind of stinks because no matter what my ratings will decline.

 

Or is it just a general handicap to my ratings?

 

Firstly it would depend on when you're playing. If you're in the pre-Internet age then you're going to have minimal, if any, reduction.

 

Secondly, no, you shouldn't assume that week 4's show would automatically get lower than week 1. "Adam says that the further from the taping the lower the rating" is incorrect. What the journal entry says is "the further ahead a show is taped, the more its ratings are going to get reduced". An increasing penalty does not automatically mean that later weeks will do worse than earlier ones.

 

To give an exaggerated example, if you do a horrible show in week 1 that only draws 100,000 viewers, and pull out all the stops so that week 4's would otherwise have drawn 2,000,000, then even if there's a 10% drop for each week of taped content then you're still going to be getting a much higher rating for week 4's show.

[AmericanDragon2003]

Hi!

 

Just wondering if unlimited/more brands have been added or are under consideration for 2020. Also brand focus (women’s brand, juniors/young lions brand, senior brand etc.) Doesn’t have to be unlimited I realize that could be taxing, and I realize realism may make this seem silly, but I play a very large world and would love the addition of more brand options as it would help divide my roster better and divisions don’t seem to do much.

 

Thanks! Very excited for the new game.

[Adam Ryland]

Just wondering if unlimited/more brands have been added or are under consideration for 2020.

 

New features are announced in the journal only; to recap, I don't answer "is this in?" questions individually as it would soon make the journal redundant.

 

You can however assume that anything that has been posted in the Suggestions forum either is, or was, under consideration unless I've specifically replied to a thread to say that it isn't.