TEW2020 Discussion Thread

[EBEZA]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="FlameSnoopy" data-cite="FlameSnoopy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Stone Cold was definitely a 100% rebel gimmick in the beginning stages (once he/creative got the hang of it). Ass-kisser and cowardly heel are both gimmicks as well. Shaking hands and kissing the babies is a gimmick. Might not be a complex or an interesting character, let alone a creative gimmick, but it's still one. Everyone has a gimmick pretty much in wrestling (though not necessarily in puro/"pure" products, where these would often better be described as characters, exceptions to every rule). Gimmick and character are so different from each other, they shouldn't be mixed up. It's extremely common for the same character to use a number of different gimmicks.<p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Those are extremely gimmicky gimmicks.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You know, having thought about it, this is fair. I personally consider the "gimmicky gimmicks" to be gimmicks, and the lesser ones listed above to be character traits, but within the game they all come under the category of gimmicks, so *shrug* <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> Different strokes for different folks!</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="FlameSnoopy" data-cite="FlameSnoopy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Chained storylines were basically pre-built storylines with a number of steps you had to complete to advance the storyline. So for example, the chained storyline might've begun with Step 1 being a match where Wrestler A loses to Wrestler B. You must then book that match exactly like that, where Wrestler A gets the victory or else the storyline wouldn't advance (and you would have to do it all over again). In my opinion, chained storylines were well intentioned but didn't really run that smooth. However, a large minority used mostly chained storylines and were frustrated when they were completely removed, since in chained there was already a number of pre-built storylines that you could either run as is or simply be inspired by them.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Ah, not what I envisioned, then. That sounds alright for a short while, but then I think I'd personally grow tired of the game trying to tell me how to do my storyline. As someone who never played with it as an option, I can't say I'm gutted <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[EBEZA]

<p><strong>Disposition Strictness</strong> sounds like a beneficial feature, making things like G1 much more viable without penalties all over the place.</p><p> </p><p>

<strong>Neutral Chemistry</strong> notes being stored is something I've wanted for a while. Hopefully the presentation will be more like one of the spreadsheets I make than a HUGE list of every chemistry ever found!</p><p> </p><p>

<strong>AI Surgeries</strong> will make the game world feel that little bit more alive, which is always a good thing, and <strong>Spoils Of War</strong> sounds like a nice little immersion boost.</p><p> </p><p>

<strong>Filtering Alumni</strong> and <strong>Apply All Broadcaster Changes</strong> are QOL improvements that won't benefit me much personally, but I certainly see the merits!</p><p> </p><p>

Overall, today's post is very encouraging! <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[woody316]

<p>I think the route they seem to be going down with the gimmicks is pretty good if it works the way it was described. I think more user involvement in creating gimmicks for your wrestlers is a good thing and would be quite similar to freestyle angles as previously stated. I like the idea of a preset list to provide some quick and easy options to apply to people.</p><p> </p><p>

I think my favourite bit is people getting tagged with certain things such as boring and it having an impact on their ability to gain pop. Would be great if there were other tags that effected their skills development or restricts some while improving others (eg velveteen dream type gimmick that focuses more on entertainment than in-ring etc.) </p><p> </p><p>

The comparison to freestyle angles does raise my one concern that it would be too easy to just select things that completely suit somebody in the same way angle ratings can be manipulated, though part of that is down to how we use to choose it.</p><p> </p><p>

Overall though I do think it would be a big improvement over the current gimmick system that seems a bit pointless</p>

[EBEZA]

I think the comparison to freestyle angles is perfect: they're there for those who want to use them (whether it be for better ratings or just for more freedom), but the list of default angles is there for those who want to use templates. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />

[SirMichaelJordan]

Intro screens are a super cool feature I hadn't seen brought up before. Love it.

 

I'm also really liking the proposed gimmick overhaul, it's something that's desperately needed a big change for years now. It's essentially freestyle gimmicks and at this point freestyle angles are the only ones I use. They're far too versatile and flexible to go back to the old way.

 

That said I still think a worker's gimmick should affect their Star Quality like a change of physique does. A bland and boring gimmick can totally make a talented worker look like a lesser star and likewise for a great one. If Steve Austin had been repackaged as Chilly McFreeze he would've been dead in the water.

 

You could have it work where if a gimmick really catches on, it doesn't artificially boost their SQ beyond where it should be - it just brings it closer to it's max potential. Think of Mark Calaway in a late '80s mod: his SQ would be solid but nothing spectacular -- the high 70s perhaps. But if you package him as the Undertaker and he strikes gold it's now in the mid to high 80s. As he naturally develops as a worker over time his SQ could then continue to rise until it reaches his max.

 

I think it’s fine how it’s proposed, effecting momentum. It shouldn’t have anything to do with SQ IMO. IMO SQ is the IT factor. Someone with the IT factor could be hurt by a poor gimmick which would be a gimmick that didn’t catch on (Rock’s first gimmick) Give him a gimmick that fits his attributes and it catches heat = the Rick we know now.

[SirMichaelJordan]

I strongly disagree here. Being a rebel is a character trait, rather than a gimmick. It can join the list of ass-kisser, cowardly heel, etc in that it's a trait that forms an important part of someone's character, but isn't a gimmick.

 

Being a mortician, dentist, pornstar, pimp, censorship guy, prison guard, repo man, pirate, cult leader, etc... they're what I'd say count as gimmicks.

 

 

 

I only started with TEW 2016, can you explain chained storylines to me? In my head, it was a way of transitioning one storyline into another, possibly keeping some of the old storyline's momentum in the process?

 

An example would be something like Shawn Spears smacking Cody with a chair at the end of his match in AEW recently. The old story Cody was in ended, and a new one with Spears began, but in TEW 2016 terms one would have to select for the old story to end during the match, do the angle, THEN start the Spears/Cody storyline at the next show, which isn't ideal...

 

 

 

This is a good question, I'd like to know this, too.

 

 

 

I wouldn't call it being a snob, there is a difference between having a character and having a gimmick. See my comments above for what I believe that difference to be.

 

 

 

Really? Interesting how different people play: I love the challenge of trying to work within the pre-designated angles with their pros and cons. Freestyle angles make it too easy, IMO, because you can play to everyone's strengths (or have them not rated if they have no strengths), set everyone to gain success from the angle, etc...

 

 

 

This is a good point, I would definitely like to see gimmick success tie-in with SQ!

 

To be fair, the “gimmick” name would be the gimmick and everything that is tick off would be the character trait...

 

Austin had character traits of a rebel, his gimmick was a stone cold rebel.

[christmas_ape]

Gimmick skills would be replaced by attributes, as Adam said, like "Master Comedian".... these would likely be in two tiers for each, with a positive version and a negative version of each gimmick type while assuming that having neither assigned would be neutral. No need to guess on a 0 to 100 scale how good someone is at something, just far more streamlined. The gimmick effects will be more varied than they are now, with each one potentially getting all kinds of attributes attached.... so a cool gimmick could have it's more rapid rise and fall of momentum/popularity, but may get many other things too. Giving far more scope for gimmicks being able to accomplish a lot.

 

I'm not sure some of the people are quite getting how much this potentially ties in with attributes too and how much more you'll have to think about booking decisions. But that's why the discussion is out here. To get a feel for it, to see what other potential ideas there could be to get better and to help give more knowledge on what could be there. In theory there could be all kinds of new gimmick categories added, all kinds of new effects added and so much more....

 

So the more inspiration there is out there, the better.

 

That does make a lot of sense, I'm sort of picturing the system in 2016 whereas in reality it will work a lot better with other new features. I think as long as the list of possible attributes is long as to not over simplify everything then it sounds great.

 

Onto today's ones, disposition strictness is actually one of my favourite changes so far. I strongly disliked that strong/weak divide was gotten rid of and this sounds perfect. I basically always want to play as a company with a weak divide and have had to pick no divide to best replicate it but means I miss out on turns and other fun features.

[nerodragomir1]

"Disposition Strictness: A new setting in a company's product is how strict they enforce their disposition split, if they have one. This ranges from not at all to extremely strict. The stricter it is, the bigger the penalties when you do face vs face, heel vs heel, etc. This would allow, for example, a company to have faces and heels in effect but to be able to book them against each other without penalties."

 

I think Adam confused the term (Minor) with (Major) improvements. You have no idea how huge this is for a NJPW save. You can't have face vs heel in a NJPW save because the tournaments. With this addition, I can now have faces & heels but not have to endure the penalty.

 

Thank you Greydog, very cool!

[SirMichaelJordan]

I am aware that he also used a biker gimmick that, while successful, wasn't as successful as his deadman gimmick.

 

And I completely disagree that he would get over as much and fast somewhere else without the deadman gimmick. Another company would have to come up with a new name/gimmick. Perhaps they could find a gimmick for him that would get just as over, perhaps not. But they'd have to venture into it. No way in hell would 'Mean' Mark Callous (his WCW name and gimmick) ever be as over as deadman Undertaker.

 

If undertaker ever left WWE and went to another company, he’d either share some of the same character traits as the undertaker but using a different name and look or he would have been something similar to his bad ass gimmick. Neither of those would be as good as The Undertaker which brings me to the suggestion of being able to tie gimmicks to a company like you can currently do with a mask and alter egos.

 

This way if Undertaker leave WWE for another company despite having a carbon copy of the undertaker traits, it would never be the undertaker because it will need to generate a new gimmick rating. If the gimmick was not tied to a company then he can debut the gimmick in any company without needing to generate a new gimmick rating.

[Teh_Showtime]

I think it’s fine how it’s proposed, effecting momentum. It shouldn’t have anything to do with SQ IMO. IMO SQ is the IT factor. Someone with the IT factor could be hurt by a poor gimmick which would be a gimmick that didn’t catch on (Rock’s first gimmick) Give him a gimmick that fits his attributes and it catches heat = the Rick we know now.

 

I would argue SQ is variable and can increase/decrease with time though, often times a gimmick works in conjunction with this. Daniel Bryan for example has been a world class wrestler since 2000 or 2001, but he never had the SQ to headline a National+ company, let alone the highest grossing show of all time (Wm30 at the time) even when he had great gimmicks in ROH.

 

Ditto for Okada, finding his gimmick made his Star Quality go up, and then he started crushing it from there. Brock Lesnar is a guy I would say just started with crazy SQ and didn’t have to grow into it, but he’s a once in a lifetime guy. John Cena on the other hand exploded once he found his gimmick as well.

 

If gimmicks don’t help star quality rise, I think not having an exceptional gimmick should really hinder the ability to rise to a certain level, except in Brock like cases. I can see it being more static but the great gimmick is what helps them break caps into their realizable potential.

[LloydCross]

"Disposition Strictness: A new setting in a company's product is how strict they enforce their disposition split, if they have one. This ranges from not at all to extremely strict. The stricter it is, the bigger the penalties when you do face vs face, heel vs heel, etc. This would allow, for example, a company to have faces and heels in effect but to be able to book them against each other without penalties."

 

I think Adam confused the term (Minor) with (Major) improvements. You have no idea how huge this is for a NJPW save. You can't have face vs heel in a NJPW save because the tournaments. With this addition, I can now have faces & heels but not have to endure the penalty.

 

Thank you Greydog, very cool!

 

The penalty isn't very big. Definitely not big enough to build your whole game around.

 

I definitely understand the tendency to power game, but never understood why people fixate on this particular bit so much.

 

Even for NJPW I think the penalty was pretty realistic. Face vs Face is doable but takes ever so slightly more careful build to get the same rating because a bit of the shortcut provided by dispositions.

 

This seems like a change that improves two major things:

• Power gaming (which, sure)
  
• "Historical" scenarios where you can ratchet up the divide to represent how much more anathema Face vs Face matchups used to be
  

[nerodragomir1]

The penalty isn't very big. Definitely not big enough to build your whole game around.

 

I definitely understand the tendency to power game, but never understood why people fixate on this particular bit so much.

 

Even for NJPW I think the penalty was pretty realistic. Face vs Face is doable but takes ever so slightly more careful build to get the same rating because a bit of the shortcut provided by dispositions.

 

This seems like a change that improves two major things:

• Power gaming (which, sure)
  
• "Historical" scenarios where you can ratchet up the divide to represent how much more anathema Face vs Face matchups used to be
  

 

I don't "powergame" but I just don't want any penalty whatsoever. I just want the FvH divide in my games. If anything, I'd set the penalty to be a very small one. Because I think in New Japan. FvF or HvH is always done very well & doesn't impact the enjoyment of a match.

[TeemuFoundation]

I think the word "penalty" is what gets to people. Just because a match in TEW suffers a "penalty", doesn't mean it can't score even an A* rating. It's just a factor working against the match being text book perfect - to whatever degree - and not something that will deem a match a failure. A wrestling match works best when the people are supporting someone over another, and this is why wrestling has always had babyfaces and heels; it adds to the drama.

 

You can still have a classic between two babyfaces. It's just not as good as an equally good match would have been between a babyface and a heel. I hope I make sense.

[Matt_Black]

I think the word "penalty" is what gets to people. Just because a match in TEW suffers a "penalty", doesn't mean it can't score even an A* rating. It's just a factor working against the match being text book perfect - to whatever degree - and not something that will deem a match a failure. A wrestling match works best when the people are supporting someone over another, and this is why wrestling has always had babyfaces and heels; it adds to the drama.

 

You can still have a classic between two babyfaces. It's just not as good as an equally good match would have been between a babyface and a heel. I hope I make sense.

 

Heck, look at The Rock vs. Hogan. That would have been chock full of penalties! Babyface vs. Babyface, Hogan on Time Decline, etc, and people LOVED that match.

[Guest]

I think the word "penalty" is what gets to people. Just because a match in TEW suffers a "penalty", doesn't mean it can't score even an A* rating. It's just a factor working against the match being text book perfect - to whatever degree - and not something that will deem a match a failure. A wrestling match works best when the people are supporting someone over another, and this is why wrestling has always had babyfaces and heels; it adds to the drama.

 

You can still have a classic between two babyfaces. It's just not as good as an equally good match would have been between a babyface and a heel. I hope I make sense.

 

That is definitely the best way to word it.

 

I feel out of my element with all of the gimmick talk going around simply because I never felt the need to experiment with them. It was always much easier to stick with the same few gimmicks. I would be very much welcomed to a new gimmick system but certainly not one that seems to be based more on RNG than actual stats..

[Self]

I think the word "penalty" is what gets to people. Just because a match in TEW suffers a "penalty", doesn't mean it can't score even an A* rating. It's just a factor working against the match being text book perfect - to whatever degree - and not something that will deem a match a failure. A wrestling match works best when the people are supporting someone over another, and this is why wrestling has always had babyfaces and heels; it adds to the drama.

 

100% agree. People seem to over-react to penalties. The idea that you 'can't' do something because there will be a penalty is ludicrous.

[Bojan]

I love the addition of the disposition strictness. Was something I've asked for and am really glad that it actually made it into the game. Makes playing the indies a lot more realistic imo.

[DarK_RaideR]

Filtering alumni is a blessing, as I've found myself stumbling through meaninglessly long lists for way too long. The rest of the changes also sound good, though I'm a bit worried that storing neutral chemistry can end up clogging the chemistry windows. Oh well, those still have filters.

[Henderson]

<p>Hopefully it's more of a hidden rating for neutral chemistry. I don't see why it would need to be displayed on who has neutral chemistry, rather, just keep it displayed on who has bad, good, or great chemistry.</p><p> </p><p>

Just as it is now, any workers you put up against each other, if they don't have one of the good, great, or bad chemistry notes, they would just be considered to have neutral chemistry.</p>

[shawn michaels]

Interesting stuff today. Small changes sometimes provide good content. Looking forward for what it is yet to come. Small stuff like filtering alumni, for example, makes a difference and saves time. Going forward, I hope that at some point Adam might provide some hints of what will become of the CV in 2020, (when he moves to that stage of the process) but really small cryptic hints would probably be better, so we can still get a big surprise when the game is out.

[Warhawk8492]

Nice to see a face heel divide strictness level added.

[tambourin81]

<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>I think the word "penalty" is what gets to people. Just because a match in TEW suffers a "penalty", doesn't mean it can't score even an A* rating. It's just a factor working against the match being text book perfect - to whatever degree - and not something that will deem a match a failure. A wrestling match works best when the people are supporting someone over another, and this is why wrestling has always had babyfaces and heels; it adds to the drama.<p> </p><p> You can still have a classic between two babyfaces. It's just not <em>as good</em> as an equally good match would have been between a babyface and a heel. I hope I make sense.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Honestly my issue would be more with there being a penalty without a corresponding bonus to match, which would make little sense on a game mechanical level.</p><p> </p><p> </p><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>100% agree. People seem to over-react to penalties. The idea that you 'can't' do something because there will be a penalty is ludicrous.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It's almost as if people aren't perfect mathematical robots, but instead act according to rather widely known emotional stimuli such as the avoidance of perceived negativity.</p>

[Eastwood]

...

[BrokenCycle]

The face/heel split thing is amazing. The reason why I never played Japanese promotions and those without the split is because I thought it was terrible just having a giant list of wrestlers when booking a match.

[Hive]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="SirMichaelJordan" data-cite="SirMichaelJordan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If undertaker ever left WWE and went to another company, he’d either share some of the same character traits as the undertaker but using a different name and look or he would have been something similar to his bad ass gimmick. Neither of those would be as good as The Undertaker which brings me to the suggestion of being able to tie gimmicks to a company like you can currently do with a mask and alter egos. <p> </p><p> This way if Undertaker leave WWE for another company despite having a carbon copy of the undertaker traits, it would never be the undertaker because it will need to generate a new gimmick rating. If the gimmick was not tied to a company then he can debut the gimmick in any company without needing to generate a new gimmick rating.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes, exactly.</p><p> </p><p> Perhaps only workers on written deals or working for companies of a certain size should be able to have their gimmicks copyrighted by a company, to avoid all the indies locking down succesful gimmicks.</p>