TEW2020 Discussion Thread

[shawn michaels]

A morale boost for winning a war doesnt make sense and should be removed.

 

The only person who cares about that is the owner, wrestlers are friends with other wrestlers, and wrestling is just a job, only marks would get a morale boost for winning a 'war' against another company where their friends work. After all, what benefit do workers get from winning? It only hurts them.

 

What might make more sense would be a morale hit (Though I still wouldn't implement this), especially if the losing company went bankrupt. Less viable options means less potential for workers to make money via leverage in their contracts, and less options they have if they're unhappy and want to leave for greener pastures.

 

After all we know the chilling effect that wcw and ecw closing had on the business, it meant less money, less everything. It hurt the industry, the only person who got a morale boost was Vince McMahon.

 

----------

 

On another topic i hope social media storms are balanced by social media boons. It makes sense if you introduce a feature that gives debuffs that there's also a chance for buffs. In this context...

 

-worker makes a viral social media post/video, pop or momentum boost.

 

-worker makes a new popular podcast, vlog or YouTube channel, or appears on one. Pop, momentum or entertainment skill boost.

 

Etc

 

That really isn't true, though. Vince's loyal workers got that morale boost as well. And most of the others would get something similar, as the war being over at the time meant their jobs were safe, as WCW was no longer there to threat their jobs. (Remember that at some point WWE was close enough to going bankrupt themselves before turning it around and winning the war.) What it caused in the long term is another thing that doesn't really have a place in this feature. Seems fine to me.

[Teh_Showtime]

Another company merely existing isn’t what threatens their job security though (in fact it’s the opposite when you consider the entire industry as a job), so why would a job be more secure when the opposition doesn’t exist anymore? A company with poor finances will collapse regardless of if anyone else is around them, and likewise with enough money you can stay afloat no matter who is opposing you. How does an outside company influence their job security?

 

You already get locker room bonuses for winning the monthly battles right?

[HiPlus]

My question about the latest updates is, will their be positive outcomes for narratives. So say someone is accused of something on social media and they get initial backlash and then it comes out later that they did nothing wrong.

 

Re. Enzo situation.

 

I also would love to see there be other positive aspects, like the wrestler has gone out of their way and garnered support through social media giving them an overall boost in pop.

[d12345]

Man oh man. Social media storms has the potential to be everything. I hope we get them quite often as that's a great unpredictable way to keep things fresh and interesting...

[sportsfanmas]

I'm almost positive if I wanted to search I would find this answer, but I'm lazy, so I'll just ask here.. will TEW 16 saves be able to be converted to the new TEW? I'm guessing not, but had to ask.

[Vinsmoker]

I'm almost positive if I wanted to search I would find this answer, but I'm lazy, so I'll just ask here.. will TEW 16 saves be able to be converted to the new TEW? I'm guessing not, but had to ask.

 

No. Only the databases

[EBEZA]

Hmm, I'm not exactly sure why this matters. The number of days is the number of days within the context of TEW 2020, and its calendar.

 

It can matter a few different ways. For example, if I took over WWE in 2013 and wanted to see out Punk's 434 day reign... Also, I do find a lack of dates a little immersion-breaking at times. Also, say you want to do a story where someone breaks an age-old record (like New Day breaking Demolition's record) - will the old records be converted into TEW lengths? Or will it be inherently tougher in the game to beat a record, because 434 days is longer than it used to be?

 

That said, I appreciate the difficulty in a real-world calendar with things such as annual events. That said, couldn't (for example) Summerslam be set to always be the second Sunday of August, just like it can now? The only difference is the date would change, but it'd still be annual, give or take 6 days.

 

I know that the social storm is a minor feature, but I've envisioned a full game based on this... :D:D:D

 

Tbh, most of the announcements have given me ideas for entire saves! I think I already have so many ideas for games on 2020, I won't get them done before the next edition comes out

 

So, I love the Social Media Storm feature, but I do have one question: Will there be a way to incorporate social media in to feuds/storylines?

 

Could be interesting, but I imagine this will be an imagination deal.

 

Sometimes more is more. So if we could have some of those decisions that are not a one-off in other parts of the game, I'd be all for it.

 

I like the social media feature, it is a much needed reality in any simulator nowadays, i think it could be adapted to older eras by changing some lines of code and instead of social media storm it would be a media storm for some interview or public action that went wrong. These things also happened back in the day, but with different triggers, different reactions and different spreading, given the different tools back in the day. Hulk Hogan choking Richard Belzer, for example. Jerry Lawler and Andy Kaufman.

 

Even the kayfabe plans like the one I mention were a big deal back then because the means of communication were different and the blur between reality and kayfabe was way bigger. But something could still be talked about a lot and become damaging. (or conversely positive and good for a feud heat.)

 

The eras locking in the type of events is also appreciated and would be what would make the difference in events occurring and what type of decisions or fallout there would be. There should also be the reverse side of the feature where something goes very well and a wrestler gets over one of these events big time, like Lynch in social media.

 

Agree with all of this. Lynch and Ryder are some positive examples in recent(ish for Ryder) history of people getting themselves over on social media.

 

That really isn't true, though. Vince's loyal workers got that morale boost as well. And most of the others would get something similar, as the war being over at the time meant their jobs were safe, as WCW was no longer there to threat their jobs. (Remember that at some point WWE was close enough to going bankrupt themselves before turning it around and winning the war.) What it caused in the long term is another thing that doesn't really have a place in this feature. Seems fine to me.

 

Agree with this. I feel like the immediate response in the WWF locker room would've been mostly positive. When you've been embroiled in a war for years and finally win it, your first reaction is unlikely to be to step back and look at the longer term implications.

 

I also would love to see there be other positive aspects, like the wrestler has gone out of their way and garnered support through social media giving them an overall boost in pop.

 

I'd also like to see fan backlash if the company doesn't react to someone getting themselves over (see: Zack Ryder).

[nebradska]

I strongly disagree about the morale bump to workers for winning a war. If anything, it leads to less opportunity because there's not competition for their services, wages will inevitably be suppressed, and, if anything, their jobs will be less secure.

 

The winning owner getting a boost makes sense, as well as workers who are loyal to the winning company and/or owner. However, for anyone else, I think the result should be neutral. It's not a game breaker to me either way, however.

[Historian]

It can matter a few different ways. For example, if I took over WWE in 2013 and wanted to see out Punk's 434 day reign... Also, I do find a lack of dates a little immersion-breaking at times. Also, say you want to do a story where someone breaks an age-old record (like New Day breaking Demolition's record) - will the old records be converted into TEW lengths? Or will it be inherently tougher in the game to beat a record, because 434 days is longer than it used to be?

 

That said, I appreciate the difficulty in a real-world calendar with things such as annual events. That said, couldn't (for example) Summerslam be set to always be the second Sunday of August, just like it can now? The only difference is the date would change, but it'd still be annual, give or take 6 days

 

To take the first part, it will not be tougher in 2020, one would think, because when people convert it over now they don't have real dates to use, so they pick the event where it happened (or week, day and year) and then when the reign ended, so the dates naturally adjust to what the TEW calendar is.

 

And Summer Slam isn't always the second Sunday of August -- just like Wrestlemania has floated from end of March to beginning of April depending on a variety of factors. In reality terms, WWE's schedule is only consistent with the same events generally happening in each month. This goes along the same lines as say ROH or other smaller companies that have some of the same yearly events but that fluctuate on specific date.

 

I could be in the minority, but I actually really like that I don't have a specific calendar. It is far easier for me to eep track of things when I just have to remember which week something happened in a given month and not that something happened on the fifth or what not.

[Historian]

I strongly disagree about the morale bump to workers for winning a war. If anything, it leads to less opportunity because there's not competition for their services, wages will inevitably be suppressed, and, if anything, their jobs will be less secure.

 

The winning owner getting a boost makes sense, as well as workers who are loyal to the winning company and/or owner. However, for anyone else, I think the result should be neutral. It's not a game breaker to me either way, however.

 

 

But, if you look at it from this perspective... You work for a wrestling company that is actively at war with another company. Both are competing for market shares, (both in specific eyeballs and revenue) and are actively trying to put one another out of business. By doing so, people will have won and will feel better. I don't think the feature is designed to say that everyone is really happy to have won the war, but more like a positive feeling goes into the locker room because they succeeded at the goal, which I think is very reasonable.

[Goliath764]

But, if you look at it from this perspective... You work for a wrestling company that is actively at war with another company. Both are competing for market shares, (both in specific eyeballs and revenue) and are actively trying to put one another out of business. By doing so, people will have won and will feel better. I don't think the feature is designed to say that everyone is really happy to have won the war, but more like a positive feeling goes into the locker room because they succeeded at the goal, which I think is very reasonable.

 

I strongly disagree about the morale bump to workers for winning a war. If anything, it leads to less opportunity because there's not competition for their services, wages will inevitably be suppressed, and, if anything, their jobs will be less secure.

 

The winning owner getting a boost makes sense, as well as workers who are loyal to the winning company and/or owner. However, for anyone else, I think the result should be neutral. It's not a game breaker to me either way, however.

 

I agree with the perspectives of both of you. I think a good compromise is that the loyalists will be happy whereas those with a mercenary personality will not be as happy. So, personalities dictate how they feel about winning the war.

[TLCJR4LIFE]

I don’t see any need for compromise, it’s a small feature and that’s it.

 

It makes sense.

 

There is no world where anyone wouldn’t be happy about failing to go out of business, it’s a ridiculous idea.

 

All that other stuff really doesn’t matter when the alternative is immediately being out of a job and spot.

 

 

 

Also I’d imagine it is a locker room modifier bonus the same as having a successful show. It’s not giving positive morale to every worker individually.

 

It scompletely unnecessary to overly complicate such a small throwaway feature.

[Irish Wolf]

OK I haven't commented about anything else or even posted on these boards in awhile. But I really like the social media storm feature. But I think it should be more than just bad things. Or there needs to be a social media savvy stat or something. Look at Becky Lynch. Although some of her on air promos can be iffy the girl is the master of social media and has learned quite effectively how to get herself over using twitter. There needs to be some way to have this take effect and maybe the social media storm thing except in a positive way could work.

[shawn michaels]

I don’t see any need for compromise, it’s a small feature and that’s it.

 

It makes sense.

 

There is no world where anyone would be happy about not going out of business, it’s a ridiculous idea.

 

All that other stuff really doesn’t matter when the alternative is immediately being out of a job and spot.

 

 

 

Also I’d imagine it is a locker room modifier bonus the same as having a successful show. It’s not giving positive morale to every worker individually.

 

It scompletely unnecessary to overly complicate such a small throwaway feature.

 

If you mean wouldn't in the bolded part, I 100% agree with your post. It is most likely a locker room morale bonus, very realistic, and not given to everyone individually. Even if it was, it would still not be an issue. When companies are competing, they are doing so for the same market share. Someone is going to suffer over it. And if I'm working in one of those companies and have no assurances I will be hired by the other one if my current promotions ends or suffers, I will be very glad if my company turns it around and wins it. Very little people will have the luxury or the insight to think long term at the time.

 

Especially when it's an all out war daily environment. Most will be bound to celebrate when it happens. The feature seems to reflect it, it is not a major thing, so I see no reason to even make a big thing out of it, just a neat bonus that reflects what the majority of a locker room will feel when a war is won.

 

As such, there is absolutely no need to compromise. Just to simulate the one or two wrestlers that would worry about 2, 3, 5 or even 10 years down the road? Makes no sense. I think the feature adds to realism and to what actually feels to win a corporate war, regardless of what the future will be later on. (those involved will know how it actually works in corporate wars, I speak from experience.)

 

So i fully agree. And the need to even debate this (obviously everyone is free to do it, I'm not discouraging it in any way, just stating my opinion) seems a bit excessive nitpicking to me. But to each its own.

[Vinsmoker]

Only truely big names wouldn't have to worry about job security with several companies being around. Low-carders could see themselves without a job easily during a war, because the companies are constantly rotating the lower cards, in order to find that one breakthrough midcarder, that secures them the victory in the war. Like Austin was for WWE.

[TLCJR4LIFE]

OK I haven't commented about anything else or even posted on these boards in awhile. But I really like the social media storm feature. But I think it should be more than just bad things. Or there needs to be a social media savvy stat or something. Look at Becky Lynch. Although some of her on air promos can be iffy the girl is the master of social media and has learned quite effectively how to get herself over using twitter. There needs to be some way to have this take effect and maybe the social media storm thing except in a positive way could work.

 

Only truely big names wouldn't have to worry about job security with several companies being around. Low-carders could see themselves without a job easily during a war, because the companies are constantly rotating the lower cards, in order to find that one breakthrough midcarder, that secures them the victory in the war. Like Austin was for WWE.

 

 

Yeah actually I think part of the issue with the lack of competition is the complacency in terms of roster turnover, I can’t think of any time in history the roster has remained this stagnant. Guys almost never get released anymore.

 

In the AE you had guys come in just to job out all the time, remember the big Nation angle with DOA and the Puerto Rican team? Almost all of those guys except a few Nation guys were released, turnover was really high back in the war days.

[shawn michaels]

Only truely big names wouldn't have to worry about job security with several companies being around. Low-carders could see themselves without a job easily during a war, because the companies are constantly rotating the lower cards, in order to find that one breakthrough midcarder, that secures them the victory in the war. Like Austin was for WWE.

 

Yep. And those big names would be loyal to the owners anyway, given a personal friendship or a big fat deal, so they would celebrate as well.

[TLCJR4LIFE]

Yep. And those big names would be loyal to the owners anyway, given a personal friendship or a big fat deal, so they would celebrate as well.

 

 

The lower guys also weren’t even retained by WWE which is the same thing that would’ve happened if WCW won.

 

Guys like Alex Wright, Disco Inferno... their careers basically were ruined by the buyout. Same would’ve happened to guys like Steve Blackman and the Blue Meanie and Steven Richards if the other way around had happened.

 

WWE only kept absolute top talent from WCW and a few Cruisers to boost their division.

 

The entire premise of this argument is just weird honestly.

[nebradska]

Only truely big names wouldn't have to worry about job security with several companies being around. Low-carders could see themselves without a job easily during a war, because the companies are constantly rotating the lower cards, in order to find that one breakthrough midcarder, that secures them the victory in the war. Like Austin was for WWE.

 

And fewer companies leads to fewer opportunities. You prove my point.

[TLCJR4LIFE]

And fewer companies leads to fewer opportunities. You prove my point.

 

What?

 

That has nothing to do with job security. That is a job market which is a totally unrelated concept.

 

At this point this can just cease because it’s proving to be completely pointless.

Generally EMPLOYED workers do not concern themselves with the number of jobs available when they are on exclusive deals.

 

They basically have little to no negotiating power anyway as they are lower on the card

[Goliath764]

More companies is a larger job market though, if we are to argue that. And it's not about negotiating power when they are lower on the card. It's that if there are three companies, they have more offers to get and the chances of one of those offers being better is higher, compared to a world with only two companies.

 

I don't look at wrestling market like a normal job, I see them closer to professional athletes. The market is extremely volatile and the lower guys have more reasons to be worried because they are replaceable. It's like being a bench warmer in NBA, you never know if you will get another contract and be in the league for another year or what, so more teams gives you more slots and gives you more chance.

 

And I am not even sure how this suddenly turns into "excessive nitpicking over small features" either. This is the only discussion thread for TEW2020 so everything - big or small - get discussed over here. I certainly don't think it is a big deal if this gets a compromise or whatever, I am discussing it cuz I feel like it. I certainly don't find it to be critical or whatever.

[RatedRKO16]

And fewer companies leads to fewer opportunities. You prove my point.

 

Agreed

 

Also hope the social media thing won't all be negative.

[TLCJR4LIFE]

More companies is a larger job market though, if we are to argue that. And it's not about negotiating power when they are lower on the card. It's that if there are three companies, they have more offers to get and the chances of one of those offers being better is higher, compared to a world with only two companies.

 

I don't look at wrestling market like a normal job, I see them closer to professional athletes. The market is extremely volatile and the lower guys have more reasons to be worried because they are replaceable. It's like being a bench warmer in NBA, you never know if you will get another contract and be in the league for another year or what, so more teams gives you more slots and gives you more chance.

 

And I am not even sure how this suddenly turns into "excessive nitpicking over small features" either. This is the only discussion thread for TEW2020 so everything - big or small - get discussed over here. I certainly don't think it is a big deal if this gets a compromise or whatever, I am discussing it cuz I feel like it. I certainly don't find it to be critical or whatever.

 

 

There have never been two wrestling companies. In the cases where the big conpany(s) dont want you, you go to the indies. There are literally infinite companies to work for, the amount of workers getting spots in the top companies is comparatively small, and limited to people who already have some sort of bargaining power unless they are company loyalist types.

 

Examples of this Hugh Morris, Elix Skipper, Alex Wright and several others who basically either retired or went to TNA type companies after WCW closed.

 

The entire reason this arguments premise is so utterly asinine is that it implies that guys like Steve Blackman, The Blue Meanie, Stevie Richards and so on reacted to winning he war with “ OH NOES! WXW CLOSED NOW I WONT HAVE ANOTHER JOB IF WWE FIRES ME!”

 

This implies these highly replaceable filler wrestlers were sought out free agents in the first place, when it was more likely as with most people who were released from the Big 2 even while they were still warring, that these workers would end up in Indy purgatory.

 

Even Stone Cold himself didn’t get a job until Main Eventing in ECW. It’s not like WWE brass was beating down anyone’s door for a WCW washout. A majority of the WCW roster didn’t even get absorbed into the WWE, they had no use for those guys and it was massive roster bloat.

 

 

Granted I’m sure without a doubt some workers were worried about being phased out after the huge absorption of contracts, but it sure beats being immediately fired like the WCW guys were so I’m not sure what you are really looking for here.

[nebradska]

Implying that the salary and stability available in 90s WWF/WCW was available in independent organizations is a very silly or outright ignorant assessment of reality.

 

That any particular wrestler was or was not a hot commodity is irrelevant. Fewer big money companies in play means less competition for the labor, fewer opportunities, and less pay overall.

 

I don't think that workers need a negative response when a war ends, but I do think that they should all get a bonus is a misunderstanding of human motivation. Perhaps you're getting confused by the kayfabe, but the WWE locker room was not some united community fighting for a collective benefit by taking down WCW.

 

It's not a major part of gameplay and it won't make much a difference for me whether it stays or changes, but I find it very interesting to discuss and I think several of us are providing strong, logical, real world-based feedback. Get mad about it.

[TLCJR4LIFE]

Implying that the salary and stability available in 90s WWF/WCW was available in independent organizations is a very silly or outright ignorant assessment of reality.

 

This was not implied, and is also irrelevant.

 

That any particular wrestler was or was not a hot commodity is irrelevant. Fewer big money companies in play means less competition for the labor, fewer opportunities, and less pay overall.

 

Again, for the third time, irrelevant. Just because the company exists does not mean the opportunity is there. 90 percent of the WWE roster never would’ve been signed by WCW, and this is clear based on the amount of guys dismissed from both companies that never signed to the other, which is the overwhelming majority with the exception of a few rookies/dark match types.

 

I don't think that workers need a negative response when a war ends, but I do think that they should all get a bonus is a misunderstanding of human motivation. Perhaps you're getting confused by the kayfabe, but the WWE locker room was not some united community fighting for a collective benefit by taking down WCW.

 

No it was a bunch of people happy they weren’t out of a job, like some of their peers who worked for the other company. This is pretty much par for the course for any competing companies that fight for market share.

 

It's not a major part of gameplay and it won't make much a difference for me whether it stays or changes, but I find it very interesting to discuss and I think several of us are providing strong, logical, real world-based feedback. Get mad about it.

 

Strong and logical is one way you could put it. I don’t think anyone is upset though.