TEW2020 Discussion Thread

[pmfg10]

Is there anyway that a crash car Attitude Era product will work in TEW 2020? Or do you need long segments and matches to have good ratings?

[Self]

<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>Yeaaaah... I don't want to be all Negative Nancy - and TEW 2020 is looking great, this doesn't take away from that at all - but I was a little disappointed by the apparent lack of changes in battle royals. It was my favorite thing in TEW 2004 to book the Royal Rumble, and battle royals in general. You could do these in-match stories, choose who eliminates who, how, when, etc. It was really a whole lot of fun. Bums me out that it hasn't been a part of the GDS TEWs. Maybe it's a coding limitation, or maybe it's just that most people woul find it tedious to book every battle royal match step by step. I understand that.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I've always assumed it's because precise entries and eliminations wouldn't do much/anything to the overall grade of the match, which is only a fraction of final show grade, so it practically becomes nothing but cosmetic fluff. Fun cosmetic fluff that I'd enjoy booking, but not something that boils down into the math.</p><p> </p><p> Same as ring announcers and a more robust Finishing Moves system. When matches are just a % rating at the end of the day, some of the fiddly minutia needs to be abstracted out.</p>

[Brushfire]

<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>I've always assumed it's because precise entries and eliminations wouldn't do much/anything to the overall grade of the match, which is only a fraction of final show grade, so it practically becomes nothing but cosmetic fluff. Fun cosmetic fluff that I'd enjoy booking, but not something that boils down into the math.<p> </p><p> Same as ring announcers and a more robust Finishing Moves system. When matches are just a % rating at the end of the day, some of the fiddly minutia needs to be abstracted out.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Well, either abstracted out or given more meaning. I do think with the battle royals that being able to determine what order people are eliminated SHOULD have an impact, as of course making the final two, or especially in the case of a draw in theory this should put both guys over, rather than cause one to lose overness or cancel each other out. </p><p> </p><p> Ring announcers I get as this rarely makes a difference in real life unless they are especially bad, although perhaps a legendary ring announcer could give a small boost. Finishing moves I guess are more of a cosmetic thing (although perhaps their names could be used randomly in events, like the RKO reaching meme status).</p>

[BuddyGarner]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Questlove" data-cite="Questlove" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Battle royals in general could do with an overhaul imo. You can book, for example, Keith Lee to go all the way and be the final elimination and he's still gonna lose 2 overness along with everybody else who didn't win the match.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> And he can get that 2 overness back easily by just dominating a jobber as long as he has B-ish charimsa. I think Keith Lee would have B- charisma....</p><p> </p><p> It's incredibly easy to gain overness I wouldn't fret about "inaccurate" ways of losing it.</p>

[Questlove]

And he can get that 2 overness back easily by just dominating a jobber as long as he has B-ish charimsa. I think Keith Lee would have B- charisma....

 

It's incredibly easy to gain overness I wouldn't fret about "inaccurate" ways of losing it.

 

I mean sure, there's any number of cheap and incredibly unrealistic ways I can have a guy get over, but isn't the point of TEW 2020 to become more realistic and less gamey?

 

Every single person who doesn't win in the Royal Rumble losing overness is utter insanity no matter which way you look at it.

[Blackman]

Well, either abstracted out or given more meaning.

 

It's getting mentioned which is good enough for me to immerse myself. I guess it can be improved by adding a diverse match finish where a rollup would lower the match rating, for instance. But I fear this will only lead to an increase of loading times. I assume low loading times are essential to most of the players, and you gotta find a balance which benefits the majority of players.

 

But honestly frills like this can be filled in by imagination. I've always seen this series as a game that provides a base where some things need to be played out in your head.

 

However, it's pretty weird that battle royals cause all losers to 'lose' overness. Can someone confirm that? I thought only the worker getting pinned would lose that. Why else would we have the match note? And why would workers complain when you use the match note if it's all the same. A royal rumble would then indeed be utter insanity.

[Adam Ryland]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Blackman" data-cite="Blackman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>However, it's pretty weird that battle royals cause all losers to 'lose' overness. Can someone confirm that?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I've checked and it is doing that, although that's due to an unreported bug, not by design. It is fixed for the next patch.</p>

[nerodragomir1]

<p>Seems like the hardest part of making a game is the balancing aspect to it. Like most of the time you're just trying to make sure the game hit's that sweet spot. Roster sizes being an example of that. But it's really good that Adam looks into issues & address them. Like the battle royal issue. I always disliked doing the RR because it would never really increase anything but it seemed like people would lose way too much pop when a guy with like 75 pop got the win in a RR against other guys with over 85 pop & I didn't protect them.</p><p> </p><p>

I remember TEW 2016 was weird because Tag matches were so overpowered. Too many buff & you could get A+ matches every night. I know this has been addressed in 2020 so it's going to feel weird booking tag matches now & not getting crazy high ratings for a match with midcarders. I look forward to it being more balanced though.</p>

[Blackman]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="nerodragomir1" data-cite="nerodragomir1" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Seems like the hardest part of making a game is the balancing aspect to it. <p> </p><p> I remember TEW 2016 was weird because Tag matches were so overpowered. Too many buff & you could get A+ matches every night.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I agree. The tag matches had people rub their skills to others as well, making it the best thing to do (by far), making you feel stupid for not doing it. If the buffs are lower you just go with your gut. The same thing might happen for the Royal Rumbles. You can have one every month and some skills might rub onto your lowest workers (though I think that's very limited), but if you're really in it for "powergaming", it's more about restricting yourself. It's not about "bragging rights" as literaly no one here will be impressed if you post how many A* matches you had in a year as it's obvious what you need to do to get there.</p>

[nerodragomir1]

Totally agree! I like when it's not an obvious path to a high rated show. Anyone can just slap together some tag matches, "Look at the A.I of any AJPW company in the 90's with Holy Demon Army vs Misawa & Kobashi as the main event of 15 shows in about a 3 month time span." I look forward to them balancing it better because I don't like how easy that is. I want a well balanced experience. Which goes back to how tough it must be to make a game that is able to accomplish that task.

[Cold Cobra]

<p>Before I start the early stages of updating my database ready for the further updating needed when TEW20 releases, has there been confirmation of stables and tag team names?</p><p> </p><p>

As in, if DX were a stable in a 97 mod, would I still have to put HHH and HBK in as a team called Degeneration-X, or would they be called "Degeneration X (HHH & Shawn Michaels)" like the presentation will apparently be for six man tags as shown in the journal? </p><p> </p><p>

I mean, that's a bad example thinking about it as you'd probably want HHH/Michaels as a team anyway, but if I update a promotion that has a few five or six people-sized stables, will I have to create teams with "Stable Name I, Stable Name II, Stable Name III" or can I skip it as the AI will books stables in tag matches and the name will appear naturally?</p><p> </p><p>

I know this isn't a Q and A thread but I remember people talking about this in this here before but I can't seem to find it via the thread search.</p>

[Historian]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Cold Cobra" data-cite="Cold Cobra" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Before I start the early stages of updating my database ready for the further updating needed when TEW20 releases, has there been confirmation of stables and tag team names?<p> </p><p> As in, if DX were a stable in a 97 mod, would I still have to put HHH and HBK in as a team called Degeneration-X, or would they be called "Degeneration X (HHH & Shawn Michaels)" like the presentation will apparently be for six man tags as shown in the journal? </p><p> </p><p> I mean, that's a bad example thinking about it as you'd probably want HHH/Michaels as a team anyway, but if I update a promotion that has a few five or six people-sized stables, will I have to create teams with "Stable Name I, Stable Name II, Stable Name III" or can I skip it as the AI will books stables in tag matches and the name will appear naturally?</p><p> </p><p> I know this isn't a Q and A thread but I remember people talking about this in this here before but I can't seem to find it via the thread search.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Adam has already confirmed in entry #39 </p><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>As a minor addition, stable names are now also fully incorporated into match reports, both human and AI. So you'll see things like "The Infernal Horde (Snap Dragon, El Rey, and Soul Taker) beat ....." when viewing results, which looks nicer and means that you can better see why people are teaming together.</div></blockquote> so stables will be named as such when teaming together. The big benefit of making them a tag team will remain the tag team experience.

[D16NJD16]

<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've checked and it is doing that, although that's due to an unreported bug, not by design. It is fixed for the next patch.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Fixed for 2016 in the next patch? Or fixed for 2020?</p>

[D16NJD16]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="nerodragomir1" data-cite="nerodragomir1" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Seems like the hardest part of making a game is the balancing aspect to it. Like most of the time you're just trying to make sure the game hit's that sweet spot. Roster sizes being an example of that. But it's really good that Adam looks into issues & address them. Like the battle royal issue. I always disliked doing the RR because it would never really increase anything but it seemed like people would lose way too much pop when a guy with like 75 pop got the win in a RR against other guys with over 85 pop & I didn't protect them.<p> </p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This goes back to the gamey thing. I don't want every company to have to hit a sweet spot. Not every company were ran under the most uniform, ideal conditions. Most weren't actually, its why they went bankrupt. So why shouldn't we be able to recreate the same scenarios that led to a company having problems, or even going bankrupt? If a company doesn't have a highly rated owner or booker, they shouldn't be ran in the most uniformly intelligent way at all times. AT LEAST let us set the table and create the starting point, and let the games AI figure out how to solve or not solve the issues with a bloated roster, or bad bookers, or whatever the case.</p>

[DatIsraeliGuy]

<p>two small questions that i'm not sure were answered:</p><p> </p><p>

1. Can you play as both the parent and child company (say SWF and RIPW)?</p><p>

2. Will starting storylines still get deleted for AI companies?</p>

[Blackman]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="DatIsraeliGuy" data-cite="DatIsraeliGuy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> 1. Can you play as both the parent and child company (say SWF and RIPW)?</p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I missed an announcement where you could effectively play 2 companies simultaneously, so I doubt this is possible. You can theoretically do it if you play a multiplayer game with yourself.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="D16NJD16" data-cite="D16NJD16" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So why shouldn't we be able to recreate the same scenarios that led to a company having problems, or even going bankrupt?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> By god, you're right. We SHOULD be able to book the World War III match type. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[TeemuFoundation]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Blackman" data-cite="Blackman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I missed an announcement where you could effectively play 2 companies simultaneously, so I doubt this is possible. You can theoretically do it if you play a multiplayer game with yourself.<p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> By god, you're right. We SHOULD be able to book the World War III match type. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> I'm sure multiplayer is what he meant. There is no other way to play as two companies. But it is what a lot of people do.</p>

[DatIsraeliGuy]

No, I mean, if I chose WWE as my booking company, can I also book NXT? Or can you play as a child company *or* a parent company?

[QFresh]

No, I mean, if I chose WWE as my booking company, can I also book NXT? Or can you play as a child company *or* a parent company?

 

This all depends on how the Mod-Maker makes their mod. If they make NXT a brand rather than a dev-company, then you can book them at the same time.

 

Otherwise, if you want to book NXT, you'd have to play NXT. So a multiplayer game you play yourself would be the only way to do so.

[Historian]

No, I mean, if I chose WWE as my booking company, can I also book NXT? Or can you play as a child company *or* a parent company?

 

From the way I understand it, is you would need two users. So in theory, you could have a game as Jerry Eisen and book SWF and have a second character that is Mean Jean and play as RIPW, but you an't play as Jerry Eien and book both.

[Derek B]

If WWE and NXT are two seperate companies then you will need two players. You can switch between players in the AM part of the game too, so handling two players isn't as complicated as it once was and I'm so sure the entries on this type of thing covered this in detail.

[Blackman]

As for NXT: what it is realistically: a brand? or a dev company that is just financially relying on WWE? I've lost track. The earlier developmental companies were much clearer on this, but there's so much roster exchange, even feuds, that it seems more like a brand. You cannot book NXT or WWE realistically with it being a seperate entity or it being a serious hassle.

 

If you look at the numbers they pull you can argue it can no longer be a cult company. So can they even be a dev company anymore?

 

(maybe this should be in the modder forum but it's a just question imo)

[nerodragomir1]

Nobody asked for it but here is exactly what he says in the first post of his dev journal.

 

"A new addition to the game is the ability for the user to play as the owner or booker of another promotion's child company. This mode works in the same way as running a normal company, except that the player must deal with several extra challenges - primarily that the parent can send workers there for development, call workers up, fire workers, and has the final say on all matters which means that they can, for example, block certain actions that the child company wishes to take. They do, however, have the advantage of not having to worry too much about finances (as any profit or loss is absorbed by the parent and so it's impossible to go bankrupt), although the parent is not going to be happy if the financial performance is overly poor.

 

The child company has the option of whether to proactively sign talent or just utilise the workers they are provided with by the parent. However, they have no power to fire workers who have been sent there on developmental contracts and so must be very careful about roster management, especially when it comes to negative influences.

 

This mode is unrestricted in that the player can run a child company regardless of whether the parent is human or AI controlled. If the parent is AI controlled, they will always give the child a warning ahead of time if they are planning to call someone up, giving the user time to switch any titles, do a farewell match, etc. If the parent is human-controlled then it is entirely up to that player - they are free to do things without warning if they so wish."

[Jomosensual]

Before I start the early stages of updating my database ready for the further updating needed when TEW20 releases, has there been confirmation of stables and tag team names?

 

As in, if DX were a stable in a 97 mod, would I still have to put HHH and HBK in as a team called Degeneration-X, or would they be called "Degeneration X (HHH & Shawn Michaels)" like the presentation will apparently be for six man tags as shown in the journal?

 

I mean, that's a bad example thinking about it as you'd probably want HHH/Michaels as a team anyway, but if I update a promotion that has a few five or six people-sized stables, will I have to create teams with "Stable Name I, Stable Name II, Stable Name III" or can I skip it as the AI will books stables in tag matches and the name will appear naturally?

 

I know this isn't a Q and A thread but I remember people talking about this in this here before but I can't seem to find it via the thread search.

 

It's been a minute since I looked at the new features in the thread but I believe that you won't have to create teams for each stable members and instead you can click and drag the stable from a new menu like how you already can do from tag teams

[TeemuFoundation]

Yeah, NXT is a brand. Always has been.