TEW2020 Discussion Thread

[TeemuFoundation]

<p>I'd welcome the proposed change to how gimmicks work. For years now, I've played TEW with only 13 or so gimmicks, which are simply called Brute, Cocky, Weasel... basically, the names of the basic types of gimmicks available. And I've made them so they fit pretty much anyone who has the performance required to pull that gimmick off. This is one of the many reasons I like doing my own mods; because I have multiple of these "my way" kinds of things. I was never a big fan of gimmicks in TEW, and that has been my workaround.</p><p> </p><p>

Also, if I was to make a modern day mod with gimmicks the way they work in TEW 2016 and before... what is Seth Rollins' gimmick? What about AJ Styles? Roman Reigns? What are these people's gimmicks? This is actually a sort of criticism towards modern day wrestling in general, but still; if I were to make a modern day mod for TEW 2016 right now, using gimmicks, guys like that would stump me.</p><p> </p><p>

I'd simplify gimmicks to the point of just reducing gimmicks to a rating. Remove the naming process, even. That's needless work. Let us debut and change gimmicks, etc. use a creative stat and some random factors to determine their success rate, and give them a rating.</p><p> </p><p>

Like.</p><p> </p><p>

AJ Styles</p><p>

Current Gimmick Rating: B+</p><p>

Last Tweaked: November 2018</p><p> </p><p>

Or something like that. And I guess workers themselves could have input, and maybe they'd also have their own creative stat to use in the math. This would be to simulate creative cases such as Raven and Matt Hardy who have been able to create memorable gimmicks and angles on their own.</p>

[Hive]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="justtxyank" data-cite="justtxyank" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I like this proposed gimmick concept.<p> </p><p> My first concern is initial database work. Will mods need to go through and do this work for every worker?</p><p> </p><p> Also, is there going to be a way to incorporate "owning" a gimmick, gimmick overness, etc.? Thinking along the lines of "The Undertaker" or "Mankind" or "Kane" etc. gimmicks where they are company owned and the overness of the worker is largely tied to that gimmick.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This is something I'd really like to know as well.</p><p> </p><p> Overall, I like the proposed changes. They're quite radical, and they may turn out not to work - but I'd say it's worth the gamble to try. Because let's be honest: gimmicks aren't really doing anything the way they work currently. A shake-up will be welcome.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="justtxyank" data-cite="justtxyank" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>One thing on the intro screens...<p> </p><p> Some of use a universal picture pack across mods. We'd need the game to recognize a different subfolder for intro screens I guess?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Another excellent question. I'd rather not have to use separate picture packs for my mods; nor would I want the same intro screens.</p>

[FlameSnoopy]

Liking the gimmick builder idea conceptually, but I also very much enjoy the gimmick type effects (legit, cocky etc) and I always play with them on. I guess the one caveat would be that the gimmick builder itself could churn out 'generic gimmicks', especially if the different gimmick types are removed in favor of a new, modified system. I might actually be in the minority in that I don't think the current gimmick system is mechanically flawed, the effects should just be far stronger and not merely minor bonuses or minuses.

[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>I'd welcome the proposed change to how gimmicks work. For years now, I've played TEW with only 13 or so gimmicks, which are simply called Brute, Cocky, Weasel... basically, the names of the basic types of gimmicks available. And I've made them so they fit pretty much anyone who has the performance required to pull that gimmick off. This is one of the many reasons I like doing my own mods; because I have multiple of these "my way" kinds of things. I was never a big fan of gimmicks in TEW, and that has been my workaround.<p> </p><p> Also, if I was to make a modern day mod with gimmicks the way they work in TEW 2016 and before... what is Seth Rollins' gimmick? What about AJ Styles? Roman Reigns? What are these people's gimmicks? This is actually a sort of criticism towards modern day wrestling in general, but still; if I were to make a modern day mod for TEW 2016 right now, using gimmicks, guys like that would stump me.</p><p> </p><p> I'd simplify gimmicks to the point of just reducing gimmicks to a rating. Remove the naming process, even. That's needless work. Let us debut and change gimmicks, etc. use a creative stat and some random factors to determine their success rate, and give them a rating.</p><p> </p><p> Like.</p><p> </p><p> AJ Styles</p><p> Current Gimmick Rating: B+</p><p> Last Tweaked: November 2018</p><p> </p><p> Or something like that. And I guess workers themselves could have input, and maybe they'd also have their own creative stat to use in the math. This would be to simulate creative cases such as Raven and Matt Hardy who have been able to create memorable gimmicks and angles on their own.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Honestly, these were similar to my first thoughts too. The more elements you remove, you more I wonder why you don't remove the whole thing? Especially with the examples given.</p><p> </p><p> My next thought: Couldn't gimmicks be treated like masks? As in, most people don't have one, but some folks (the Undertakers & Goldusts of the world) do. Some products like them. Some don't. Saves doing the work for everyone.</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

<p>Since gimmick names will be cosmetic, it would be very immersive if other cosmetic things were added related to the gimmick like theme music and entrance style.</p><p> </p><p>

For example</p><p> </p><p>

Undertaker - </p><p> </p><p>

gimmick = Deadman</p><p>

Theme = Cathedral (for lack of better definition)</p><p>

Entrance = elaborate</p>

[nerodragomir1]

<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>Probably. If you replace them with a few attributes (i.e. "Natural Comedian", etc) to highlight people who are especially good or bad and assume that anyone without an attribute can do it to a decent level then you're saving on the time it takes to fill in those stats for everybody and speeding the game up. You'd only need to retain the babyface and heel performance stats.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The fact he mentioned "attributes" makes me super excited to the idea of the game having a skill badge system. I mentioned this a while ago & I know he has made mention of it in the dev journal. But, I have wanted a skill/badge/attribute system in the game for a while now. Now I just need him to say people can earn attributes with enough time or certain elements being met. Then all heck will break loose for me!</p>

[LloydCross]

Honestly, these were similar to my first thoughts too. The more elements you remove, you more I wonder why you don't remove the whole thing? Especially with the examples given.

 

My next thought: Couldn't gimmicks be treated like masks? As in, most people don't have one, but some folks (the Undertakers & Goldusts of the world) do. Some products like them. Some don't. Saves doing the work for everyone.

 

It's been discussed on the board before, but I think you're conflating gimmicks and alter egos.

[Gregkendell86]

I love all these new features. I still have not seen anything about improving loading yet though. It is the major issue in the game. Especially when you get 6 or 7 years in the game with over 3k workers.

[TLCJR4LIFE]

I love all these new features. I still have not seen anything about improving loading yet though. It is the major issue in the game. Especially when you get 6 or 7 years in the game with over 3k workers.

 

 

The optimization can only go so far, it’s really your hardware that’s going to affect that.

[Capelli King]

i kind of like the new gimmick idea, in fact, i used something similar in my games, i would remove the gimmicks and simplify things by adding just one "wholesome", "realistic" etc gimmick in the database. This is an improvement because it will allow you to add extra parts to those gimmicks to spice them up.

 

As long as it does not take too long to pick and implement, i like the concept.

[Self]

It's been discussed on the board before, but I think you're conflating gimmicks and alter egos.

 

Correct. Intentionally so. Frankly I'm struggling to see the point of an extra stat for anything less than that. Except maybe to facilitate the feeling of 'freshening up' workers.

[soxfan93]

The more I think about it, the more I realize what are, in essence, freestyle gimmicks is something that would open everything up for me because, as Adam mentioned, it would encompass literally everything. Anything that limits data while somehow allowing for infinite possibilities sounds like an obvious win-win.

[RingRider]

Firstly, kudos to Adam and the development team for asking the forum's input on the proposal. I love that you are listening to your customers and building this new game from the ground up; rethinking and retooling nearly every feature.

 

I love the idea of exploring the concept of gimmicks getting changed-- it's something that needs and overhaul for sure.

 

While I generally like the concept I disagree with this:

 

The pros are that we get rid of the gimmick file which means far less work for database makers, and the new system is both more realistic and very flexible as it can literally account for any gimmick that could possibly exist.

 

Echoing justxyank earlier, I worry that this change will make modding more difficult. Now, rather than just pre-selecting from a list file that has existed for years in previous databases, each worker will need a gimmick tailored explicitly for them. Adding alter-ego's into the equation, and that becomes a lot of work for 2000+ workers in a database.

 

Will their be a mod tool in the editor that will allow a quick analysis of a worker and a suggested list of gimmicks pre-made to assign them?

 

Other than that concern, it seems like an idea with some merit. I think in conjunction with push/perception and whatever is on the horizon for alter-egos and masks we should have a lot more well rounded system.

[RatedRKO16]

Gimmicks are honestly a complete waste of time. I always just pretend what their gimmick is and place face/heel divides.

[cappyboy]

Find myself of two minds when it comes to this gimmick entry.

 

On the one hand, I can't deny the gimmick section needed work. The stats weren't always clear for creating new gimmicks so I found I relied mostly on what others had come up with. And I'm sure they didn't always know what they were doing but it gave me a wider range of options. Not to mention that differentiating between 5 Old School Heels wasn't particularly easy unless you had an expansive gimmick file. Which I always maintained. And did happily for the most part. After all, one could screen out gimmicks that just didn't suit a worker. So clutter was only really an issue if you allowed it to be. Or at least that was always my perspective on the matter.

 

On the other, it also kind of feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Kind of like getting rid of chained storylines was. The gimmick system may not have been perfect but as long as you weren't creating from scratch it did eliminate some overthinking. Seeing as it boiled down a side of the game people could get lost in otherwise. You found what type of gimmick the guy excelled in, found one you liked in that category and you rolled with it. With the new system, I can see people trying so hard to craft the perfect gimmick they forget to play the actual game. And as someone else mentioned, pity the poor mod makers trying to figure out what everybody's gimmick is in a character pool of multiple thousands. The way I understand this new gimmick system, it seems like it should stand alongside the current gimmick system. Or even better be part of a higher skill level. That way those who want the challenge of crafting everyone's gimmick can do so. While those it might drive to overthought and distraction could set it aside and not be troubled by it.

[Nightshadeex]

I've been hoping for a change to the gimmick system for a few iterations now. I'd end up using the same few gimmicks that worked well, because finding people to fit some of the more exotic gimmicks wasn't likely. Like many others, I ended up simplifying my gimmicks file with a face and heel version of each type.

 

I like this idea, but I would like for the categories to stick around in some way, because I liked the concept of certain types of gimmicks getting bonuses or penalties based on how they were booked.

[pate]

Absolutely love the gimmick idea.

[Rick Savant]

I only ever used Freestyle Gimmicks anyway, so this changes makes a lot of sense to me. From a game perspective, it only seems to matter if A) They're suited, B) They pulled it off, and C) If it's grown stale. Everything else is roleplay. It sounds great!

 

Will need some kind of pre-named gimmick pack for mod makers though, it would seem, since making a new gimmick for every worker in a database doesn't seem viable.

[Von Dozier]

Love the gimmicks idea, anything that makes processes more open ended and streamlined is good in my book.

[Travis]

I like the idea for the new gimmick feature. Most wrestlers today don't have much of a character like the Undertakers, Stings, Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, Road Warriors of yesteryear. So if that can make it easier and all mod makers would need to do is tick a few boxes to give a worker a general, overall character, while lesser known workers would be fine with just a default setting, it would be a perfect feature. There's only a few outlandish wrestlers these days that would really need something tailored just to them. Everyone else could easily be defined by a few traits.

[Unregistered]

An idea I have for gimmick changes. I think for when choosing the build of a gimmick for the character, a neat option would be choosing the realism type of the character. It would I think work pretty well with the idea of some things being safer then others, and others having a real chance at career long success versus something that destroys them.

 

Cartoony characters would make for one side of the slider or available options. These type of characters not only make up for most of (if not all) of WresleCrap's inductions, but also for some of the biggest names in wrestling. The Undertaker, Kane, (arguably) Mankind, Goldust, etc. I mean, for every one of them there is another larger number of just as large as failures, like The Yeti or Red Rooster's of the world.

 

The other end could be real life characters. The Dean Malenko's of the world, whom really had no character outside of himself. Sure, it wasn't the most exciting in the world, but people back in the day respected he was no-nosense in more then just a wrestling sense. There were many like that. Not alot of truly huge successes, but not many terrible failures either.

 

Depending on how you want too choose between the two, let's just say there is a slider, you could potentially get very lucky on the realism side, or get a more guaranteed safe pick. Characters like Steve Austin and Raven we're easy to see on any Action Movie or Drama at the time, they we're relate-able in a realistic way. That could also lead to people of course being boring too, which isn't great of course.

 

If this was implemented, it may also make sense to add a way to add something to Era's too allow for a modifier for the different types. Character guys we're often used and had more success today in the 80s-90s. While the attitude era ushered in a more grouping of stars. I'm not 100 percent sure this is needed, but I love the idea of more things being added to Era's as they are such a neat and under utilized feature IMO.

 

 

 

This may not be needed, but I think it may be interesting. Certainly a way of breaking things up in a risk-reward type scenario. Hope this somehow helps!

[Goliath764]

Find myself of two minds when it comes to this gimmick entry......troubled by it.

 

Yeah, I think almost identical to you in this one. I like a little bit of constraint on the gimmick, and I say this as a tRPG fan who excel in creating characters. Creating a gimmick is never a problem for me, but picking up something among the list and imagining how the wrestler runs with that gimmick and how would him be just tickles me better.

 

Also, the list also helps me identifying with the gimmicks of the wrestlers from other companies and keep me immersive. I can say wrestler A is getting hot in fed X with an Ex-Con gimmick. It directly pops an image(or more) inside my mind. This system, while more free and customizable from a gameplay mechanic perspective, doesn't enhance immersion as much IMO. I play mainly C-Verse and I want to let my imagination go wild. Having a sandbox-control gimmick system doesn't provide a lot on that.

 

I would really like for the two gimmick systems to co-exist, but I know that's just not going to happen.

[rufas2000]

I enjoyed the format of today's diary. As far as the content it seems that it is random. That you pick your level of risk and then the fate of the gimmick is in the hands of fate (fate being the game's algorithm) and the user's creativity score.

 

It also seems like mod makers could have more work ahead as they would have to create a gimmick for all the workers. A premade list could help with that.

 

With a premade list the current system and the new system could exist side by side kinda.

 

I'm not saying its a bad idea, it just seems that this is based on luck / chance. The current system at least means that the user has to take into account the product they have and the skills of the worker, even if its really easy.

 

There just isn't a way to replicate the real life process of gimmick creation (creating a character) in the game. It can't account for cultural fads / norms and such and that's a big part of what makes gimmicks work or not. In the game its always going to be a balance between simple stat analysis and luck.

[EBEZA]

Couldn't gimmicks be treated like masks? As in, most people don't have one, but some folks (the Undertakers & Goldusts of the world) do. Some products like them. Some don't. Saves doing the work for everyone.

 

I love this idea. So Undertaker would have a "gimmick," whereas Stone Cold barely did (unless beer-drinker counts as a gimmick?), but both still managed to get mega over because they're great performers.

 

It's been discussed on the board before, but I think you're conflating gimmicks and alter egos.

 

I think the two can be separate. Same as one alter ego can wear a mask and another doesn't, couldn't one alter ego (eg. Deadman Undertaker) have a gimmick, and the other not (eg. ABA Undertaker)?

 

I like the idea for the new gimmick feature. Most wrestlers today don't have much of a character like the Undertakers, Stings, Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, Road Warriors of yesteryear.

 

While I agree with the generalisation that today has fewer outlandish gimmicks, I find these choices of examples interesting. Undertaker obviously had/has a gimmick, but Sting was just "old school babyface" who happens to wear facepaint (until his Crow gimmick, anyway), Flair was just old school/arrogant heel, Hogan was old school face with a bit of patriot thrown in when the heel was foreign, and the Road Warriors were just Power & Paint, pretty much identical to The Ultimate Warrior. The real "gimmicks" IMO were the likes of Dr Isaac Yankem, Repo Man, Big Bossman (first time round), etc: clearly defined as "this guy's a dentist, this one's... erm… a repo man..." etc

 

With a premade list the current system and the new system could exist side by side kinda.

 

I would really like for the two gimmick systems to co-exist, but I know that's just not going to happen.

 

I would also like to see a combination of the two systems: a list as already exists combined with a more flexible "new" system for those who want to create their own gimmicks.

[christmas_ape]

I initially responded positively about the change, and I think I stick by that.

 

But would this mean the end of gimmick types and their affect in popularity changes? I.E A comedy gimmick takes less of a hit from losing but can't be too high up the card.

 

Also would it then mean the end of gimmick rating stats? I like the idea of gimmicks being a lot more free and open but hopefully it's doesn't strip the mechanic too bare bones. I could be completely misunderstanding the changes but I'd hope if you want a cocky gimmick (which off the top of my head I think gains pop faster with wins but also loses it faster with loses) then there's still some limit as to who can successfully play it. Especially with other types like comedy or brute it's obvious that some people could simply never successfully play it.