TEW2020 Discussion Thread

[TLCJR4LIFE]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Matt_Black" data-cite="Matt_Black" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>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.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Hogan was unquestionably a heel. He just got a babyface reaction because he’s Hulk Hogan</p>

[TLCJR4LIFE]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hive" data-cite="Hive" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yes, exactly.<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></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> There’s no such thing as copyrighting a gimmick.</p><p> If the Undertaker left WWE all he would need to do is stop calling himself The Undertaker.</p><p> </p><p> He could probably even go by Deadman or something similar.</p><p> We’ve seen this with Matt Hardy’s “Woken” character, they were originally going to buy the Broken Matt persona from TNA but after it stalled just literally fudged some letters around in the name and that was that.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Basically the only exception I can think of this is Goldust but that’s only because of the implied colors in the name and when he works elsewhere he uses a similar outfit but different colors.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="tambourin81" data-cite="tambourin81" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>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> </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></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> Honestly agree. That new feature is quite rank to be honest. It’s basically having your cake and eating it too. Currently companies that don’t use splits have access to much wider booking and gimmick possibilities, but they also lose access to turns, which are EXTREMELY powerful in TEW due to resetting negative momentum entirely. </p><p> </p><p> It’s an amazing economy system I found 100 percent worth using babyfaces and heels, now? Why would I ever set my product to have strict split other than roleplaying purposes?</p><p> </p><p> There needs to be some sort of mechanical balance and not just done to appease a vocal minority or to simulate some nice wrestling products.</p><p> </p><p> I hate features that dumb down and marginalize the strategy elements of the game. It’s also sort of ironic that while changes were made to go out of their way to stop like a handful dudes on the forum who constantly brag about playing the game in a ridiculous manner (the new stat gain formula) features like this get announced which basically just arbitrarily take penalties away from you</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TLCJR4LIFE" data-cite="TLCJR4LIFE" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There’s no such thing as copyrighting a gimmick.<p> If the Undertaker left WWE all he would need to do is stop calling himself The Undertaker.</p><p> </p><p> He could probably even go by Deadman or something similar.</p><p> We’ve seen this with Matt Hardy’s “Woken” character, they were originally going to buy the Broken Matt persona from TNA but after it stalled just literally fudged some letters around in the name and that was that.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Basically the only exception I can think of this is Goldust but that’s only because of the implied colors in the name and when he works elsewhere he uses a similar outfit but different colors.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Honestly agree. That new feature is quite rank to be honest. It’s basically having your cake and eating it too. Currently companies that don’t use splits have access to much wider booking and gimmick possibilities, but they also lose access to turns, which are EXTREMELY powerful in TEW due to resetting negative momentum entirely. </p><p> </p><p> It’s an amazing economy system I found 100 percent worth using babyfaces and heels, now? Why would I ever set my product to have strict split other than roleplaying purposes?</p><p> </p><p> There needs to be some sort of mechanical balance and not just done to appease a vocal minority or to simulate some nice wrestling products.</p><p> </p><p> I hate features that dumb down and marginalize the strategy elements of the game. It’s also sort of ironic that while changes were made to go out of their way to stop like a handful dudes on the forum who constantly brag about playing the game in a ridiculous manner (the new stat gain formula) features like this get announced which basically just arbitrarily take penalties away from you</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That’s my point. Same gimmick, different character. You can’t copyright a “gimmick” but you can copyright a character...</p><p> </p><p> “Deadman” wouldn’t carry much of a house hold name as “The Undertaker” not to mention that “Deadman” wouldn’t have the iconic theme music.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I agree with the new disposition feature, it’s great but it’s should definitely come with a risk/reward because otherwise why even set your company to have a strong face/heel divide? There should be a slight bonus for face vs heel in those companies IMO.</p><p> </p><p> I’m also not a fan of the sliders. What is the difference between setting the disposition to 50 and 49?</p>

[Teh_Showtime]

<p>Would it be as simple as just weakening the benefit of turns for companies who already have faces and heels fighting all the time anyways? </p><p> </p><p>

That way they can’t get a big momentum bonus simply for turning and still fighting the same guys they would have regardless, but it’d take a whole retooling to gain the max effect (like a new gimmick).</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Teh_Showtime" data-cite="Teh_Showtime" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Would it be as simple as just weakening the benefit of turns for companies who already have faces and heels fighting all the time anyways? <p> </p><p> That way they can’t get a big momentum bonus simply for turning and still fighting the same guys they would have regardless, but it’d take a whole retooling to gain the max effect (like a new gimmick).</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That’s a good idea.</p>

[TLCJR4LIFE]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Teh_Showtime" data-cite="Teh_Showtime" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Would it be as simple as just weakening the benefit of turns for companies who already have faces and heels fighting all the time anyways? <p> </p><p> That way they can’t get a big momentum bonus simply for turning and still fighting the same guys they would have regardless, but it’d take a whole retooling to gain the max effect (like a new gimmick).</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> Then it’s just mechanically worse than no split at all.</p><p> </p><p> Honestly the feature doesn’t really need to exist. </p><p> </p><p> Same disposition gets penalized because that’s how it’s worked in wrestling for the last 80 years.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> The match will just have less heat. And the thing is A company like New Japan in TEW terms is often set to not use a split when they absolutely use villainous characters, they just have a good ring product and frequently blur the lines. It’s not like the penalty is huge, I do same disposition all the time in my midcard just to fill out the card or sometimes when a storyline calls for it “Mentor vs Protege for example”. </p><p> </p><p> So what I’ll get an 88 instead of a 92? Big deal.</p>

[Teh_Showtime]

I’ve long said I thought the game conflated a face/heel divide with using faces and heels at all. Just because good/evil characters exist doesn’t mean they are naturally restricted to who they fight.

[SirMichaelJordan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TLCJR4LIFE" data-cite="TLCJR4LIFE" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Then it’s just mechanically worse than no split at all.<p> </p><p> Honestly the feature doesn’t really need to exist. </p><p> </p><p> Same disposition gets penalized because that’s how it’s worked in wrestling for the last 80 years.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> The match will just have less heat. And the thing is A company like New Japan in TEW terms is often set to not use a split when they absolutely use villainous characters, they just have a good ring product and frequently blur the lines. It’s not like the penalty is huge, I do same disposition all the time in my midcard just to fill out the card or sometimes when a storyline calls for it “Mentor vs Protege for example”. </p><p> </p><p> So what I’ll get an 88 instead of a 92? Big deal.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I’m with you but it’s implemented and It is a feature that was requested a lot. So i think it’s here to stay. Better to try to improve it.</p>

[Matt_Black]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Henderson" data-cite="Henderson" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>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> 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></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> On the other hand, seeing who has neutral chemistry is a quick way to know what combinations you've already tried. And going through the match history can be a slog.</p>

[Hive]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TLCJR4LIFE" data-cite="TLCJR4LIFE" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There’s no such thing as copyrighting a gimmick.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's extremely incorrect. Do a search for why WWF sued - and won against - WCW for having Scott Hall use parts of his Razor Ramon gimmick for his persona in WCW.</p>

[TeemuFoundation]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hive" data-cite="Hive" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That's extremely incorrect. Do a search for why WWF sued - and won against - WCW for having Scott Hall use parts of his Razor Ramon gimmick for his persona in WCW.</div></blockquote><p> They won?</p>

[Kiheiji]

NJPW doesn't get away with face vs face because "The product is too good!", lmao. People are expected to see everyone fight anyone, because that's traditionally been the case. That's where the new feature should factor in, without having to completely turn off dispositions or else they get penalized for something people IRL expect from them.

[shawn michaels]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Teh_Showtime" data-cite="Teh_Showtime" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I’ve long said I thought the game conflated a face/heel divide with using faces and heels at all. Just because good/evil characters exist doesn’t mean they are naturally restricted to who they fight.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> While your statement is correct, it isn't all black and white. Yes, face vs face and heel vs heel can still become classics, as long as well booked and the characters are red hot, etc, but it is much more easier to pit good vs bad and it's always been wrestling at its core. A feature that reflects those shades of grey seems great, it just needs some tweaking.</p>

[kito333]

I like the idea of the new face heel divide. I play late 90’s mods a lot and at the time WWF had a soft enforcement of heel/face. Austin was a face doing terrible things all the time. He acted heelish weekly. He even had his “Don’t trust anybody” catchphrase and often backed it up by fighting other faces or stunnering everyone no matter if they were viewed as faces like him or not. The crowd loved it! I think this also allows for swerve turns that the WWF did a lot back then. We can have a face act like a heel or viceversa and not be forced to turn them to make it realistic. I always play Attitude Era WWF with no divide and now this gives me a chance to have a divide with a lot of wiggle room.

[Historian]

<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>They won?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think technically they settled, but it's why WCW had to modify the NWO and personas slightly.</p>

[shawn michaels]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Historian" data-cite="Historian" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think technically they settled, but it's why WCW had to modify the NWO and personas slightly.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yep, it was settled, mainly because WWE was legally in the right and WCW settled instead of outright losing. Curiously enough, the terms of the settlement were what facilitated WCW's acquisition in 2001, as one of the terms of said settlement gave WWE the right to bid on WCW's assets if the company was liquidated. Which it was...and the rest is history.</p>

[Hive]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels" data-cite="shawn michaels" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yep, it was settled, mainly because WWE was legally in the right and WCW settled instead of outright losing.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Well, sort of. That's what WCW believed at the time, but it has since been uncovered that some of the mannerisms WWF accused WCW of stealing from the Razor Ramon persona was actually something Scott Hall used back in his first WCW run as well. Noone just bothered to dig into that at the time...</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Curiously enough, the terms of the settlement were what facilitated WCW's acquisition in 2001, as one of the terms of said settlement gave WWE the right to bid on WCW's assets if the company was liquidated. Which it was...and the rest is history.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Nah that's not why McMahon could buy it. McMahon could buy it pure and simple because Fusion Media, whom together with Bischoff was poised to buy it, withdrew their offer. McMahon was then the only interested party left. He first bought the trademark and logo and afterwards the TV library, in two separate deals.</p>

[shawn michaels]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hive" data-cite="Hive" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Well, sort of. That's what WCW believed at the time, but it has since been uncovered that some of the mannerisms WWF accused WCW of stealing from the Razor Ramon persona was actually something Scott Hall used back in his first WCW run as well. Noone just bothered to dig into that at the time...</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Interesting. I had never heard that part before, or at least not that I remember. So they didn't even bother to dig into something he did there initially in some way or form? Damn, WCW was destined for failure. <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hive" data-cite="Hive" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Nah that's not why McMahon could buy it. McMahon could buy it pure and simple because Fusion Media, whom together with Bischoff was poised to buy it, withdrew their offer. McMahon was then the only interested party left. He first bought the trademark and logo and afterwards the TV library, in two separate deals.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, the Fusion Media Venture stuff fell through, with Eric, but from what I've heard, the actual terms of the settlement facilitated the buy in itself, even if at the time Vince was the only interested part left. If it's accurate or not, that's probably another story, but it has been acknowledged by many through the years. Now I don't know exactly the terms of the settlement, so I can't be sure if it was a reduced price on those bidding rights or something like that. If it wasn't the case, then i guess it's just one of those common misconceptions regarding WCW.</p>

[TLCJR4LIFE]

That's extremely incorrect. Do a search for why WWF sued - and won against - WCW for having Scott Hall use parts of his Razor Ramon gimmick for his persona in WCW.

 

It’s not even a little bit incorrect.

 

First of all they never “won” in court, there was an out of court settlement years later when WCW was going out of business.

 

Secondly the main part of the suit was that Nash and Hal’s gimmick as outsiders implied they were working on behalf or were affiliated with the WWE, and WWE challenged the usage of Nash and Hall as a whole because they felt it reflected poorly on them.

 

Basically it was literally a slander case, the Razor stuff was a throw in that never would hold up in court and never has.

 

 

NJPW doesn't get away with face vs face because "The product is too good!", lmao. People are expected to see everyone fight anyone, because that's traditionally been the case. That's where the new feature should factor in, without having to completely turn off dispositions or else they get penalized for something people IRL expect from them.

 

 

They’ve also failed to overtake WWE despite WWE being garbage for a decades so I don’t think that’s the issue at all.

 

Realistically in TEW terms NJPW wouldn’t grade neither as well as smarks make it out to be.

 

Secondly their big money draws have been villainous stables who face local heroes so clearly that formula still works for them.

 

 

Furthermore I really could care less at this point because if it doesn’t make mechanical sense it shouldn’t be in a wrestling simulator.

[Hive]

It’s not even a little bit incorrect.

 

First of all they never “won” in court, there was an out of court settlement years later when WCW was going out of business.

 

Secondly the main part of the suit was that Nash and Hal’s gimmick as outsiders implied they were working on behalf or were affiliated with the WWE, and WWE challenged the usage of Nash and Hall as a whole because they felt it reflected poorly on them.

 

Basically it was literally a slander case, the Razor stuff was a throw in that never would hold up in court and never has.

 

Sure, WCW settled - by giving in to WWF's demands, because WCW believed that they actually did violate WWF's trademarks.

 

They previously changed John Tenta's name and gimmick from Earthquake-esque Avalanche to The Shark for the same reasons, as WWF threated legal action. And Ray Traylor had to drop his "The Boss" gimmick in WCW, being too similar his WWF Big Bossman name and gimmick.

[Kiheiji]

They’ve also failed to overtake WWE despite WWE being garbage for a decades so I don’t think that’s the issue at all.

 

Uh, no correlation? IMO AJPW currently has a better product than NJPW, but that has nothing to do with being the number one company in Japan.

Realistically in TEW terms NJPW wouldn’t grade neither as well as smarks make it out to be.

 

I'm talking about the Japanese fans being familiar with NJPW for decades. What that has to do with OmegaElite4Life who started watching in 2017 is beyond me.

Secondly their big money draws have been villainous stables who face local heroes so clearly that formula still works for them.

I didn't say they have no faces or heels (It's in the first sentence!). I said that everyone is expected to fight anyone that it's a bit silly to penalize them for booking, like, Jay White vs Minoru Suzuki because they're both bad guys. That's why I think it's nice that we could set the levels of face/heel restrictions, instead of simply either having one or not at all.

 

Furthermore I really could care less at this point because if it doesn’t make mechanical sense it shouldn’t be in a wrestling simulator.

Huh?

[codey_v2]

Catching up on several pages of updates, and one of the features I'm beyond stoked for is the tournament tracker. I'm running a round robin tournament in my game right now, and tracking it on excel is a bit of a pain since I inevitably forget to mark down someone's win or loss once my sheet starts filling out. Having the game track it for me is going to be amazing since I run this tournament yearly.

[dpoolez]

Catching up on several pages of updates, and one of the features I'm beyond stoked for is the tournament tracker. I'm running a round robin tournament in my game right now, and tracking it on excel is a bit of a pain since I inevitably forget to mark down someone's win or loss once my sheet starts filling out. Having the game track it for me is going to be amazing since I run this tournament yearly.

 

I agree completely

 

I've shied away from tournaments in TEW, especially round robins because I'd have a hard time being consistent with maintaining it.

 

With an in game tournament tracker, I can run tournaments a lot easier than before so I won't mind doing them more.

[TLCJR4LIFE]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hive" data-cite="Hive" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Sure, WCW settled - by giving in to WWF's demands, because WCW believed that they actually did violate WWF's trademarks.<p> </p><p> They previously changed John Tenta's name and gimmick from Earthquake-esque Avalanche to The Shark for the same reasons, as WWF threated legal action. And Ray Traylor had to drop his "The Boss" gimmick in WCW, being too similar his WWF Big Bossman name and gimmick.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> No they didn’t, they settled years later after using the gimmick for years. They settled because it made sense time and money wise to do so, same as any other reason. </p><p> </p><p> Lawsuits are expensive and time consuming, there is no actual legal precedent for the trademark of a gimmick. </p><p> The idea and concept as a whole is asinine, would be the equivalent of Dc suing everyone who made a character with Super Speed because it’s too similar to the Flash.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Pro wrestling companies own ring names, that’s basically it, and even that can be skirted around legally. See Warrior.</p>

[Hive]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TLCJR4LIFE" data-cite="TLCJR4LIFE" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>No they didn’t, they settled years later after using the gimmick for years. They settled because it made sense time and money wise to do so, same as any other reason. <p> </p><p> Lawsuits are expensive and time consuming, there is no actual legal precedent for the trademark of a gimmick. </p><p> The idea and concept as a whole is asinine, would be the equivalent of Dc suing everyone who made a character with Super Speed because it’s too similar to the Flash.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Pro wrestling companies own ring names, that’s basically it, and even that can be skirted around legally. See Warrior.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Wow, you simply can't accept being wrong. Are you by any chance a flat-earther?</p><p> </p><p> First of all, you are wrong in regards to Scott Hall; WCW had him tweak his mannerisms and speak pattern pretty much as soon as the lawsuit hit. Look it up.</p><p> </p><p> Secondly, you very conveniently skipped my other examples. <img alt=":rolleyes:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/rolleyes.png.4b097f4fbbe99ce5bcd5efbc1b773ed6.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> The fact that you think it's stupid that a company cannown a gimmick, and not just the name, does not change how the real life works.</p>