Public Beta Reaction Thread

[nerodragomir1]

Click on their name on your roster page (I play with colored lists, so it's yellow for me). That brings up their worker page. You should see check boxes of all of the roles they can do for you. Uncheck any roles you don't want them to do there and you should be good to go.

 

Okay that makes sense. Thank you sir!

[nerodragomir1]

Actually there is an alternative, EWR is one that comes to mind, Journey of Wrestling a great alternative, and it's free too, even Universe Mode and GM Mode on WWE Games is a fine alternative.

 

Universe mode is not a good alternative! I'll have to check out the others, J.O.W is something I don't think I've heard suggested before. Also you could always stick with 2016. I personally can't go back, but that's a ME problem.

[Historian]

Okay that makes sense. Thank you sir!

 

You’re welcome. And I think that the reason it got changed to check boxes was so that you and the AI could have people fill multiple roles. You can have them be a road agent and an active wrestler on your roster (they just can’t agent their own matches) and you don’t have to change their push or role during a show to get that to happen.

[awesomenessofme1]

Here's my question as I've seen several people comment about the short matches thing and in my playing, it didn't bother me because that's how I would have booked the company anyway. What's inherently wrong with having a company where its fans say "we want short matches and the show to keep moving?" I can fully understand anyone not wanting to USE that product but I don't know why that product existing in a company is a bad thing as a whole even if it isi not how you want to book them.

 

The issue isn't that it exists, it's that it's applied to products where it doesn't make sense. It means that a WWE-style company can't book a Royal Rumble style match because they'd get massive penalties, even though that's been one of their signature matches for decades.

[miamarsden]

Something that we have realized in Discord is that we don't have the ability to set tournament titles. This was important because it let the ai book tournaments accurately. Is this something that can be patched in?

[Skummy]

It doesn't mean WWE can't book a Royal Rumble, though, it just means that you have to be careful how you present the Royal Rumble.

 

There are going to be drawbacks, because it's a 60 minute+ match. So your job as the booker is to ensure that the positives of the match outweigh the negatives - enough talented workers, enough star power, the right road agent notes to make it a good match regardless of any penalties it incurs.

 

Because for the most part, Royal Rumble matches aren't great matches - they're poor, average, or good matches punctuated by good moments. It takes a ton of skill to make a Royal Rumble great for the entire duration, and I'd say WWE have only managed that a handful of times.

 

 

It's also a strange choice to use as an example of the new product settings penalising WWE for long matches, because in TEW 2016 I can't imagine many mod makers were using the product settings to say that WWE's audience would expect a 60 minute PPV match either.

[tryker2710]

Here's my question as I've seen several people comment about the short matches thing and in my playing, it didn't bother me because that's how I would have booked the company anyway. What's inherently wrong with having a company where its fans say "we want short matches and the show to keep moving?" I can fully understand anyone not wanting to USE that product but I don't know why that product existing in a company is a bad thing as a whole even if it isi not how you want to book them.

 

The biggest problem with the system is that it doesnt know what it's rating. I ran a match between my Major Star top champion and an unknown Young Lion and got dinged for for not giving it long enough as "an important match"? Are you telling me at any point the New Japan fans are going to turn on a match featuring a young lion for not going 20 minutes?

 

I dont think the system itself is inherently bad but it needs some major tweaking, or giving the user the ability to state what is or isnt an important match. Because as it stands it's just a limiter on what you can do, feels like we're being put in a box with regards to what we can book and doesnt provide any actual positives it just detracts when you move away from the rigid formula set out for you by the game.

[MainOffender]

Here's my question as I've seen several people comment about the short matches thing and in my playing, it didn't bother me because that's how I would have booked the company anyway. What's inherently wrong with having a company where its fans say "we want short matches and the show to keep moving?" I can fully understand anyone not wanting to USE that product but I don't know why that product existing in a company is a bad thing as a whole even if it isi not how you want to book them.

 

The thing about the Royal Rumble has already been pointed out to you. Hopefully that kind of match can be given an exemption for the length. Your question isn't really fair, though, because the point is people DO want to use those specific products. The length penalties are attached to some of the most common products for WWE -- Attitude Entertainment and PG Rated Sports Entertainment. Now, I think these penalties are fair/accurate (expect in a fringe case like the Royal Rumble) but that's why people are complaining.

[daddytorgo1]

The issue isn't that it exists, it's that it's applied to products where it doesn't make sense. It means that a WWE-style company can't book a Royal Rumble style match because they'd get massive penalties, even though that's been one of their signature matches for decades.

 

This. I booked a "Hell In a Cell" 3-way between Valiant, Remo, and Rogue to end their storyline last night. It ended up in the 60's. I booked the exact same match (time and everything) as a regular Cage match and it got an 85.

[Owen Rey]

I know many dislike the booking screen, but is it completely turning anyone else off from the game? Want to love this game but this is the most important screen in the game and it's so much. harder to use than last year. The individual arrows for each line item is a pain, makes booking big shows with 20+ segments a pain in the ass, which happen to be really the only shows that I book. And I hate "add match" screen, where you select it on the left and then everything is in the same window, and road agent notes can't be changed to new style. It's just all a pain imo

[stonecold285]

The thing about the Royal Rumble has already been pointed out to you. Hopefully that kind of match can be given an exemption for the length. Your question isn't really fair, though, because the point is people DO want to use those specific products. The length penalties are attached to some of the most common products for WWE -- Attitude Entertainment and PG Rated Sports Entertainment. Now, I think these penalties are fair/accurate (expect in a fringe case like the Royal Rumble) but that's why people are complaining.

 

That, and Iron Man Match

[MainOffender]

This. I booked a "Hell In a Cell" 3-way between Valiant, Remo, and Rogue to end their storyline last night. It ended up in the 60's. I booked the exact same match (time and everything) as a regular Cage match and it got an 85.

 

This most likely had to do with your injury risk settings on the match type you chose/created. For SWF, they need to be set as Average. It's possible to create a tame version of a Steel Cell match for them with Average injury risk. You should test this and report back. I don't think it's a problem with the product.

 

That, and Iron Man Match

 

See, I disagree. Iron Man matches in Attitude or PG era products should be dinged for length because they are BORING. Now, book the right people in it, and you'll overcome those penalties with bonuses. Users should be weighing these pros/cons when booking a match like that.

[Kid Socrates]

Does Match Prestige have any effect on those types of penalties? Like, a generic 10-Man Battle Royale that goes 50 minutes could get dinged with its typical prestige total, but the "Very High" prestige for the Royal Rumble (as defined in the match type/match creator) would make up for that because this is an Event. It's still possible for the match to drag, of course, and that wouldn't guarantee a great rating, but it would mitigate that expectation for the fans.

 

(I don't actually know what match prestige does, so I can drop this in suggestions as well.)

[Skummy]

Users should be weighing these pros/cons when booking a match like that.

 

Exactly!

 

The penalties aren't there to be restrictive, they're there to present a realistic challenge when booking matches outside of a promotion's "comfort zone".

 

The WWE shouldn't be able to book 60 minute matches without consequence, because a WWE audience would never expect nor enjoy that. If a 60 minute match does happen, it's the exception rather than the rule, and you would hope that they would be smart enough to only book them between wrestlers capable of putting on a match good enough that the positives outweigh the negatives of the penalty.

 

 

I get a real sense that some people don't understand that "penalises" doesn't mean that the match gets the lowest possible rating, or that there's no reason you should ever book it, it's just a problem you have to work around. A lot of the examples being given as presenting issues under the current product setting would have presented the same problems playing as the WWE on any scenario I've ever played on TEW 2016 with custom product settings, as not one mod maker would have made WWE open to 60 minute matches, or to extremely violent hardcore matches.

 

That wouldn't make sense in-game, and it's reflective of reality. As a booker/promoter, you have a reasonable understanding of what your audience will expect, and any time you deviate that you would rightly expect a degree of risk, and if you're a good booker or promoter would only deviate from that expectation if you knew you were able to deliver.

[Blackman]

See, I disagree. Iron Man matches in Attitude or PG era products should be dinged for length because they are BORING.

 

I don't think it's something you can agree or disagree on. It's effectively boring in that product to a multitude of fans. I love me the occasional ROH iron man, but in WWE it's just not going to work. Sure, I remember Angle vs Brock, but that was pretty far from an A match and was 5x less exciting as their regular matches. So a 70 rating for that seems about right, though I have no idea how good the match was back then.

 

But to have 25% difference in rating because of a match gimmick change (especially that one) seems really suspicious. It's not like it was a B&P match... (that I'm sure Remo would've aced!)

 

Actually there is an alternative, EWR is one that comes to mind, Journey of Wrestling a great alternative, and it's free too, even Universe Mode and GM Mode on WWE Games is a fine alternative.

 

Thanks for making me chuckle. Promotion Wars was deeper than the f'n GM Mode in WWE games. XD

[tryker2710]

Okay I'm going to give what I feel is my most controversial take on this, and feel free to disagree with me but ultimately its what I feel about my least favourite mechanics from 16 AND 20.

 

I feel oftentimes Adam adds mechanics to the game for the sake of "realism" or "challenge" and not actually because they make the game more fun to play. Yes these restrictions are "realistic" but does that make them inherently more fun? Maybe for some people but at the same time like I've before it feels increasingly like Adam wants us to play his Sandbox Wrestling Simulator the way he likes rather than yknow like a sandbox.

[MainOffender]

Exactly!

 

The penalties aren't there to be restrictive, they're there to present a realistic challenge when booking matches outside of a promotion's "comfort zone".

 

The WWE shouldn't be able to book 60 minute matches without consequence, because a WWE audience would never expect nor enjoy that. If a 60 minute match does happen, it's the exception rather than the rule, and you would hope that they would be smart enough to only book them between wrestlers capable of putting on a match good enough that the positives outweigh the negatives of the penalty.

 

 

I get a real sense that some people don't understand that "penalises" doesn't mean that the match gets the lowest possible rating, or that there's no reason you should ever book it, it's just a problem you have to work around. A lot of the examples being given as presenting issues under the current product setting would have presented the same problems playing as the WWE on any scenario I've ever played on TEW 2016 with custom product settings, as not one mod maker would have made WWE open to 60 minute matches, or to extremely violent hardcore matches.

 

That wouldn't make sense in-game, and it's reflective of reality. As a booker/promoter, you have a reasonable understanding of what your audience will expect, and any time you deviate that you would rightly expect a degree of risk, and if you're a good booker or promoter would only deviate from that expectation if you knew you were able to deliver.

 

Not to harp on something that I already made a massive thread about, but I think TEW players in general are too frightened of getting penalties. But -- at the same time -- the way the Products are presented feels more punitive than fun.

 

But yeah, totally agree with the expectations for WWE-style booking.

[Historian]

The thing about the Royal Rumble has already been pointed out to you. Hopefully that kind of match can be given an exemption for the length. Your question isn't really fair, though, because the point is people DO want to use those specific products. The length penalties are attached to some of the most common products for WWE -- Attitude Entertainment and PG Rated Sports Entertainment. Now, I think these penalties are fair/accurate (expect in a fringe case like the Royal Rumble) but that's why people are complaining.

 

I understand that. I do understand that people don't like the length penalties for those like the Rumble, but Skummy pointed out that Rumble matches aren't really ever great, they are usually average matches. Outside of maybe three or four Rumbles I've seen in history, I don't know if I'd have given any of them a rating that wasn't in the 70s.

 

As for match lengths for WWE related products.

 

In 2018, the average match on Raw was under nine minutes in length. In 1999, at the height of the Attitude area, the average match was under five minutes in length.

 

At Elimination Chamber of 2020, there were 8 matches that used 115:01 time on the show. That's just over an average match time of 14 minutes for a Pay Per View match.

 

The Royal Rumble this year had eight matches -- two of which were Rumble matches. The other six matches combined for 91:35 for an average length of just over 15 minutes.

 

The classic sports entertainment template that SWF uses is perfectly in line with these ratios.

 

USPW is supposed to be late 80's WWF and they use "Family Friendly Pro Wrestling" and they also seem to be in line with this. The outlier matches that go longer (and there are some) have to be good to hold the fans attention. That's not incongruent with actual wrestling.

 

This year's Wrestlemania had two matches that topped 20 minutes -- Charlotte and Rhea Ripley that went 20:30 and the Edge-Randy Orton match that 36:35 (and was almost universally panned as not being a great match).

 

The total match time for both nights of Wrestlemania was 232:35. There were 19 matches across the two nights which still gives us an average match length of just over 12 minutes.

 

I think the match length caps are perfectly in line with how WWE presents their product. The fans expect a certain kind of average match length and if you go over that, you have to do a good job to hold their attention. It has to have stars who are working hard, etc.

[Bull]

Has anyone actually tried to book a Rumble style match in those product types to see what kind of penalty you'd get out of curiosity. . ??

[daddytorgo1]

This most likely had to do with your injury risk settings on the match type you chose/created. For SWF, they need to be set as Average. It's possible to create a tame version of a Steel Cell match for them with Average injury risk. You should test this and report back. I don't think it's a problem with the product.

 

I'll definitely give that a shot. I bet you're right. Because that's what I was kind of hoping for actually, a less injury-risky "Hell In a Cell" type setup. Just visually, i wanted the cell rather than the cage, since all my storyline evolution had basically involved various run-ins.

[Historian]

My previous post forgot my late 80's WWF numbers.

 

Summerslam 1989 had 92:22 of action spread across 9 matches for an average match time of just over 10 minutes.

 

Wrestlemania V had 186:02 worth of match time across 14 matches for an average match time of just over 13 minutes.

 

Neither of those shows had matches over 20 minutes in length.

 

I point these out to say that I think the match length times are accurate to what the products are trying to replicate. Obviously there is some subjectivity and I understand that that still won't make people happy, but it is not as if the times aren't realistic to what was actually being produced by the products they are trying to replicate [when looking at averages]

[MainOffender]

I understand that. I do understand that people don't like the length penalties for those like the Rumble, but Skummy pointed out that Rumble matches aren't really ever great, they are usually average matches. Outside of maybe three or four Rumbles I've seen in history, I don't know if I'd have given any of them a rating that wasn't in the 70s.

 

As for match lengths for WWE related products.

 

In 2018, the average match on Raw was under nine minutes in length. In 1999, at the height of the Attitude area, the average match was under five minutes in length.

 

At Elimination Chamber of 2020, there were 8 matches that used 115:01 time on the show. That's just over an average match time of 14 minutes for a Pay Per View match.

 

The Royal Rumble this year had eight matches -- two of which were Rumble matches. The other six matches combined for 91:35 for an average length of just over 15 minutes.

 

The classic sports entertainment template that SWF uses is perfectly in line with these ratios.

 

USPW is supposed to be late 80's WWF and they use "Family Friendly Pro Wrestling" and they also seem to be in line with this. The outlier matches that go longer (and there are some) have to be good to hold the fans attention. That's not incongruent with actual wrestling.

 

This year's Wrestlemania had two matches that topped 20 minutes -- Charlotte and Rhea Ripley that went 20:30 and the Edge-Randy Orton match that 36:35 (and was almost universally panned as not being a great match).

 

The total match time for both nights of Wrestlemania was 232:35. There were 19 matches across the two nights which still gives us an average match length of just over 12 minutes.

 

I think the match length caps are perfectly in line with how WWE presents their product. The fans expect a certain kind of average match length and if you go over that, you have to do a good job to hold their attention. It has to have stars who are working hard, etc.

 

I agree with all of this and, to reiterate, think the issue with match length is more centered around user psychology than accurate simulation.

 

That said, the Royal Rumble is a weird beast because, while you're right that it's rarely "a good match" (although, uh, I loved this year's?), it's the highlight of the wrestling calendar for a lot of fans. I think that prestige/excitement can be reflected in other ways, but I understand why people might find that length penalty hard to stomach. On a realism level, fans don't complain that the Rumble is too long.

[nerodragomir1]

I understand that. I do understand that people don't like the length penalties for those like the Rumble, but Skummy pointed out that Rumble matches aren't really ever great, they are usually average matches. Outside of maybe three or four Rumbles I've seen in history, I don't know if I'd have given any of them a rating that wasn't in the 70s.

 

As for match lengths for WWE related products.

 

In 2018, the average match on Raw was under nine minutes in length. In 1999, at the height of the Attitude area, the average match was under five minutes in length.

 

At Elimination Chamber of 2020, there were 8 matches that used 115:01 time on the show. That's just over an average match time of 14 minutes for a Pay Per View match.

 

The Royal Rumble this year had eight matches -- two of which were Rumble matches. The other six matches combined for 91:35 for an average length of just over 15 minutes.

 

The classic sports entertainment template that SWF uses is perfectly in line with these ratios.

 

USPW is supposed to be late 80's WWF and they use "Family Friendly Pro Wrestling" and they also seem to be in line with this. The outlier matches that go longer (and there are some) have to be good to hold the fans attention. That's not incongruent with actual wrestling.

 

This year's Wrestlemania had two matches that topped 20 minutes -- Charlotte and Rhea Ripley that went 20:30 and the Edge-Randy Orton match that 36:35 (and was almost universally panned as not being a great match).

 

The total match time for both nights of Wrestlemania was 232:35. There were 19 matches across the two nights which still gives us an average match length of just over 12 minutes.

 

I think the match length caps are perfectly in line with how WWE presents their product. The fans expect a certain kind of average match length and if you go over that, you have to do a good job to hold their attention. It has to have stars who are working hard, etc.

 

These are all great points! I'm personally fine with the match/angle ratios & match lengths. Although the fact WM had like almost 40 matches over 2 nights is scary! I knew I passed on this year's WM for a reason.

[moafnsteel]

This. I booked a "Hell In a Cell" 3-way between Valiant, Remo, and Rogue to end their storyline last night. It ended up in the 60's. I booked the exact same match (time and everything) as a regular Cage match and it got an 85.

 

I ran a test - Valiant vs Rogue in a default Steel Cage and got a 54 - I ran it again with creating a new match and only changing the injury to average and got a 78. In other tests run a 78 is about what I get during a standard match between those two. Just wanted to point that out, as I agree that it is the injury risk that is dinging it.

[TOTKingNothing]

This most likely had to do with your injury risk settings on the match type you chose/created. For SWF, they need to be set as Average. It's possible to create a tame version of a Steel Cell match for them with Average injury risk. You should test this and report back. I don't think it's a problem with the product.

 

 

 

See, I disagree. Iron Man matches in Attitude or PG era products should be dinged for length because they are BORING. Now, book the right people in it, and you'll overcome those penalties with bonuses. Users should be weighing these pros/cons when booking a match like that.

 

The problem you run into here is that sometimes it’s not just a penalty being applied, but sometimes it’s the tag that a match will just have a hard cap on the rating it can achieve period. Like if you put your best workers in your hottest angle in a match that goes against your usual product setting, you should be able to overcome the penalties at least SOME of the time.

 

But you can’t. Some of these settings literally just prevent you from getting good scores with certain matches. It actually prevents you from creating once in a lifetime moments and does not reward you for your good booking.