Can I ask a serious question?

[Dave E Mac]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="radical" data-cite="radical" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50648" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Out of curiosity, what does stand in your way to play the game the way you want it to play. I've read this statement quite a few times on here, yet most of the time no examples are given. I'm playing both, serious and sandbox games and I personally don't miss that many things. Certainly not enough to hinder me having fun.Also did you write about those things on the tech or suggestions boards?<p> </p><p> Secondly, I don't mean the following in an insulting way. </p><p> If you think you know better than the dev of how to do stuff, do it. Don't just say it. Saying things like "even my tiny mind..." is arrogant. Doesn't mean you are not allowed to criticize but you should not do it like this. If you are indeed that good, don't say it, do it.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> To be honest I didn't write it on the tech or suggestion boards mainly because people are enjoying the game and I don't have a divine right to enjoy a game. I don't go on the Football Manager forums and say I should be able to play the games because I like being able to play the matches. I think perhaps the game has just evolved into a way I dont enjoy as much. For me personally my enjoyment is held back mainly by some of the mechanics around pushes and fan perception. Also my company of choice hasn't really changed much from where it was 4 years ago and feels a bit of a let down. Kinda like you haven't watched you favourite TV programme for 4 years you flip it on and its all the same people by and large doing the same things. I think one of the issues is waiting so long for a game and 16 has become a comfortable pair of slippers so switching to something new is always going to feel weird. For me personally 20 just doesn't feel like a huge step up for something thats been in the pipeline for so long. </p><p> </p><p> FYI if you call someone arrogant that normally considered is fairly insulting <img alt=";)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/wink.png.686f06e511ee1fbf6bdc7d82f6831e53.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />. However I think you took what I said the wrong way. I'm not saying I'm good, in fact I'm saying I've got a tiny mind so have no clue on how these things should work or what should be done. I do however think the perception replacing push hinders me quite a lot. I've always enjoyed debuting someone new, be that some monster and immediately forcing him to the main event. Now in 16 I could pick his push and do that. Where as now you can't do that as much as the fan perception will always govern that. I personally think it would have been better to have both options there. As I think theres plenty of examples of wrestlers that the fans perceive to be better than their push is. Zack Ryder for example. So I think there should have been combination of the two to give a bit more depth. At the moment, taking a real world example, I can't have Kane make a debut as a new character and immediately at the top of the card as he'll have to work his way up. I think the game should have kept pushes and then the fan perception thing could have been a much more fluid. Lets say your guy is an unknown, but then has a corking match out of no where then in the eyes of the fan that perception jumps up quickly. Maybe they have a social media spat with a celeb and puts them in the spot light. They get booked badly for a couple of weeks then that perception starts to drop. It just feels a bit like I have to be driven by pushing people from what the fans want. I'm shamelessly Vince McMahon like and I'll feed you rubbish and you'll enjoy it because I tell you to! With 16 I could have Great Khali in the main event. Where as in 20 the fans will perceive him as trash so he'll always stay that way. I would have loved to have seen a more advanced combination of the two ratings. </p><p> </p><p> The reason I didn't make any suggestions and dont is because I really dont think I'm better than any of the developers or feel I have the right to tell them how to do their jobs. I am however a consumer whose bought the last three tew and on a public forum so feel as I should be able to voice my opinion.</p>

[Self]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Dave E Mac" data-cite="Dave E Mac" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50648" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>FYI if you call someone arrogant that normally considered is fairly insulting <img alt=";)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/wink.png.686f06e511ee1fbf6bdc7d82f6831e53.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />. However I think you took what I said the wrong way. I'm not saying I'm good, in fact I'm saying I've got a tiny mind so have no clue on how these things should work or what should be done. I do however think the perception replacing push hinders me quite a lot. I've always enjoyed debuting someone new, be that some monster and immediately forcing him to the main event. Now in 16 I could pick his push and do that. Where as now you can't do that as much as the fan perception will always govern that. I personally think it would have been better to have both options there. As I think theres plenty of examples of wrestlers that the fans perceive to be better than their push is. Zack Ryder for example. So I think there should have been combination of the two to give a bit more depth. <strong>At the moment, taking a real world example, I can't have Kane make a debut as a new character and immediately at the top of the card as he'll have to work his way up.</strong> I think the game should have kept pushes and then the fan perception thing could have been a much more fluid. Lets say your guy is an unknown, but then has a corking match out of no where then in the eyes of the fan that perception jumps up quickly. Maybe they have a social media spat with a celeb and puts them in the spot light. They get booked badly for a couple of weeks then that perception starts to drop. It just feels a bit like I have to be driven by pushing people from what the fans want. I'm shamelessly Vince McMahon like and I'll feed you rubbish and you'll enjoy it because I tell you to! With 16 I could have Great Khali in the main event. Where as in 20 the fans will perceive him as trash so he'll always stay that way. I would have loved to have seen a more advanced combination of the two ratings.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You can though. There will be penalties, but you absolutely can debut a new guy and immediately have him working with main event talent, beating them, being a top guy. Perception isn't card position. TEW'20 removes the need to label who your top guys are. At his height, Zack Ryder could have been a Star... who jobs every week on TV. I have those in my promotions. Fans think they are stars, but I don't. So they lose. </p><p> </p><p> I think Perception could be refined. Right now it definitely seems VERY overness based (similar to when you hit Auto-Push on the old system) and I'd like to be more sensitive to the actual booking. Debut Kane attacking the Undertaker? That's a Star. Follow up losing to a Well Known guy? Never mind, he's Unimportant. Those first few weeks/months could be a rollercoaster of fans trying to figure out if they care, and the longer they're in the company, the more stuck in their perception they become. Whereas right now you debut him in a big angle... and he's unimportant until he builds pop. Writing this, I realise the new labels suck as much as the old ones did. Major Star and Star and Unimportant are measurements of importance, but Well Known and Recognisable are measurements of popularity. Two slightly different things.</p>

[Dave E Mac]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50648" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You can though. There will be penalties, but you absolutely can debut a new guy and immediately have him working with main event talent, beating them, being a top guy. Perception isn't card position. TEW'20 removes the need to label who your top guys are. At his height, Zack Ryder could have been a Star... who jobs every week on TV. I have those in my promotions. Fans think they are stars, but I don't. So they lose. <p> </p><p> I think Perception could be refined. Right now it definitely seems VERY overness based (similar to when you hit Auto-Push on the old system) and I'd like to be more sensitive to the actual booking. Debut Kane attacking the Undertaker? That's a Star. Follow up losing to a Well Known guy? Never mind, he's Unimportant. Those first few weeks/months could be a rollercoaster of fans trying to figure out if they care, and the longer they're in the company, the more stuck in their perception they become. Whereas right now you debut him in a big angle... and he's unimportant until he builds pop. Writing this, I realise the new labels suck as much as the old ones did. Major Star and Star and Unimportant are measurements of importance, but Well Known and Recognisable are measurements of popularity. Two slightly different things.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think I'm with you in the sense this perception needs to be more fluid in how it works. I get I can debut Kane for example. But currently as it stands I need to book him for a an elongated period of time for him to move into major star etc. I think you should be able to circumnavigate that somehow in these situations. If Kane turns up and attacks the Taker and dominates for a couple of weeks hes going to be perceived by the fans very quickly as a major star. Also Kane debuting was incredible and probably some of the best WWF writing in years. No one was sat at home thinking who on earth is this dude I know nothing about, he was must see, I want to know who this guy is and what is he about booking. Now in TEW terms booking him uber strong is going to get dinged in the ratings while he crawls up all those other rungs to get to the top. </p><p> </p><p> I actually think your suggestion of the longer someone is in a company the harder to move their perception is. It makes total sense as most of us would view someone like Dolph Ziggler as mid card talent so harder to move that without really bending over backwards to book him strong. Much like John Cena will always be a huge star no matter what etc. </p><p> </p><p> Thats why I think the system would have made more sense by having both ideas in there. Perception and actual placement on the card are not always relevant. I also think you take away that dynamic of wrestlers being annoyed as they have no push to be annoyed by. They are being judged only on what the fans want for example. Baron Corbin I guess would be a good example of someone perceived to be a bit naff but higher on the card than he should be. Neville a good example of how he was perceived by the fans as being better than the push he was given. So I just think having both in there would have led to some really interesting dynamics within the game. Like I say I don't know about programming at all, nor have I really sat down to flesh the idea out as I know its not something that will change for this game. But feels like a missed opportunity. I also think removing things like the pushes like mid card etc dumbs the game down a little.</p>

[Self]

I would have liked it if the old pushes were included as labels, perhaps in the Divisions dropdown. A lot of people find them useful for roster organisation. I don't even think they need to 'do' anything. If it helps people 'see' their roster, rock on.

[Questlove]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50648" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You can though. There will be penalties, but you absolutely can debut a new guy and immediately have him working with main event talent, beating them, being a top guy. Perception isn't card position. TEW'20 removes the need to label who your top guys are. <strong>At his height, Zack Ryder could have been a Star... who jobs every week on TV.</strong> I have those in my promotions. Fans think they are stars, but I don't. So they lose. <p> </p><p> I think Perception could be refined. Right now it definitely seems VERY overness based (similar to when you hit Auto-Push on the old system) and I'd like to be more sensitive to the actual booking. Debut Kane attacking the Undertaker? That's a Star. Follow up losing to a Well Known guy? Never mind, he's Unimportant. Those first few weeks/months could be a rollercoaster of fans trying to figure out if they care, and the longer they're in the company, the more stuck in their perception they become. Whereas right now you debut him in a big angle... and he's unimportant until he builds pop. Writing this, I realise the new labels suck as much as the old ones did. Major Star and Star and Unimportant are measurements of importance, but Well Known and Recognisable are measurements of popularity. Two slightly different things.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This was already possible on 2016 though, he'd just be called an Upper Midcarder instead of a Star and you'd be able to change it if you wanted. Perception is literally just pushes that you can't alter.</p><p> </p><p> Your second point about perception taking their actual booking into account is way better and what I assumed we would be getting when it was unveiled in the diary entry but its actual implementation is really poor imo.</p>

[Dave E Mac]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Questlove" data-cite="Questlove" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50648" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><strong>This was already possible on 2016 though, he'd just be called an Upper Midcarder instead of a Star and you'd be able to change it if you wanted. Perception is literally just pushes that you can't alter.</strong><p><strong> </strong></p><p> Your second point about perception taking their actual booking into account is way better and what I assumed we would be getting when it was unveiled in the diary entry but its actual implementation is really poor imo.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think this is my issue. The perception can't be changed unless you grind away with your booking. Obviously the stronger you book the quicker than happens. But it doesn't feel quite as natural, as it wrestling not everything happens organically over time. </p><p> </p><p> I do agree for such a major change it feels like it hasn't been thought through and implemented as well as it could/should have been.</p>

[Blackman]

<p>I totally get where you're coming from and I kinda feel the same way, but...</p><p> </p><p>

Not all of these fixes you mention are "exploits". Sometimes the growth or output is not realistic. Most people want a realistic-looking progression. But this trend of restricting the editor is a bit of a pity imho.</p><p> </p><p>

I haven't had much fun with the game so far (though I've most certainly enjoyed it), but then again: I've yet to fully commit to a game. Now that the fixes are getting made I'm sure I'll eventually have lots of fun with it, though my insane hype for it has completely fizzled by now. I got it, I'll eventually play it when I see fit. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/cool.png.f00d2562b2c1d873a09323753efdb041.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[Dave E Mac]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Blackman" data-cite="Blackman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50648" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I totally get where you're coming from and I kinda feel the same way, but...<p> </p><p> Not all of these fixes you mention are "exploits". Sometimes the growth or output is not realistic. Most people want a realistic-looking progression. But this trend of restricting the editor is a bit of a pity imho.</p><p> </p><p> I haven't had much fun with the game so far (though I've most certainly enjoyed it), but then again: I've yet to fully commit to a game. Now that the fixes are getting made I'm sure I'll eventually have lots of fun with it, though my insane hype for it has completely fizzled by now. I got it, I'll eventually play it when I see fit. <img alt=":cool:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/cool.png.f00d2562b2c1d873a09323753efdb041.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Actually this really describes me as well. I had such a level of excitement and expectation I guess it would never live up to that. It’s just fallen well short of where I thought it would be. I honestly at times think 16 probably is a better game still. But eventually something will get my interest and I’ll plough some real hours into it. But at the same time I’m a bit gutted I haven’t been grabbed off the bat by it.</p>

[Roger Sterling]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50648" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I would have liked it if the old pushes were included as labels, perhaps in the Divisions dropdown. A lot of people find them useful for roster organisation. I don't even think they need to 'do' anything. If it helps people 'see' their roster, rock on.</div></blockquote><p> Honestly its just terminology that makes a great deal of sense to feature in the game. Its both insider terminology that makes sense in the game's context and also very familiar to wrestling fans so immediately understood.</p>

[njmcfreak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Dave E Mac" data-cite="Dave E Mac" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50648" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Actually this really describes me as well. I had such a level of excitement and expectation I guess it would never live up to that. It’s just fallen well short of where I thought it would be. I honestly at times think 16 probably is a better game still. But eventually something will get my interest and I’ll plough some real hours into it. But at the same time I’m a bit gutted I haven’t been grabbed off the bat by it.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> To be fair 16 had 50+ patches to get it where it is today. I'm loving 2020, but I'm sure eventually it'll be up to your standards.</p>

[Dave E Mac]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="njmcfreak" data-cite="njmcfreak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50648" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>To be fair 16 had 50+ patches to get it where it is today. I'm loving 2020, but I'm sure eventually it'll be up to your standards.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah I do appreciate there has been years of patching on 16 and I'm sure it was no where near the game it ended up being when it first came out.</p>

[Self]

Honestly its just terminology that makes a great deal of sense to feature in the game. Its both insider terminology that makes sense in the game's context and also very familiar to wrestling fans so immediately understood.

 

Personally, I hated the terminology. I found them misleading (I don't think I've ever used Openers to open a show) but they were useful terms that a lot of people have grown accustomed to and like and find useful, so I'm sad to see them go.

[Teh_Showtime]

Yeah I do appreciate there has been years of patching on 16 and I'm sure it was no where near the game it ended up being when it first came out.

 

The demo didn’t crash on many basic screens at least

 

2020 has been playing catch-up since then tbh. The first week of the demo was really poor and there had to be a lot of work to catch up and make it functional, well before even looking at actual improvements. Most of that seems out of the way now and gameplay changes are starting to roll in now finally.

[radical]

To be honest I didn't write it on the tech or suggestion boards mainly because people are enjoying the game and I don't have a divine right to enjoy a game. I don't go on the Football Manager forums and say I should be able to play the games because I like being able to play the matches. I think perhaps the game has just evolved into a way I dont enjoy as much. For me personally my enjoyment is held back mainly by some of the mechanics around pushes and fan perception. Also my company of choice hasn't really changed much from where it was 4 years ago and feels a bit of a let down. Kinda like you haven't watched you favourite TV programme for 4 years you flip it on and its all the same people by and large doing the same things. I think one of the issues is waiting so long for a game and 16 has become a comfortable pair of slippers so switching to something new is always going to feel weird. For me personally 20 just doesn't feel like a huge step up for something thats been in the pipeline for so long.

 

FYI if you call someone arrogant that normally considered is fairly insulting . However I think you took what I said the wrong way. I'm not saying I'm good, in fact I'm saying I've got a tiny mind so have no clue on how these things should work or what should be done. I do however think the perception replacing push hinders me quite a lot. I've always enjoyed debuting someone new, be that some monster and immediately forcing him to the main event. Now in 16 I could pick his push and do that. Where as now you can't do that as much as the fan perception will always govern that. I personally think it would have been better to have both options there. As I think theres plenty of examples of wrestlers that the fans perceive to be better than their push is. Zack Ryder for example. So I think there should have been combination of the two to give a bit more depth. At the moment, taking a real world example, I can't have Kane make a debut as a new character and immediately at the top of the card as he'll have to work his way up. I think the game should have kept pushes and then the fan perception thing could have been a much more fluid. Lets say your guy is an unknown, but then has a corking match out of no where then in the eyes of the fan that perception jumps up quickly. Maybe they have a social media spat with a celeb and puts them in the spot light. They get booked badly for a couple of weeks then that perception starts to drop. It just feels a bit like I have to be driven by pushing people from what the fans want. I'm shamelessly Vince McMahon like and I'll feed you rubbish and you'll enjoy it because I tell you to! With 16 I could have Great Khali in the main event. Where as in 20 the fans will perceive him as trash so he'll always stay that way. I would have loved to have seen a more advanced combination of the two ratings.

 

The reason I didn't make any suggestions and dont is because I really dont think I'm better than any of the developers or feel I have the right to tell them how to do their jobs. I am however a consumer whose bought the last three tew and on a public forum so feel as I should be able to voice my opinion.

 

You are right. I completely misunderstood you and I have to apologize for labeling you as arrogant. I'm glad you didn't seem to take it in a bad way.

 

As for the problem of pushes/perception I can think of two solutions that could solve this. I obviously have no clue if it would be doable from a programming point.

First, a choice. Let players decide which system they want to use.

Second, have perception as the base system and allow players to assign them a push, similar to how divisions work. Let players use this as an alternate sorting method when booking.

 

I wouldn't be mad if anyone suggested these or if something like this is added. I probably wouldn't use it but if people want it, I'm all for it.

[radical]

Not all of these fixes you mention are "exploits". Sometimes the growth or output is not realistic. Most people want a realistic-looking progression. But this trend of restricting the editor is a bit of a pity imho.

 

There is no such trend. If you look at the change log, there are very few examples and those are usually for technical reasons.

The limits have been there from the start. Stuff got removed (and probably often just overlooked) due to the writing from scratch.

I can see quite a few things being added/returned to the editor or preferences but that would require people to actually suggest what they want which they rarely do (at least when it comes to stuff that used to be in older games, new ideas are constantly mentioned)

[Remianen]

It does lead to a better game when the experience is kept realistic when possible.

 

Right. So it's totally realistic that Vince McMahon or Tony Khan would give you (general 'you' ) carte blanche to run their companies, right? Where does 'realism' stop and actually being real begin? If we want to pray at the altar of realism, then the top company in the world can never fall from its perch, no matter how bad their shows are. They can put on awful shows, more often than not, and still be rewarded for their incompetence with big TV deals. I mean, that's how it is in reality so the game should be like that too, no?

 

I came to the conclusion with TEW13 that TEW is not meant to be a 'game' as much as its meant to be a creative outlet (which is probably why I was so vociferously against adding an autobooker). You can add/subtract elements that make it more game-like but at its heart, it's less Dark Souls and more Fortnite: Creative. A lot of things people consider 'exploits' are actually quirks in the game's mechanics. Pursuing a faith based victory in Civ6 (Russia - Tundra Holy Site Adjacency is one example) is no different from sprinting to Medium running many small (but profitable) shows. The difference, post-1.11, is that now you have to focus on two (or three) regions which, when I tested it last night, isn't that big a deal and just makes it easier to reach the 35 pop threshold in the secondary region. Adam didn't gut the possibility, the change just forces you to back off a little (which allows you to build up the secondary area you need for medium). Create a brand focused on expansion and you can even create people tailor made to job to your stars (who will work the shows in your home area, primarily) using spillover thresholds. Patch 1.11 seems to have simply added a diminishing returns mechanic, which isn't nearly as bad as it could've been.

 

I just think people throw the word 'exploit' around too much. So much so that it loses its meaning, but that's been happening for decades. "You have more than one account - exploiter!", "you take advantage of mechanics that were meant to be used together - exploiter!", "you play differently than I do so you're an exploiter!". I dunno, I think there are balance issues and then there are flat out exploits. Wallhacks and Aimbots are exploits. Sitting in a perch without an easy path to reach while sniping people below is not an exploit. It's a clever use of mechanics. It also requires somewhat of a knowledge of the game's mechanics (assuming you don't just rip the strat from a Reddit thread) and in TEW, that ain't easy.

[SilentDeath]

What I've come to realize is that sometimes when people throw the word exploit around or talk about things that should be fixed its very so-so to me. On one hand you have people who play to just have fun and fantasy book while being gamey and getting whomever they like to the top as quickly as possible without the use of an editor. On the other you have people who are gung ho about the realism the game provides and or needs and that's how they have fun with the game. Lately what I've noticed is that those who have a more gamey playstyle... their voices are usually drowned out by those who prefer realism or playing the game the "right" way. I believe its because those who want more of a sim are much more vocal about their dislikes and likes while the other side is very hush hush. Adam only sees one side of the argument majority of the time which is why I believe the game has drifted in the direction its currently going in.

 

It's not that us gamey players are being disenfranchised...its that we rarely if ever speak up. Also, when we do speak up we have some people beat us over the head with the don't like don't buy or the its a simulator play it that way type of deal. At some point in time sim lovers have taken ownership in a way of what TEW is supposed to be completely forgetting that it's two types of players with the TEW franchise. It's just sad that one side of the spectrum is being left behind. That blame can be placed on all shoulders not just one side. It's a problem I don't see ever being fixed personally. This isn't an attack on those who enjoy the sim side of things as that's your right as a consumer. I've spent my 35, I enjoy certain aspects of the game, but at the end of the day this version just isn't my cup of tea and that is Fine. It is ok for people not to be in love with the new game especially as paying customers.

 

Everyone should respect everyone's opinions whether they agree or not and for the most part we do and that's why I come here everyday to web stalk . All I can say is to my more sandbox, gamey, or whatever you'd like to call yourself type of players is to speak up in the suggestion thread or whatever thread possible. Don't be discouraged by possible responses to your opinions and feelings. That is why it appears we've been left behind in some way is because we aren't as vocal.

[Dave E Mac]

What I've come to realize is that sometimes when people throw the word exploit around or talk about things that should be fixed its very so-so to me. On one hand you have people who play to just have fun and fantasy book while being gamey and getting whomever they like to the top as quickly as possible without the use of an editor. On the other you have people who are gung ho about the realism the game provides and or needs and that's how they have fun with the game. Lately what I've noticed is that those who have a more gamey playstyle... their voices are usually drowned out by those who prefer realism or playing the game the "right" way. I believe its because those who want more of a sim are much more vocal about their dislikes and likes while the other side is very hush hush. Adam only sees one side of the argument majority of the time which is why I believe the game has drifted in the direction its currently going in.

 

It's not that us gamey players are being disenfranchised...its that we rarely if ever speak up. Also, when we do speak up we have some people beat us over the head with the don't like don't buy or the its a simulator play it that way type of deal. At some point in time sim lovers have taken ownership in a way of what TEW is supposed to be completely forgetting that it's two types of players with the TEW franchise. It's just sad that one side of the spectrum is being left behind. That blame can be placed on all shoulders not just one side. It's a problem I don't see ever being fixed personally. This isn't an attack on those who enjoy the sim side of things as that's your right as a consumer. I've spent my 35, I enjoy certain aspects of the game, but at the end of the day this version just isn't my cup of tea and that is Fine. It is ok for people not to be in love with the new game especially as paying customers.

 

Everyone should respect everyone's opinions whether they agree or not and for the most part we do and that's why I come here everyday to web stalk . All I can say is to my more sandbox, gamey, or whatever you'd like to call yourself type of players is to speak up in the suggestion thread or whatever thread possible. Don't be discouraged by possible responses to your opinions and feelings. That is why it appears we've been left behind in some way is because we aren't as vocal.

 

For me I won't speak up because who am I to say that my way of playing is right and the game is wrong really.

 

MY worry is the game does seem to have divided people more. I personally will carry on trying to get into the game. But there seems to be a few people coming to the conclusion the game just isnt for them. My worry with that is you've got a reasonably niche game starting to further narrow down the pool of people it appeals to. That has worrying implications for the games future.

[The Nickman]

What is the game ACTUALLY missing right now that doesn’t make it “sandbox” enough for you guys though? The in-game editor certainly Needs improvement, even I would like to be able to manually edit a worker’s status (HBK to retired and back to active to simulate his injury, for example), but apart from that... what else is still missing?

 

The fact we can turn off stuff like turns being too quick in TEW2020 coupled with the sandbox stuff already introduced in TEW2016 makes the game pretty close to sandbox already if you so choose.

 

Just not so sure what else people are complaining about that’s missing.

[xXUnderGroundXx]

What is the game ACTUALLY missing right now that doesn’t make it “sandbox” enough for you guys though? The in-game editor certainly Needs improvement, even I would like to be able to manually edit a worker’s status (HBK to retired and back to active to simulate his injury, for example), but apart from that... what else is still missing?

 

The fact we can turn off stuff like turns being too quick in TEW2020 coupled with the sandbox stuff already introduced in TEW2016 makes the game pretty close to sandbox already if you so choose.

 

Just not so sure what else people are complaining about that’s missing.

 

For starters, the ability to customize and tweak various aspects of my product. I used to offer a sort of hybrid style between ROH and AEW back in 2016, with wrestling being first and foremost and storylines not being necessary but having an impact, and fans still enjoying angles but not needing them. My brother, with whom I often play multiplayer, enjoys using a sort of more tongue-in-cheek, comedy-based product but one that doesn't devalue the actual wrestling. So things like Modern, Comedy AND Risque would be turned up to medium or heavy, creating a weird but fun Frankenstein's Monster between CHIKARA and something like modern-day AEW.

 

With the new product settings, we can't do that. We're hamstrung into choosing from the pre-set products already hard-coded into the game with literally no ability to tweak or modify them in any way, so now WE have to change OUR play style to be more "correct" with what the game wants, rather than allowing us the freedom to put on the shows WE want to put on. I've made a thread about this in the suggestions forum, but I received no replies and it was promptly buried, so I assume nothing will ever come of it. But you wanted to know what's missing from the game that is keeping us from playing the way we want, and there you go. There's one. I can list more, if you like, but this is far and away one of the most egregious/irreconcilable to me.

[Makhai]

What is the game ACTUALLY missing right now that doesn’t make it “sandbox” enough for you guys though? The in-game editor certainly Needs improvement, even I would like to be able to manually edit a worker’s status (HBK to retired and back to active to simulate his injury, for example), but apart from that... what else is still missing?

 

The fact we can turn off stuff like turns being too quick in TEW2020 coupled with the sandbox stuff already introduced in TEW2016 makes the game pretty close to sandbox already if you so choose.

 

Just not so sure what else people are complaining about that’s missing.

 

There's still that divisive elephant of suck in the middle of the living room, called fixed products that isn't going away. I don't understand, I will never understand. A lot more needs to be done with the editor. Entertainment stats are borked, angle grades do not affect show grades enough in SE products heavily favoring workrate across the board because matches are like 95% of your storyline grades.(Example: I have a storyline in my diary save that has a 39 match and a 65 15min promo and it's heat is literally 39. These are the only two steps in the line so far. WTF?) There are some weird penalties that you can roll that completely brick people that if you don't save scum around you will have a bad time with(heavy psychology, marketability stuff that kill people dead) gimmicks, restrictive match aims is still a huge problem, I'm sure there's more I'm not remembering.

[joemurphy]

What is the game ACTUALLY missing right now that doesn’t make it “sandbox” enough for you guys though? The in-game editor certainly Needs improvement, even I would like to be able to manually edit a worker’s status (HBK to retired and back to active to simulate his injury, for example), but apart from that... what else is still missing?

 

The fact we can turn off stuff like turns being too quick in TEW2020 coupled with the sandbox stuff already introduced in TEW2016 makes the game pretty close to sandbox already if you so choose.

 

Just not so sure what else people are complaining about that’s missing.

 

Not being able to create custom products is an incredibly terrible choice and one I'm not sure why was ever even considered as a possibility to be changed to from the system used for 2016.

[Jaysin]

For the HBK thing he should start with a starting absence which would prevent him from working or even starting with am injury that allows him to work angles but not matches. Changing status in game causes issues down the line. That's why things like changing deaths and such was removed.

 

The more I play 2020, the more I like it, but it does have a learning curve and takes a bit to get used to.

 

Modding gets easier the more you play with the editor Z well.

 

I do think it was wrong to nerf menace as much as it was though. Only 25% of an angle on menace and the rest on overness seems like an over correction to me. Ideally I'd like it to be 50/50 for menace/overness.

[Donners]

I think I'm with you in the sense this perception needs to be more fluid in how it works. I get I can debut Kane for example. But currently as it stands I need to book him for a an elongated period of time for him to move into major star etc. I think you should be able to circumnavigate that somehow in these situations. If Kane turns up and attacks the Taker and dominates for a couple of weeks hes going to be perceived by the fans very quickly as a major star. Also Kane debuting was incredible and probably some of the best WWF writing in years. No one was sat at home thinking who on earth is this dude I know nothing about, he was must see, I want to know who this guy is and what is he about booking. Now in TEW terms booking him uber strong is going to get dinged in the ratings while he crawls up all those other rungs to get to the top.

 

That all comes down to the overness system, which - despite being at the heart of the game - really hasn't evolved that much from EWR.

 

It doesn't distinguish between name value and popularity, for instance, which are two very different things (a constant source of confusion in real world mods, and quite a missed opportunity for features like nostalgia pops, company recognition value, etc).

 

Nor does it take into account look. Brock Lesnar made his main roster debut with wins against Matt and Jeff Hardy. In TEW terms, the Hardys would take a substantial overness hit for losing to Brock, a virtual unknown. In reality, of course, they'd lose nothing because of the size disparity. (sidenote - I have always hated the overness cannibalisation system)

 

The current system could readily be divided into, for instance:

 

- Credibility (taking into account size, build, menace, power, certain skills like brawling)

- Name value (a slow-build, primarily reflecting exposure and prominence, but also taking into account titles, significant storylines, etc)

- Overness (a more dynamic value reflecting the current reaction of the fans - so if you give a big debut to a credible worker, it could start out high)

[d12345]

Right. So it's totally realistic that Vince McMahon or Tony Khan would give you (general 'you' ) carte blanche to run their companies, right? Where does 'realism' stop and actually being real begin? If we want to pray at the altar of realism, then the top company in the world can never fall from its perch, no matter how bad their shows are. They can put on awful shows, more often than not, and still be rewarded for their incompetence with big TV deals. I mean, that's how it is in reality so the game should be like that too, no?

 

I agree with your line of thought, but disagree that the application of real life company sizing is not realistic.

 

WWE would very well have fallen off the top spot numerous times in the past 20 years had WCW not went out of business.

 

If you ran the C-Verse and made USPW, TCW, and SWF into 1 company; what we call a "bad" show IRL would still be good enough to keep them at Titanic size. That's realistic. That's what WWE has been.