Popularity Caps

[Capelli King]

I think we need a certain guideline regarding "how is this calculated"? For example, i have Spencer Spade, he has Star Quality of 96 and Charisma of 91 but his popularity is capped at 84. His other skills are "ridiculous", he almost does not have anything below 75, most are in the 80s.

 

I read in the popularity cap, that the cap is connected to skills, but in the case of Spencer i cannot see the connection. A similar case is Mainstream Hernandez in my game, he has a cap of 77, but if we look at his entertainment skills, his lowest is 77, for in ring skills (he is a high flyer), it is 76 and 70 (Aerial + Flash).

 

End of the day, if your worker has crazy great stats, but he has a low popularity cap (For example Huey Cannonball has a cap of 70 in my game), it makes them significantly less valuable.

[Peter.1986]

Yes and no.

 

Just because they have a pop cap doesn’t mean they are less valuable. It all depends on your company size etc but someone’s with all the best skills in the world with a pop cap are still valuable. You will just have to Make sure you aren’t giving them too many wins.

 

They could still be valuable to help angles/matches be better against higher pop opponents. Think of them as a gatekeeper. But a really good one.

 

In real life some people just didn’t get over as much as others. I mean personally for me randy savage had it all, but didn’t ever hit the heights of some others that were much less skilled in ring or out.

 

 

The old system the cap used to be based on star quality, the new system I believe the cap can change based on certain things.

[Capelli King]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Peter.1986" data-cite="Peter.1986" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51155" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> The old system the cap used to be based on star quality, the new system I believe the cap can change based on certain things.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> What are those certain things? Those certain things are stats i assume, not just some random figure. If the cap is based upon "certain things" which are stats, then i would like to know what they are. I read in the manual there is a "destiny roll", well this to me sounds like a random dice thing. </p><p> </p><p> I am ok with having a cap, but i want to know what that cap is based on. Personally the best indicator is Star quality, i am ok with some of the formula being based on other stats such as in ring skills or something else such as Charisma or a combination of that with physicals. Whatever, as long as i know what it is, that way i wont go investing on some workers who have zero chance to ever go beyond an enhancement talent.</p>

[Capelli King]

<p>The more i play this game, the more i hate the cap's in popularity. I get it that certain guys should be more difficult to get over, but it should still be up to me who i think should or should not be a star. As the game is set up now, essentially the maximum cap decides who will or won't be allowed to become a super star. </p><p> </p><p>

If you run a small company this does not matter, but if you are running a massive company, you cannot push as your best wrestler a guy who has a cap in the 70s. Besides that, i see it is pretty random. For example i have Jay Chord, he popped as the "Greatest overall wrestler", with ridiculous stats everywhere and even he is capped at 90. So far i only had Golden pop 100 in his popularity cap. </p><p> </p><p>

What is worse with this is that you do not really know their cap until you start pushing them hard (while burying other workers) just to find out that their cap is some lame 77 (Randy Bumfole, Trend Shaffer had 75). I already signed them up to long term deals, so now i have to job them in the lower card. </p><p> </p><p>

From all the limitations 2020 had, this has to be the worse in the end because there is ways to get around the fixed products or any of the other things people complain about. You cannot do anything if the random "destiny" dice decided your superstar will be a mid carder.</p>

[Vinsmoker]

<p>Maybe "Career Making Moment" could be a temporary attribute, that increases the cap and will only generate after a 97+ rated match or un-scripted promo.</p><p> </p><p>

That way you can simulate wrestlers breaking through that "barrier" with the workers that actually are that special.</p>

[SirMichaelJordan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Capelli King" data-cite="Capelli King" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51155" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The more i play this game, the more i hate the cap's in popularity. I get it that certain guys should be more difficult to get over, but it should still be up to me who i think should or should not be a star. As the game is set up now, essentially the maximum cap decides who will or won't be allowed to become a super star. <p> </p><p> If you run a small company this does not matter, but if you are running a massive company, you cannot push as your best wrestler a guy who has a cap in the 70s. Besides that, i see it is pretty random. For example i have Jay Chord, he popped as the "Greatest overall wrestler", with ridiculous stats everywhere and even he is capped at 90. So far i only had Golden pop 100 in his popularity cap. </p><p> </p><p> What is worse with this is that you do not really know their cap until you start pushing them hard (while burying other workers) just to find out that their cap is some lame 77 (Randy Bumfole, Trend Shaffer had 75). I already signed them up to long term deals, so now i have to job them in the lower card. </p><p> </p><p> From all the limitations 2020 had, this has to be the worse in the end because there is ways to get around the fixed products or any of the other things people complain about. You cannot do anything if the random "destiny" dice decided your superstar will be a mid carder.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Lol everything you mentioned is why I like it. </p><p> </p><p> Not to mention that guys already grow at a fast pace. I like the idea of not being able to make anyone a mega star because I want to.</p>

[thadian]

What really matters - The Destiny Roll.

 

I think we should have something in the editor to let us see it. Players who think it's cheating won't use it, just like they also didn't use 10 minute Menace angles in TEW16, or 4 minute Menace angles in TEW13, right?

 

Or there should be something in the editor to let us "Reroll".

 

Or to let us see it. I want to know before starting my game if my main two are locked low, so I can avoid wasting the time. I don't want the "fun" of finding a different way. I have my story I want to tell, which relies on...

1. Three specific people NOT having a bad destiny roll or something else in the background I cannot control that sags them down.

2. No incidents like "The Surprise" of TEW16. I hope such a thing never happens again. Instead, just create a "pox" that uh... "removes" lots of living people from the game.

[SilentDeath]

Why do people paint players who are here more so for the fantasy than the grind as cheaters or something lol. Let’s be honest people options are the spice of life in a sandbox type game. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again realism is fine it’s great but it isn’t for everyone and despite the shortcomings it may have had in areas I feel 2016 handled it better. If your there for fantasy you can spam whatever ya want and it you’re there for realism and want to play the “right way” you could watch that slow burn with satisfaction. This year that option is gone it’s either grind it out or grind it out which is fine for some. However, until the fantasy returns without me having to dip into the editor and whatever else I’ll stick to 16 for a bit more.(sadly)

 

(Maybe that could be appease with an option for pop for workers like companies have with natural growth limits? Just a thought)

[Peter.1986]

Because it is sort of cheating. It’s like GTA cheats. They are put in for people who want to use them. But arent realistically how the game is intended to be played.

[mlp420]

Popularity caps definitely making the game a little sloppy. I'm having people on my roster that are killing it with their matches and angles but stuck at 79-80 popularity. What's the point of even bothering with Star Quality, Charisma, etc?

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of popularity caps. But there has to be some rhyme or reason to it. Or at least the option to turn it off. Seems like something that's more useful as an optional setting for replay value.

[thadian]

Because some people who "play the game" like a player in D&D aren't also a DM/GM in D&D - that is, they don't understand the mind of a person who would rather play WITH the game, than "play the game". For the elite, those GM type players are just "cheaters" who need to "git gud" instead of asking for "easier stuff". They don't see the value in it. That's the real answer. Since they see no value in it, they don't care about the experience of those who wish to play that way.

 

I also believe players like me are a minority. So our opinion doesn't count for very much, as a smaller part of the audience.

 

They think, for example, we should just "roll with what happens and have fun". They don't understand the frustrations of being screwed out of the "game we want" by things like destiny rolls deciding for you who's good and not, and you'll find out later. We can't find out right after stating a game, but before before doing anything else. To some players, "well that's the game!" - it's not like we can disable destiny roles in the preferences/options. For them, that's part of the fun; you'll be surprised by who's good and who sucks, and finding a way to book the egotistical main event champion with bad destiny rolls down the card. While finding a way to book your shoddy comedy jobber into the main event scene.

 

For them, that's big part of the fun - so when we say it's frustrating, unfun, and ruins the time spent in the game - they feel like we're attacking a core part of their fun, "well just play a different game". They feel attacked, and impulsively lash out, believing it in their own defense. It's also why our ideas fall on deaf ears - reasonably, the developer would feel upset or criticized by any of our posts. A "small gaggle of losers and cheaters" we are, who just need to "git gud".

 

The best we can do is try to make sane proposals that allow more flexibility, while knowing we are going to be ignored. Because otherwise, our voice isn't there. It's better to be unheard because nobody cares than to be unheard because you didn't try to put together suggestions or ideas that others might agree with, that might also be possible without too much work. Because any ideas we might have or think is good - might have other ways of negatively impacting the game state. When you could edit Importance in 2013 and 2016, there was more flexibility and I loved it. But it also created situations where many game worlds had no consistency or weren't balanced between industry, popularity, and importance. So, by locking "importance" in, the other two have an objective metric to measure themselves on. So it puts a restriction on us, but that restriction maintains sanity of the game.

 

I believe the real reason we can't edit our products is because those opposing it believe people will just create "god products" or "you might create a product I don't think is realistic" or "you just want a cheat product, learn how to use the ones there are". Or, "you can just turn off X feature if the closest product restrains X thing". Then again, players might create products that, because of how they're set up, change the core of how popularity, matches, etc. are worked - then when bug reporting or having an issue, it can be really tricky to find a solution that doesn't bugger up other products. So the restriction is a terrible one - but I can see how a bunch of people either creating products with under-the-hood consequences they don't know about, or modders creating products for their databases that aren't balanced toward one another, creating a hot mess. What makes things work the best, is consistency and many of the restrictions maintain consistency.

 

So, I believe when we make suggestions, we ought consider the current framework of the game and suggest things within the box and we also need to ensure our ideals don't disrupt the consistency of the core game. Best of luck.

[jbergey_2005]

Because some people who "play the game" like a player in D&D aren't also a DM/GM in D&D - that is, they don't understand the mind of a person who would rather play WITH the game, than "play the game". For the elite, those GM type players are just "cheaters" who need to "git gud" instead of asking for "easier stuff". They don't see the value in it. That's the real answer. Since they see no value in it, they don't care about the experience of those who wish to play that way.

 

I also believe players like me are a minority. So our opinion doesn't count for very much, as a smaller part of the audience.

 

They think, for example, we should just "roll with what happens and have fun". They don't understand the frustrations of being screwed out of the "game we want" by things like destiny rolls deciding for you who's good and not, and you'll find out later. We can't find out right after stating a game, but before before doing anything else. To some players, "well that's the game!" - it's not like we can disable destiny roles in the preferences/options. For them, that's part of the fun; you'll be surprised by who's good and who sucks, and finding a way to book the egotistical main event champion with bad destiny rolls down the card. While finding a way to book your shoddy comedy jobber into the main event scene.

 

For them, that's big part of the fun - so when we say it's frustrating, unfun, and ruins the time spent in the game - they feel like we're attacking a core part of their fun, "well just play a different game". They feel attacked, and impulsively lash out, believing it in their own defense. It's also why our ideas fall on deaf ears - reasonably, the developer would feel upset or criticized by any of our posts. A "small gaggle of losers and cheaters" we are, who just need to "git gud".

 

The best we can do is try to make sane proposals that allow more flexibility, while knowing we are going to be ignored. Because otherwise, our voice isn't there. It's better to be unheard because nobody cares than to be unheard because you didn't try to put together suggestions or ideas that others might agree with, that might also be possible without too much work. Because any ideas we might have or think is good - might have other ways of negatively impacting the game state. When you could edit Importance in 2013 and 2016, there was more flexibility and I loved it. But it also created situations where many game worlds had no consistency or weren't balanced between industry, popularity, and importance. So, by locking "importance" in, the other two have an objective metric to measure themselves on. So it puts a restriction on us, but that restriction maintains sanity of the game.

 

I believe the real reason we can't edit our products is because those opposing it believe people will just create "god products" or "you might create a product I don't think is realistic" or "you just want a cheat product, learn how to use the ones there are". Or, "you can just turn off X feature if the closest product restrains X thing". Then again, players might create products that, because of how they're set up, change the core of how popularity, matches, etc. are worked - then when bug reporting or having an issue, it can be really tricky to find a solution that doesn't bugger up other products. So the restriction is a terrible one - but I can see how a bunch of people either creating products with under-the-hood consequences they don't know about, or modders creating products for their databases that aren't balanced toward one another, creating a hot mess. What makes things work the best, is consistency and many of the restrictions maintain consistency.

 

So, I believe when we make suggestions, we ought consider the current framework of the game and suggest things within the box and we also need to ensure our ideals don't disrupt the consistency of the core game. Best of luck.

 

Agree and disagree at the same time. If the people looking for the challenges KNEW they could keep this part of the game they probably wouldn't care all that much. What tends to happen is a compromise is met where the realistic people arent getting what they want and to compromise the sandbox people arent getting what they want either. So both parties end up giving up ground to the middle.

 

Very well written post you had.

[Peter.1986]

Because some people who "play the game" like a player in D&D aren't also a DM/GM in D&D - that is, they don't understand the mind of a person who would rather play WITH the game, than "play the game". For the elite, those GM type players are just "cheaters" who need to "git gud" instead of asking for "easier stuff". They don't see the value in it. That's the real answer. Since they see no value in it, they don't care about the experience of those who wish to play that way.

 

I also believe players like me are a minority. So our opinion doesn't count for very much, as a smaller part of the audience.

 

They think, for example, we should just "roll with what happens and have fun". They don't understand the frustrations of being screwed out of the "game we want" by things like destiny rolls deciding for you who's good and not, and you'll find out later. We can't find out right after stating a game, but before before doing anything else. To some players, "well that's the game!" - it's not like we can disable destiny roles in the preferences/options. For them, that's part of the fun; you'll be surprised by who's good and who sucks, and finding a way to book the egotistical main event champion with bad destiny rolls down the card. While finding a way to book your shoddy comedy jobber into the main event scene.

 

For them, that's big part of the fun - so when we say it's frustrating, unfun, and ruins the time spent in the game - they feel like we're attacking a core part of their fun, "well just play a different game". They feel attacked, and impulsively lash out, believing it in their own defense. It's also why our ideas fall on deaf ears - reasonably, the developer would feel upset or criticized by any of our posts. A "small gaggle of losers and cheaters" we are, who just need to "git gud".

 

The best we can do is try to make sane proposals that allow more flexibility, while knowing we are going to be ignored. Because otherwise, our voice isn't there. It's better to be unheard because nobody cares than to be unheard because you didn't try to put together suggestions or ideas that others might agree with, that might also be possible without too much work. Because any ideas we might have or think is good - might have other ways of negatively impacting the game state. When you could edit Importance in 2013 and 2016, there was more flexibility and I loved it. But it also created situations where many game worlds had no consistency or weren't balanced between industry, popularity, and importance. So, by locking "importance" in, the other two have an objective metric to measure themselves on. So it puts a restriction on us, but that restriction maintains sanity of the game.

 

I believe the real reason we can't edit our products is because those opposing it believe people will just create "god products" or "you might create a product I don't think is realistic" or "you just want a cheat product, learn how to use the ones there are". Or, "you can just turn off X feature if the closest product restrains X thing". Then again, players might create products that, because of how they're set up, change the core of how popularity, matches, etc. are worked - then when bug reporting or having an issue, it can be really tricky to find a solution that doesn't bugger up other products. So the restriction is a terrible one - but I can see how a bunch of people either creating products with under-the-hood consequences they don't know about, or modders creating products for their databases that aren't balanced toward one another, creating a hot mess. What makes things work the best, is consistency and many of the restrictions maintain consistency.

 

So, I believe when we make suggestions, we ought consider the current framework of the game and suggest things within the box and we also need to ensure our ideals don't disrupt the consistency of the core game. Best of luck.

 

Well in short. That’s correct.

 

The so call ‘cheaters’ or ‘those who want it easy’ want additional things in the game or taking out to make it easier and less realistic.

 

The two issues are A: how that effects the game for others. B: resources spent on that, that could be spent elsewhere.

 

That pop cap is set to make it realistic.

 

What happens when it gets taken out ‘or turned off’ and these people are complaining the AI have lots of workers at 100 pop, churning out 100 rated shows, taking in the money and taking all the best stars?

 

- then do they want the AI tuning down?

 

Then with the AI tuned down, less companies exist and workers outside the company gain skills and pop, so if you're playing a 96 mod and the rock is at 40 pop in 2000 because the AI are rubbish, people will complain that workers aren’t been built up enough outside their company for them to steal.

 

I think Adam does well at taking on board what people want, I’ve seen 1,000s of suggestions that haven’t made the cut that sound great. There are many that have.

[Historian]

The caps aren't bad though. I understand that it can be disheartening when you want to push a guy to the moon and he/she caps out, but it is necessary for balance of the game. If there are no caps, the economics of the game become almost unmanageable. The caps are also levelled -- so based off of your popularity/exposure guys only get to be so popular. I'm currently 'insignificant' in my game with no television exposure and I'm pretty sure I'm capped at 50 for talent (I can bring in talent more popular than that, but I don't think I can grow someone past 50). The only people on my roster that are higher than 50 are people I brought in. So the caps are effected by that as well -- which I think gets overlooked sometimes.

[Peter.1986]

People always bring up the realistic defense but there has been unrealistic issues with the game for years. I like tew 2020 the best because attributes finally fixed some issues. Age is just a number and ahead of your time are simply awesome. I hated the 65 age cap and everybody declined so fast in the game. Prodigy helps make terrible young people better too. Yes the caps are bad but everything else about the game is the same or better.

 

Yes I agree there are some things that make it a bit unrealistic, but you can’t counter that by taking something out that adds realism.

 

Completely agree on the decline issue, although sometimes we looked far too much as attributes. You could still have main eventers 10 years passed decline if they had good psychology and chrarisma etc.

 

Age is just a number is great. I think there are currently issues with how the basic skills improve, safety too. Seen people move from 60 to 90 within a year ans with the slow learner attribute.

 

Also everyone retiring at 65 wasn’t a good thing but a new attributes solves that issue.

 

I also think the fact that they improve right until their decline leads to issues. Someone could peak at 30 and neither improve nor decline till 40.

 

Also I think physical, in ring skills and psychology should have a different peak. Someone can physically start to decline and improve elsewhere.

 

It’s just really hard especially when playing real life mods because there are always people who are unique and don’t follow the rule of 90% of workers.

[thadian]

The caps aren't bad though. I understand that it can be disheartening when you want to push a guy to the moon and he/she caps out, but it is necessary for balance of the game. If there are no caps, the economics of the game become almost unmanageable. The caps are also levelled -- so based off of your popularity/exposure guys only get to be so popular. I'm currently 'insignificant' in my game with no television exposure and I'm pretty sure I'm capped at 50 for talent (I can bring in talent more popular than that, but I don't think I can grow someone past 50). The only people on my roster that are higher than 50 are people I brought in. So the caps are effected by that as well -- which I think gets overlooked sometimes.

 

Which is why I would like to reroll destiny, or change it in the editor. The caps are still there, "but for the sake of this game, my dude will not cap out low", and I can decide that without a thousand restarts. I just want to have more options "As a Game Master", if you will, to make certain determinations about my game.

 

Since the caps are actually a good thing, they should not be removed. Give the player something in the editor that can either let you directly see the roll, so you can restart without wasting time; or change it.

 

Best solution - "Click Worker", "Click Popularity Cap", "Change Number".

Done and done.

[Capelli King]

I have zero problem with there being caps, what my problem is that the cap is TOTALLY RANDOM, based upon some mythical "destiny roll". I mean, what the hell is that? Workers in real life go over based upon their ability which can be in ring, look, charisma, mic or whatever. They do not "cap" based on a random destiny roll you have zero control over.

 

This destiny roll is also one of the few things you cannot edit in game, the same goes for potential (which was something we could edit in 2016). Also, lets not forget that TEW is a creative game based upon data / stats. For example, workers with crappy stats do not put on good matches correct? The same logic should apply to popularity.

 

For example: Jay Chord has the following key stats: 91,79,79,74,100,83 for Physiology, Charisma, Mic, Acting, Star, Selling, and general awesome stats all around. He is capped at 90. Mickey Lau is capped at 98 with the following 82, 67, 68, 65, 92, 77. He is basically inferior everywhere to Jay but still over 10% higher in popularity cap. Randy Bumfhole is capped at 78 with 78, 73, 70, 68, 84, 80, in short, he is better than Mickey in everything beside star quality and even that the difference is 8 points. I have multiple similar examples.

 

Also, some people are saying crap "it is cheating" or whatever. All the random cap does is irritates me. It is not easier or more difficult if the cap is random, it simply means that some workers which are ultra talented you cannot consider as a figurehead or cannot put the big titles on them.

 

O yeah, one other thing about random destiny roll, it is totally unrealistic. In real life, a worker with the necessary skills and talent, which is getting pushed on a major network with the resources of WWE, will get over. How over will depend on the skills, the push and resources put into it. Sure there is a "cap" on certain people, but that is based upon the criteria i mentioned.

 

To put things short, i think the cap should be based upon real data, not random roll ********.

[Jaysin]

I have zero problem with there being caps, what my problem is that the cap is TOTALLY RANDOM, based upon some mythical "destiny roll". I mean, what the hell is that? Workers in real life go over based upon their ability which can be in ring, look, charisma, mic or whatever. They do not "cap" based on a random destiny roll you have zero control over.

This destiny roll is also one of the few things you cannot edit in game, the same goes for potential (which was something we could edit in 2016). Also, lets not forget that TEW is a creative game based upon data / stats. For example, workers with crappy stats do not put on good matches correct? The same logic should apply to popularity.

 

For example: Jay Chord has the following key stats: 91,79,79,74,100,83 for Physiology, Charisma, Mic, Acting, Star, Selling, and general awesome stats all around. He is capped at 90. Mickey Lau is capped at 98 with the following 82, 67, 68, 65, 92, 77. He is basically inferior everywhere to Jay but still over 10% higher in popularity cap. Randy Bumfhole is capped at 78 with 78, 73, 70, 68, 84, 80, in short, he is better than Mickey in everything beside star quality and even that the difference is 8 points. I have multiple similar examples.

 

Also, some people are saying crap "it is cheating" or whatever. All the random cap does is irritates me. It is not easier or more difficult if the cap is random, it simply means that some workers which are ultra talented you cannot consider as a figurehead or cannot put the big titles on them.

 

O yeah, one other thing about random destiny roll, it is totally unrealistic. In real life, a worker with the necessary skills and talent, which is getting pushed on a major network with the resources of WWE, will get over. How over will depend on the skills, the push and resources put into it. Sure there is a "cap" on certain people, but that is based upon the criteria i mentioned.

 

To put things short, i think the cap should be based upon real data, not random roll bullshit.

 

What are you talking about? You can still edit potential

[Capelli King]

What are you talking about? You can still edit potential

 

I am referring to the in game editor.

[Historian]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Capelli King" data-cite="Capelli King" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51155" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I am referring to the in game editor.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> There have always been popularity caps in the game and you’ve never been able to edit the potential in game before</p>

[thadian]

<p>I agree the popularity caps should be based on something the player can respond to and work with. In any event, I don't mind caps at all. I only mind having RNG determine who's allowed to be how good and I can't do anything about it.</p><p> </p><p>

Just give us a number to change in the in-game editor - problem solved.</p><p> </p><p>

Elite players can give all their guys lower caps for an Iron Man Challenge, while players like me can pick who their top 3 stars will be and put a few caps on some of our dorks. It works for everyone.</p><p>

And yeah, cheaters could just set their whole roster with high caps.</p><p> </p><p>

I would want my caps to make sense per my desired roster shape. Which still matters to me.</p><p> </p><p>

The better idea would be two things:</p><p>

1. Let players change a worker's number in the in-game editor directly. </p><p>

2. Allow "Talk To Wrestler" options to attempt to increase a cap, even if by a limited amount. There could even be a risk of morale penalty (You said I suck!) or the reverse (I tried too hard, and now my cap is lower) with a limit of once per year.</p>

[Jaysin]

I am referring to the in game editor.

 

You've never been able to change potential in the in game editor

[tryker2710]

I'm finding it really weird that of all the things people are suggesting change-wise, people want the removal of something that's been in the game for over a decade now. I understand it sucks when someone you want to become the next Hulk Hogan doesnt get there, but like, it was the same in 2016 and 2013 etc. Why make a deal of it now when things havent seemed to have changed at all?

[ShaunGBD]

I'm big on this just give us an option to turn it off. He added an option about company growing and tv deal. Please give us am option with this.

[Teh_Showtime]

I'm finding it really weird that of all the things people are suggesting change-wise, people want the removal of something that's been in the game for over a decade now. I understand it sucks when someone you want to become the next Hulk Hogan doesnt get there, but like, it was the same in 2016 and 2013 etc. Why make a deal of it now when things havent seemed to have changed at all?

 

There are more artificial caps now based on company, coverage, etc making people think they run into hard caps more often than they do, so it seems like a larger issue than before.

 

But also the rolling cap presumably means you can’t shatter the cap the old way (editing it to 100 and then changing back) because it’s constantly changing and will just go back regardless.