Wailer Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 The new patch has made it far to easy to turn everyone into stars. In 3 months of game time. (27 shows) I have gone from 4 major stars and 7 stars, to 10 major stars and 13 stars. I guess what I want to know is would going back to the 1.16 patch possibly break or harm my save in anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenCycle Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 Complain about it in the Suggestions forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wailer Posted July 26, 2020 Author Share Posted July 26, 2020 <p>I am not complaining. I know a lot of people didn't like the popularity caps on individuals. But loosening them up, isn't for me.</p><p> </p><p> But that doesn't answer the main question I had. Can we go back a patch without it effecting a save game?</p><p> </p><p> Also if the thread should be moved to the support forum that is fine.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eayragt Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 Yes, I've gone back to 1.16. Be aware that 1.17 also introduced others fixes, so you may come across an error that had since been fixed, so it's not recommended. But the game runs fine. However, I don't know if any of the changes to the cap have carried on with 1.16, having been introduced in 1.17. It depends how the changes were implemented. You're probably better off waiting for 1.18... but that's not what I've done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ryland Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 No, reverting to an old patch doesn't damage the game, you just lose access to anything that was added from that patch onwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Avatar Fan Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 I've been frustrated recently with; I suppose, waiting for the patches to become less frequent and less disruptive before I can commit to a long save. This is entirely a personal preference. But it seems that critical errors haven't been much of an issue, so going back to 1.16 may be a happy medium going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbergey_2005 Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 I've been frustrated recently with; I suppose, waiting for the patches to become less frequent and less disruptive before I can commit to a long save. This is entirely a personal preference. But it seems that critical errors haven't been much of an issue, so going back to 1.16 may be a happy medium going forward. IMO less frequent patches are great when the product feels stable. At this point in time I dont feel that way. I think the major bugs have been squashed. However, I still think the game balance needs some tinkering. In that aspect, I would actually rather have him sending out more patches so we can test and help get it right sooner rather than later. Ive been waiting a week for this popularity issue to get an update which has halted all progress. The frequent patches that fixed issues quickly was always one of my favorite things about Adam's game. I never really had to worry about bugs getting in the way of the game because he was so motivated to fix them. *A huge part of the issue is a lot of people play current day where they want growth to follow today's patterns in which 40-50 skills are not very good. However, when trying to re-create 80s scenario's 40-50 would be considered decent because the popularity has to stay lower in order to replicate that time frame. When you adjust a bunch of these stats so they are in the 30-50 range and they grow 7+ points it changes the scenario very fast. Having a bunch of 70+ skill workers in the 80s changes things very quickly. People are trying to pull the direction of the game the way they play so Im sure its a tough compromise right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donners Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 I've been frustrated recently with; I suppose, waiting for the patches to become less frequent and less disruptive before I can commit to a long save. This is entirely a personal preference. But it seems that critical errors haven't been much of an issue, so going back to 1.16 may be a happy medium going forward. I'm the same; I've just been waiting for the game to stabilise before starting it properly. Oh well, plenty of other games to play in the meantime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRDuke Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 The new patch has made it far to easy to turn everyone into stars. In 3 months of game time. (27 shows) I have gone from 4 major stars and 7 stars, to 10 major stars and 13 stars. I'm a new players, so take this with a grain of salt, but for me, if you gave the WWE 27 shows (27 Weeks...that's half a year) to produce 3 more 'major stars' on Raw or Smackdown utilizing good, focused booking, and the rub from working with 4 or 10 already established stars, I think that's very reasonable to see happening. I found in my ACPW save that I was able to develop stars early, utilizing the starting rosters heat/pop to heat up others on my roster...but after a early game burst, it's been a lot slower in terms of getting the audience to latch on to someone or for me to manufacture a star. Maybe give a few more months and see if this cycle continues. But I for one don't feel like it's all that broken...especially if you're running a big fed with a roster that's got 10 stars on it already! You SHOULD be producing stars... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbergey_2005 Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 I'm a new players, so take this with a grain of salt, but for me, if you gave the WWE 27 shows (27 Weeks...that's half a year) to produce 3 more 'major stars' on Raw or Smackdown utilizing good, focused booking, and the rub from working with 4 or 10 already established stars, I think that's very reasonable to see happening. I found in my ACPW save that I was able to develop stars early, utilizing the starting rosters heat/pop to heat up others on my roster...but after a early game burst, it's been a lot slower in terms of getting the audience to latch on to someone or for me to manufacture a star. Maybe give a few more months and see if this cycle continues. But I for one don't feel like it's all that broken...especially if you're running a big fed with a roster that's got 10 stars on it already! You SHOULD be producing stars... I think its reasonable to say that the WWE hasnt even created 1 "major" star in the past 15 years(since Cena). Brock Lesnar, but he was pretty much already made by the time he came back. ***"major" star according to TEW gameplay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRDuke Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 I think its reasonable to say that the WWE hasnt even created 1 "major" star in the past 15 years(since Cena). Brock Lesnar, but he was pretty much already made by the time he came back. ***"major" star according to TEW gameplay Seth Rollins? Roman Reigns? AJ Styles? Daniel Bryan? I'd consider them major stars...not sure what your threshold for major is...like, all-time icon? Just my opinion...again, maybe in terms of the CornellVerse or TEW2020 its an issue, but for me, it makes sense that you'd be able to utilize the popularity of a roster with 4 or 10 stars to build up a few more. Notice how I said good, focused booking...again, I'm a new player so there may be an issue of semantics and me not really understanding what a 'major star' in the game is...but just my take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbergey_2005 Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 Seth Rollins? Roman Reigns? AJ Styles? Daniel Bryan? I'd consider them major stars...not sure what your threshold for major is...like, all-time icon? Just my opinion...again, maybe in terms of the CornellVerse or TEW2020 its an issue, but for me, it makes sense that you'd be able to utilize the popularity of a roster with 4 or 10 stars to build up a few more. Notice how I said good, focused booking...again, I'm a new player so there may be an issue of semantics and me not really understanding what a 'major star' in the game is...but just my take. Major star according to TEW. It is the main reason the WWE has been losing popularity. They dont have the stars to match the popularity level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRDuke Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 Major star according to TEW. It is the main reason the WWE has been losing popularity. They don't have the stars to match the popularity level. Not sure I completely agree with you (Becky Lynch?) but you do make a fair point about the level of the stars not matching the level of the company in WWE and them suffering for it. When you've had Hulk Hogans, SCSA's, Bret Harts and The Rock's you've set a pretty high standard for your fans to expect. Not many on their roster are really even sniffing that kind of 'stardom' I'd argue Seth and AJ are pretty big...and Becky, Bailey and Sasha are def stars that are hard to compare to the male greats of the past...but you make a fair point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbergey_2005 Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 Not sure I completely agree with you (Becky Lynch?) but you do make a fair point about the level of the stars not matching the level of the company in WWE and them suffering for it. When you've had Hulk Hogans, SCSA's, Bret Harts and The Rock's you've set a pretty high standard for your fans to expect. Fair point. The people you mention are also very close if not major stars according to gameplay. My biggest concern with your post was the creation of 6 major stars a year. That would be super high IMO. I think it is very difficult with a company the size of WWE and without great momentum on their side to create such stars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRDuke Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="jbergey_2005" data-cite="jbergey_2005" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51405" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The people you mention are also very close if not major stars according to gameplay. My biggest concern with your post was the creation of 6 major stars a year. That would be super high IMO. I think it is very difficult with a company the size of WWE and without great momentum on their side to create such stars.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes...creating 6 major stars in a 6month/12 month span is probably unrealistic. I misread your initial post and thought you went from 4 to 7, and 10 to 13...not 4 to 10...in 3 months. That's a big spike. I think my point was that as a booker, if you give me 4 stars to work with, if I'm not able to create one or two new 'stars' or at least elevate them to AJ/Roman status eventually then I'm probably not much of a booker. There should be some elevating going on, but I'll give you that doubling your star count or adding 6 new stars in 6 months might be a bit...ambitious, and unrealistic.</p><p> </p><p> edit: I also meant to add that I think your point about there not being enough stars in WWE is also a result of them running so much programming...and the era we live in. Back in the day, it was a 20+ channel universe and viewing audiences for the one or two shows WWE put out were huge. Even the Monday Night Wars era, the ratings were, what, 5 times what they are now...and WWE has further fragmented that audience with their own Network. They have far too much programming for the caliber of roster they have. It's enough to put on good, quality matches and programming...but the spectacle is missing. That said, with COVID, the whole industry may see a shift away from the spectacle, especially if there are much smaller audiences in the arena to witness it.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khriztian Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 IMHO I don't believe the popularity development is broken, actually I'm finding it quite challenging in my AEW save. The high Star rate creation may be more related to the initial Skills and Popularity levels set on a mod itself, rather than the popularity growth mechanics. If the mod starts with plenty of workers with Pop above 80, and many more in 60's and 70's, then it shouldn't be so hard to build more Stars, especially if you book them well (not like WWE in real life nowadays). Just an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocheBag Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="jbergey_2005" data-cite="jbergey_2005" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51405" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think its reasonable to say that the WWE hasnt even created 1 "major" star in the past 15 years(since Cena).<p> </p><p> Brock Lesnar, but he was pretty much already made by the time he came back.</p><p> </p><p> ***"major" star according to TEW gameplay</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Not really relevant. WWE doesn't create stars because they don't want to and they book in a way that reflects that. They literally publically say no one is bigger than the brand. When we take over WWE we don't book like that. So we should be able to create stars.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocheBag Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="DrRDuke" data-cite="DrRDuke" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51405" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Not sure I completely agree with you (Becky Lynch?) but you do make a fair point about the level of the stars not matching the level of the company in WWE and them suffering for it. When you've had Hulk Hogans, SCSA's, Bret Harts and The Rock's you've set a pretty high standard for your fans to expect. Not many on their roster are really even sniffing that kind of 'stardom' I'd argue Seth and AJ are pretty big...and Becky, Bailey and Sasha are def stars that are hard to compare to the male greats of the past...but you make a fair point.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> And all those people left so WWE doesn't book to create stars anymore. Just because WWE <strong>doesn't</strong> do it doesn't mean we shouldn't <strong>be able</strong> to do it.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbergey_2005 Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="RocheBag" data-cite="RocheBag" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51405" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Not really relevant. WWE doesn't create stars because they don't want to and they book in a way that reflects that. They literally publically say no one is bigger than the brand. When we take over WWE we don't book like that. So we should be able to create stars.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> So you are saying the WWE books the way they do in order to lose popularity and keep having to bring in stars from the past to sell tickets? Interesting thoughts.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbergey_2005 Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="khriztian" data-cite="khriztian" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51405" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>IMHO I don't believe the popularity development is broken, actually I'm finding it quite challenging in my AEW save. The high Star rate creation may be more related to the initial Skills and Popularity levels set on a mod itself, rather than the popularity growth mechanics. If the mod starts with plenty of workers with Pop above 80, and many more in 60's and 70's, then it shouldn't be so hard to build more Stars, especially if you book them well (not like WWE in real life nowadays). Just an opinion.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The growth people are talking about are on the 5-10 year tests.</p><p> </p><p> Within the 1st year everything is usually alright. </p><p> </p><p> Running a current test to see how it goes with the newest patch.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRDuke Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="jbergey_2005" data-cite="jbergey_2005" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51405" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So you are saying the WWE books the way they do in order to lose popularity and keep having to bring in stars from the past to sell tickets? Interesting thoughts.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think what he's saying, and something I've believed for a a while, is that they do this to control someone getting 'too big' to sign...or who risks overshadowing the brand and having the kind of leverage that, well, Vince doesn't want anyone having. It's akin to giving a starting QB a few 4th quarters off over the course of the season so he doesn't hit his performance goals or finish in the Top 5 for MVP voting so they save a few mil on his next contract...or an MLB team not bringing up a stud prospect until may to get an extra year of eligibility. It's certainly counter productive to what the ultimate goal is (make money, entertain and draw fans) but they feel like the brand is what brings the eyeballs...and its a business. There is certainly an argument to be made that they're right...and wrong to do this. There are exceptions to this...the John Cena's and Brock Lesnar's who Vince kind of allows to get THAT big...but it's controlled, and he has his guys.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eayragt Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 Anyway, back on topic... 1.18 is out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wailer Posted July 26, 2020 Author Share Posted July 26, 2020 <p>Just to provide more info. One it is the CV. And the year is 2021. I am playing as TCW.</p><p> </p><p> Also to get to be a major star, takes around 90 popularity in my current game</p><p> </p><p> 27 shows is 3 months. 2 weekly shows and a PPV at the end of the month.</p><p> </p><p> In the first year and a half I was stuck between 4 and 5 major stars. And then in a 3 month window, it doubles with the 1.17 patch. (Not the same 4 to 5 major stars during the whole time.)</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donners Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="khriztian" data-cite="khriztian" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51405" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>IMHO I don't believe the popularity development is broken, actually I'm finding it quite challenging in my AEW save. The high Star rate creation may be more related to the initial Skills and Popularity levels set on a mod itself, rather than the popularity growth mechanics. If the mod starts with plenty of workers with Pop above 80, and many more in 60's and 70's, then it shouldn't be so hard to build more Stars, especially if you book them well (not like WWE in real life nowadays). Just an opinion.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> People have been finding it in the Cverse, with dozens of workers at 90+ pop after a few years, which is clearly broken.</p><p> </p><p> Looks like 1.18 has improved things, though it'll take a bit more testing to be sure.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khriztian Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Donners" data-cite="Donners" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51405" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>People have been finding it in the Cverse, with dozens of workers at 90+ pop after a few years, which is clearly broken.<p> </p><p> Looks like 1.18 has improved things, though it'll take a bit more testing to be sure.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Great to know!</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.