Top Wrestlers of the world (Bug?)

[Kovic]

I don't know does this belong to here or technical support forum but... Matthew Gauge won Wrestler of the year award... Then I checked Top 100 wrestlers of the world list and I didn't found him there, then I checked his title history and it didn't have a mention either so the problem wasn't just me and my eyes... Is this supposed to be possible or is this some kind of bug? Matthew had a great record (average: B+ Highest:A*) Even thought he was working for WEXXW (regional) for whole year, top wrestler of the list, Greg Gauge, was also working for WEXXW for whole year with same kind of match history... I have no idea what would cause this kind of problem, have you have this kind of problems yourself?

[LNK-]

I had this happen with Chris Hero in my ROH game.

[Capelli King]

Sometimes the ratings are somewhat unexpected. I would also like in the new game a more accurate rating system.

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=Capelli King;246814]Sometimes the ratings are somewhat unexpected. I would also like in the new game a more accurate rating system.[/QUOTE] So you want something in the game that doesn't exist in real life? There is no such thing as an "accurate rating system". Who's the best in-ring worker in the world? I'd have one answer and I'm pretty sure if you ask 100 people, you'll get at least 50 different responses. That's what those awards and lists are meant to simulate. PWI might have a list and Meltzer has a list, and PWTorch has a list and rarely do they all match up exactly. Also, keep in mind there's a certain amount of scale involved. Sean McFly or Yoshimi or Kunomasu or Shuji getting A* matches probably isn't as unusual as Cal Sanders doing it. But you can bet that Cal getting an A* match might garner a bit more attention and/or consideration because of its rarity. In the end, the ratings are largely subjective. A worker with an average match rating of A isn't guaranteed to run away with all the awards they're eligible for. This is an "issue" that vexed me greatly in 05 but that's how it was explained to me (and it makes perfect sense IMO).

[Lucied]

[QUOTE=Remianen;246864]So you want something in the game that doesn't exist in real life? There is no such thing as an "accurate rating system". Who's the best in-ring worker in the world? I'd have one answer and I'm pretty sure if you ask 100 people, you'll get at least 50 different responses. That's what those awards and lists are meant to simulate. PWI might have a list and Meltzer has a list, and PWTorch has a list and rarely do they all match up exactly. Also, keep in mind there's a certain amount of scale involved. Sean McFly or Yoshimi or Kunomasu or Shuji getting A* matches probably isn't as unusual as Cal Sanders doing it. But you can bet that Cal getting an A* match might garner a bit more attention and/or consideration because of its rarity. In the end, the ratings are largely subjective. A worker with an average match rating of A isn't guaranteed to run away with all the awards they're eligible for. This is an "issue" that vexed me greatly in 05 but that's how it was explained to me (and it makes perfect sense IMO).[/QUOTE] Also, the lists you mention rely heavily on what the editor(s) watch and don't watch. The Pro Wrestling Illustrated Top 500 list, for example, leans more heavily toward US wrestling, because that's really all the writers watch. I've heard that they usually just throw Japanese and Mexican wrestlers on the list to keep things looking fair and equal, but that it doesn't really have much to do with their actual performance. On the other hand, I can understand the need for an accurate Top 100 list in a game like this. A player could benefit greatly from having a true list of who is best, in order to formulate a plan on who to go after in the coming year. The problem is, which do you go for? Accuracy in relation to the real life Top # lists, or a statistically accurate representation of who was the absolute best in the past year?

[falling_star]

[QUOTE=Lucied;246921]On the other hand, I can understand the need for an accurate Top 100 list in a game like this. A player could benefit greatly from having a true list of who is best, in order to formulate a plan on who to go after in the coming year. The problem is, which do you go for? Accuracy in relation to the real life Top # lists, or a statistically accurate representation of who was the absolute best in the past year?[/QUOTE] But all of the planning and risk involved with choosing who to sign is the fun of the game. The lists, awards, internet articles, etc. all give you little nudges in certain directions that may or may not be good ideas, but might be worth a shot. What would be the fun in having a list of the best workers to sign? I don't think I'd play this game if the point was to simply build a roster of the top workers.