Sudo_Nym Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Just out of curiousity, I thought I'd poll the GDS boards on the value of a good Star Quality stat. How bad can the rest of the stats be, before an A* star quality isn't worth it to you anymore? Does you still try and shove an abysmal talent up the card, just because he's got a great look? And how bad can his attitude be before you pass him over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtutt Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Well, I usually play SWF, and I like the challenge of trying to push a no-talent bum with massive star quality up to the main event. My first project was Big Smack Scott - I'd always fire him first thing in 08, but this year I wanted to try to do something with him. Had him in the main event by February. Only problem was my owner goals would not allow me to re-sign him. So now I'm on the lookout for a new project! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 People with High Star Quality tend to gain popularity faster, and more at once, and tend to lose it slower and less at once. I want to point out a hunch of mine, if a worker has a high star quality, menace, sex appeal, and/or size, he can rise up even faster. It's why a guy like Gargangtuan rises up faster than Davis Wayne Newton (more Menace, Super Heavyweight). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigas Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Yeah, guys like T-Rex are easy to get over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kainlock Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I don't rate Star quality that high at all. I would rather book a worker on his skill more so then his look. Playing as TCW Rocky Golden just doesn't cut it as World Champion for matches. So he dropped the title to Sam Keith and no looks to work his way back down the card. I don't mind spending extra time buidling a guy if he doesn't have high star quality, his matches will earn him his spot. Of course if Golden had some more charisma it would be a diffrent story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlameSnoopy Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Star Quality is definitely a minor skill compared to Entertaiment skills, Menance, Sex Appeal or actual in ring skills. If you have a good star quality, but no other assets () you are basically a worthless piece of.. trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trashbear Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I guess it depends on the type of fed you're running. NOTBPW would have less use (or no use) for a guy like Gargantuan, where I as CGC can protect him by having short matches, and then I have good workers like Alex DeColt who can carry him to watchable main event matches. Gargantuan's attitude is also about as poor as poor can be...but a little cash bonus can wash those blues away. So, for me, star power is a pretty important stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 SQ has its uses. As pointed out, guys tend to get over quicker and maintain that overness easier. There is also a better chance of high destiny, which means they are more likely to have room to improve. I don't rate Star quality that high at all. I would rather book a worker on his skill more so then his look. Playing as TCW Rocky Golden just doesn't cut it as World Champion for matches. So he dropped the title to Sam Keith and no looks to work his way back down the card. I don't mind spending extra time buidling a guy if he doesn't have high star quality, his matches will earn him his spot. Of course if Golden had some more charisma it would be a diffrent story. Its understandable to take the belt off of Golden. But he's workable as a champion. It takes some careful booking and protecting him. But look at the heels in TCW midcard and up. With only a couple of exceptions - Rahn, Buf, Tex - they can all carry Golden to a decent match. Not easy to book it, but it can work. Golden can also be built up quite a bit from my experience. You can do things like find him a talented tag team partner, and you might be able to build him up to a similar level as Rick Law (probably minus the Entertainment skills) within about a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comradebot Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Good SQ definetly has its uses, though typically so long as they have a means to use it. If they're menacing, good the mic, or talented in the ring, then it's nice to have as they can then be a start built on that very principle. Heck, BSS has good enough Entertainment skills that his SQ CAN make him a pretty sizeable star. Really, SQ can be enough to get me to consider pushing them so long as they have SOMETHING serviceable about them. That said, I also enjoy pushing gusy who DON'T have good SQ. So what if The Idaho Punisher has no entertainment skills, menace to average to heavily abuse (though still serviceable in my hands), and in-ring is about above averagish? It's still fun to try and take his F+ SQ and defy the odds by making him a star! So, really... SQ is a nice perk. But I won't hesitate to, say, push Bad News Bruno instead of Hugh de Aske. Though Hugh is pretty awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedew Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I don't rate Star quality that high at all. I would rather book a worker on his skill more so then his look. Playing as TCW Rocky Golden just doesn't cut it as World Champion for matches. So he dropped the title to Sam Keith and no looks to work his way back down the card. I don't mind spending extra time buidling a guy if he doesn't have high star quality, his matches will earn him his spot. Of course if Golden had some more charisma it would be a diffrent story. If i'm not mistaken, very low star quality can effectively set a popularity ceiling - F- Star Quality but great in-ring stats won't necessarily get to the main event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 If i'm not mistaken, very low star quality can effectively set a popularity ceiling - F- Star Quality but great in-ring stats won't necessarily get to the main event. Another good point. Great SQ rarely means a worker is going to have a lower popularity ceiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praguepride Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 It depends on if your promotions is performance or popularity based. If it's performance based, SQ has little value other then giving you a rough estimate of where the worker will land in your roster. In a popularity fed, I use it as the deciding factor of who to push as a star and who's going to be a perrenial midcarder/jobber. I used Gargantuan in RIPW in '08 and that guy was a popularity machine. With his star quality + menace he was raising up in popularity by a grade or two EACH SHOW! He went from E- -> E+ after his first show! After that it topped off as RIPW's only a small promotion, but the beautiful thing was that he could quickly be brought up in popularity and even though he was beating everyone (to help build momentum) other workers were slowly gaining popularity from it as well just being around him. When he was finally defeated it gave the winner (Rafael Ruiz) a HUGE popularity boost, which helps because Raf doesn't have much in the way of entertainment skills but has tons of ability. He's the Mexican Steve Flash So when I go out to look for a new hire, I first need to decide whether I'm getting a future star or not. If not, then SQ doesn't factor too much into it. If I AM looking to build the next star, I set SQ at a fairly high level (B-/C+) and go from there. As pointed out, SQ without anything else isn't worth much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Orange Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Menace is still the most useful stat in the game. That's why (Comradebot you'll like this) I've made a new list of my top 5 monster heels (in white) 5. The Big Bad 4. The Big Bad 3. The Big Bad 2. The Big Bad 1. The Big Bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 It depends on if your promotions is performance or popularity based. If it's performance based, SQ has little value other then giving you a rough estimate of where the worker will land in your roster. In a popularity fed, I use it as the deciding factor of who to push as a star and who's going to be a perrenial midcarder/jobber. I used Gargantuan in RIPW in '08 and that guy was a popularity machine. With his star quality + menace he was raising up in popularity by a grade or two EACH SHOW! He went from E- -> E+ after his first show! After that it topped off as RIPW's only a small promotion, but the beautiful thing was that he could quickly be brought up in popularity and even though he was beating everyone (to help build momentum) other workers were slowly gaining popularity from it as well just being around him. When he was finally defeated it gave the winner (Rafael Ruiz) a HUGE popularity boost, which helps because Raf doesn't have much in the way of entertainment skills but has tons of ability. He's the Mexican Steve Flash So when I go out to look for a new hire, I first need to decide whether I'm getting a future star or not. If not, then SQ doesn't factor too much into it. If I AM looking to build the next star, I set SQ at a fairly high level (B-/C+) and go from there. As pointed out, SQ without anything else isn't worth much. Well, "Gargangtuan = A* Star Quality + A* Menace + Super Heavyweight", which easily explains why rises pretty fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FINisher Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 If i'm not mistaken, very low star quality can effectively set a popularity ceiling - F- Star Quality but great in-ring stats won't necessarily get to the main event. Doesn't matter at all if the fed is performance biased, there simply isn't a need to get to the 'main event' and I'm referring to push status if the said wrestler can rack up awesome matches.. If someone caps at C+/B- popularity you can still get B+ to A* matches with them if they really are that damn good / wrestle against quality opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWO4until01 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Its understandable to take the belt off of Golden. But he's workable as a champion. It takes some careful booking and protecting him. But look at the heels in TCW midcard and up. With only a couple of exceptions - Rahn, Buf, Tex - they can all carry Golden to a decent match. Not easy to book it, but it can work. Golden can also be built up quite a bit from my experience. You can do things like find him a talented tag team partner, and you might be able to build him up to a similar level as Rick Law (probably minus the Entertainment skills) within about a year. with regards to this... would pairing him in a match vs someone talented with good psychology and selling be enough to carry it through, or would it be wise to say script the match as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praguepride Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 with regards to this... would pairing him in a match vs someone talented with good psychology and selling be enough to carry it through, or would it be wise to say script the match as well? No matter what, a poor worker will drag the match down. I thought you only needed one good psych worker to call the match in the ring, but the road agent said that this is exposing the weaker guy's weakness so I only "call in the ring" when two great guys are wrestling. No matter what, Rocky's going to underperform. But look at Hogan. Not saying he was the worst wrestler ever, but he wasn't known for his technical expertise. But did that matter? No. He still became the most popular worker on the planet thanks to his A* star quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Doesn't matter at all if the fed is performance biased, there simply isn't a need to get to the 'main event' and I'm referring to push status if the said wrestler can rack up awesome matches.. If someone caps at C+/B- popularity you can still get B+ to A* matches with them if they really are that damn good / wrestle against quality opponents. In my experience, the popularity still has some effect, at least in promotions like TCW. Having Tommy Cornell at A* overness against a B+ opponent seems to grade better than Cornell at B+ against the same opponenat B- popularity. Maybe if performance matters much than popularity...? with regards to this... would pairing him in a match vs someone talented with good psychology and selling be enough to carry it through, or would it be wise to say script the match as well? It would, for the most part. As PP says, Rocky's performance skills are always going to have somthing of a negative effect, but a good opponent mimizes that negative. I wouldn't script the match, usually, unless his opponent has equal or lower Psychology (C+). He is not going to tend to pull the frequent B+ and A grades that someone else as champion possibly could, but regular B matches are quite possible, in my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FINisher Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 In my experience, the popularity still has some effect, at least in promotions like TCW. Having Tommy Cornell at A* overness against a B+ opponent seems to grade better than Cornell at B+ against the same opponenat B- popularity. Maybe if performance matters much than popularity...? That depends on whether the product is biased on performance or biased much more on performance. There's a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 That depends on whether the product is biased on performance or biased much more on performance. There's a difference. That's what I thought. I have less experience with promotions where performance matters much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.