Using Statistics and the C-Verse to Build Better Mods

[Woodsmeister]

you could just delete all contracts and see who ends up where? (well for one of the tests).

[lazorbeak]

I'd like to point out that the statistical breakdowns and such are relevant if your building a mod based on the C-verse mod, using the same statistical breakdowns with their promotions/what each promotion finds usefull.

 

A "real world" mod would have to take into consideration all the little and big promotions they have around the world, and fill them in accordingly with real world worker's. The numbers won't help if your world isn't build exactly like the C-Verse, or at least not the same way it helps the C-Verse, if your promotions are looking for people with different qualities (Hardcore, etc.).

 

From my first post:

 

This statistical analysis might sound intimidating, but it quickly and accurately tells you how close you are to the balance of the default game world. If it's your goal as a mod-maker to make things harder, you would expect slightly lower values, and if you have a game world where A* matches are falling off trees, you would expect to find higher values than the C-Verse. That comes down to personal preference, but this way things like complaints that the game is "harder" is actually measurable.

 

I guess I need to bold this or frame it or something.

 

The worker's a promotion will hire will be effected by quite a few different things, and if you have a world where these things/stats are too low, then the same worker's will be used over and over by multiple promotions.

 

For example, in the C-Verse, if you play an extended game, you will find that certain people will get hired over other's that might never work at all in the C-Verse period (meaning even the C-Verse has problems). The SQ, or learning of the SQ Stat is important for cult or higher promotions in their hiring. You could end up with the same worker's working for multiple promotions (and it happens in the C-Verse as time goes on) with 70% of your worker's never getting any work at all.

 

Bassically, what I'm saying is if you do have Mic Foley, and you have these promotions set at national level (WCW, WWE, etc.) and think they will keep someone like Mic Foley on their roster, you might want to test that first (if you have him with low SQ). This is going to be true with many worker's that you might not think have the "it" thing going for them. These people that in real life had great wrestling carreer's could end up on the non-working area really fast if you don't take these things into consideration.

 

SQ is NOT the only thing companies look at to hire, depending on your promotions set up here is what your looking at with a database of 1000 workers (doing it this way/borrowing the numbers from the first page).

 

95-100: 21

90-94: 36

85-89: 46

80-84: 80

75-79: 69

70-74: 109

65-69: 111

60-64: 89

55-59: 54

51-55: 84

 

So your looking at around 252 people in the whole database that will be looked at for cult or above companies (estimation). 338 that can probably get a job outside of them, in smaller companies, and 410 people that probably won't ever have a job unless they start with one (and if the roster is bloated, it won't last long).

 

There are ways to set up things (with the new hiring rules etc), so that people will have a chance, but I'm just saying, if you put Foley down low in SQ, he's not going to be in a cage match with Undertaker, or anyone in the WWE (for example), on any PPV.

 

Okay I have a few questions about your methodology here. How did you decide that only 252 workers would be looked at by cult or above companies? Also you seem to admit that companies don't hire just based on star quality (and they don't), but then only seem to consider that when considering whether someone like Mick Foley will end up doing nothing. If TCW will hire Jack Griffith, with his 56 star quality, bad reputation, and average stats, why wouldn't Foley get hired? I already addressed that Foley's skills should be high and in a mod during his time in WWF his popularity would be very high, too. How on earth is ONE weakness, a weakness shared by several similar workers in the C-Verse that don't get quickly cut, mean that I am somehow short-changing Foley. Like I've been saying, it's adding depth. Anybody can push somebody that has great stats and zero flaws, but Foley did and should have flaws (he would also have low physical stats). I'm not saying Foley should have terrible stats in other areas; in fact, to balance his low star quality he should have very good stats otherwise.

 

As we said before, we will have to agree to dissagree with our thoughts on SQ. I think Sex Appeal would be the one that Foley would be alot lower on then SQ (my opinion), at least the way the game engine is set up it makes more sense to me. He could have a 100 SQ, and might only get a couple chances to headline any major PPV in WWE/WWF/WCW fashion in a mod, if he has low Sex Appeal and you have them set up to like people with good looks. At least it's much easier for me to set it up like that (to make the world act realistic).

 

Well, his sex appeal should be considerably lower than his star quality. Maybe you don't understand the numbers range where I think he'd be, so I'll say he should be in the 50-60 range. The median in the C-Verse is a 63, so he'd be slightly below average, but not completely lacking in the stat, and definitely not unhire-able. Squeeky McClean, Aristocrat, the Dirty White Boys, Edward Cornell, and a host of other C-Verse workers who are quite hire-able are in this same range. And again, Genghis Rhan has a star quality in the low 60's and is one of TCW's big names. But star quality takes into account other things Foley doesn't have: ease of getting over, status as a franchise player, etc., that to give him great star quality but then have an owner goal that keeps him from getting to the top you are making a clock run backwards and then reflecting it in a mirror rather than just letting it run clockwise: using stats the way they were designed to be used.

 

I think this thread is a good idea, but I think it should be thought of as thinking material, and not "rule of thumb".

 

I totally agree, but I'm actually using data to say "hey this is how you can improve things." I'm not saying anybody has to do things my way or that Mick Foley must have a star quality below 70, but I am looking at the database and saying "what does a hardcore tough guy without a championship look look like" and similar questions to find answers, rather than arbitrarily deciding how the game should work. If you look at the database and come up with a better answer, more power to you. But the important part is interpreting the data, because it's a tremendous resource. And to keep the metaphor running, if I want to know how to make a clock, the first thing I should do is figure out how a clock works and then take it apart and put it back together. Obviously I don't have to turn around and create an identical clock, but all the pieces should do basically the same thing.

 

The statistical breakdown of other stats, such as brawling, hardcore, high flying, etc... as I said it's going to depend on what exactly you have your promotions set as, as to how many of these types of worker's you would want in the mod. Too many, and you have a world full of high flyer's that can't find work, too low, and you find the same worker's working for every promotion (and alot of people out of work).

 

I'd like to see a breakdown of the promotions, and what they are looking for in a worker to go along with this thought process, as well as how many of the worker's from all sizes of promotions are "untouchable" by other companies for any length of time.

 

Again, I refer you to my first post. Yes, those numbers do depend on the game world in part. But you can get more out of it then that. You can see what the game considers a national level brawler or a well-rounded worker and apply that to any mod.

[crayon]

Shame we can't have Ryland chime in on this thread with any definitative answers. Since it seems as though there's still a fair bit of room for interpretation of what's supposed to be going on, even with the help file descriptions and an abundant knowledge of wrestling

 

Oh, and also I thought sex appeal was really only relevent for women in these latest iterations of TEW?

[lazorbeak]

BSC: View from the Bottom

 

Okay, people have asked for more specific breakdowns, so I'm starting with one of the smallest promotions in the game. Why? Because they have a small roster and illustrate some other points I've been making.

 

What does a median worker at BSC look like?

 

Brawling: 25 (-19)

Aerial: 22 (-8)

Chain: 24.5 (-17.5)

Charisma: 67 (+7)

Athleticism: 70 (+3)

Stamina: 75 (+9)

Basics: 41 (-30)

Psychology: 33 (-23)

Sex Appeal: 85 (+43)

Star Quality: 48 (-15)

 

Okay, so if you said the average worker "sucks," you're not wrong. In every top row stat, the BSC girls are not just below average, they're woefully below average. Their basics and psychology stats are even further from the median. But, before we throw out the baby with the bathwater, they do have several stats where they're actually above the median. They basically set the top of the curve for sex appeal (not surprising), but they also have more charisma, stamina and athleticism than average (mildly surprising). I include them to show that while you would expect a small company to be below average, they are not average across the board and are actually strong in a number of ways that fit with their style.

 

We can also see how huge an impact training has on stats we've already looked at. Candy Floss and Tamara McFly have an 82 and a 78 for basics, reflecting the fact that they're actually trained and have worked for real promotions before. But most of the other girls have a basics stat in the 40's, reflecting rudimentary training by a real former worker (Anne Stardust). Note that for game purposes, anything below a 40 is absolutely dismal, reflecting 24 out of 524 wrestlers in North America. Compare that to the forty workers with a basics of 90 and above, and we see just how bad these girls are at doing the most basic of wrestling moves. If you remember GLOW or WOW, think of the below average (non main event) workers in those promotions and you've got a good idea how painful it would be to watch these girls put on a wrestling clinic.

 

Also, showing the importance of charisma and star quality on the "franchise player" screen, Dharma Gregg is #1, despite not being champion and despite being at or below median in every wrestling stat. But she has a 90 for charisma and an 80 for star quality, making her the most charismatic and tied for most star quality.

 

Okay, one more problem I see that I'll address here: what does high sex appeal but low star quality look like? Nurse Hope Daye and Britney Hollywood both have sex appeal in the 80's and star quality only in the 20's. What that means is while they're attractive enough to get a crowd to react to "sex appeal" rated segments, they don't have that "it" factor that gets fans to care about them even when they're not participating in bikini contests, etc. For those that remember XPW, every female manager they had (they were porn stars), would fit this mold. They were able to get the crowd involved when they took off their clothes, but they couldn't get anybody's attention when they weren't. Compare that to Torrie Wilson or Stacy Keibler in WCW, where their star quality was so high they completely overshadowed most of their clients, even when they weren't taking off clothes.

 

But note that all these workers do have strengths: they're T&A workers, so they have high T&A stats, along with good athleticism and stamina. So don't be afraid to give Terri Runnels or Dawn Marie or Beulah or whoever high sex appeal; that is why they're on the show! The game should be able to tell the difference between someone that just has sex appeal (high sex appeal and nothing else), and someone that actually has decent skills and looks like a star (Lita, Trish, etc.).

[lazorbeak]

Shame we can't have Ryland chime in on this thread with any definitative answers. Since it seems as though there's still a fair bit of room for interpretation of what's supposed to be going on, even with the help file descriptions and an abundant knowledge of wrestling

 

Oh, and also I thought sex appeal was really only relevent for women in these latest iterations of TEW?

 

Well that's why I'm trying to use all the tools he did give us in the data to figure out how things work and share it with people.

 

But you're right, the sex appeal stat is mostly for female workers although it does effect some gimmicks across gender. Out of the top 50 sex appeal among active workers in the C-Verse North America, two of them are dudes. While Jeff Hardy or John Cena would have decent sex appeal because they've got girls with crushes on them screaming when they take off their shirt, the stat is mostly a balance for women that otherwise are less likely to be showcased.

[djthefunkchris]

From my first post:

 

 

 

I guess I need to bold this or frame it or something.

 

/Nod, I keep forgetting about that. More then anything, just wanted to emphasise the point. I don't come over here often enough to get it into my thick skull, maybe I should...

 

Okay I have a few questions about your methodology here. How did you decide that only 252 workers would be looked at by cult or above companies?.

For some reason, after booku testing by at least six or so of us on another thread, where I wanted to prove that to be wrong, I ended up finding out the other person was right. So if nothing else, I have to admit when I'm wrong. Perhaps you'll understand what I mean in a few minutes.

 

Also you seem to admit that companies don't hire just based on star quality (and they don't), but then only seem to consider that when considering whether someone like Mick Foley will end up doing nothing.

Without Star Quality, the other focus's won't be looked at, after a company gets to a certain status level.

 

If TCW will hire Jack Griffith, with his 56 star quality, bad reputation, and average stats, why wouldn't Foley get hired?

Ahh, now we get to the meat of things... Why did they hire him? Why did they hire him in your game, but not in my dozen or so games? Why does he end up in at the best NYCW in my games?

 

Well, the destiny value's or whatever that we can't see, but the AI can, actually might have something to do with. A person that has the Potential to be in that SQ can get picked up as well, but this is a gamble... it can go either way, and with his physical skills not being all that great either, it's going to be a person to invest in (physical skills seem to effect time to learn other skills). So maybe they have picked him up in your game, but in my game(s), it's not an everyday occurance (Don't remember them ever picking him up). I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet it's just the lucky roll of the dice on his potential.

 

I already addressed that Foley's skills should be high and in a mod during his time in WWF his popularity would be very high, too. How on earth is ONE weakness, a weakness shared by several similar workers in the C-Verse that don't get quickly cut, mean that I am somehow short-changing Foley. Like I've been saying, it's adding depth.

Anybody can push somebody that has great stats and zero flaws, but Foley did and should have flaws (he would also have low physical stats). I'm not saying Foley should have terrible stats in other areas; in fact, to balance his low star quality he should have very good stats otherwise.

See, I don't look at Superstar Quality about having the "look" or whatever that is needed to succeed. I know a bunch of people do though. Star Quality effects how great someone can be (to an extent), and it's also how great they appear to be already. Mic Foley might not look like much at first glance, but that is "Sex Appeal" or even "menace".

Star Quality His “X factor” in terms of whether he can be taken seriously as a major star.

As soon as he opens his mouth, he is taken seriously as a major star. Just remember, Major Stars come in all shapes and sizes. They don't have to be the "Vince McMahan" image, they can be the Chris Jericho and Mic Foley's as well. One thing I think people take too seriously is the way Foley comes off, and sells it to everyone as part of his gimmick, but comes accross as if to be 100% fact. That is that he is too ugly to be as popular as he is. That's incredibly naive, as there have been many example's of people with similar looks that have had incredible success in their carreer's. Adrianne Adonis. I don't care what anyone says, Dusty Rhodes is uglier. One of Muhummad Ali's favorite's of all time, Gorgeous George "He better not mess up my pretty hair or I'll kill him". I wonder where a young Clay got "I'm too pretty to be a boxer" from? These guys didn't have the "Look", but they had the "X" factor to be taken seriously.

 

Well, his sex appeal should be considerably lower than his star quality. Maybe you don't understand the numbers range where I think he'd be, so I'll say he should be in the 50-60 range. The median in the C-Verse is a 63, so he'd be slightly below average, but not completely lacking in the stat, and definitely not unhire-able. Squeeky McClean, Aristocrat, the Dirty White Boys, Edward Cornell, and a host of other C-Verse workers who are quite hire-able are in this same range. And again, Genghis Rhan has a star quality in the low 60's and is one of TCW's big names. But star quality takes into account other things Foley doesn't have: ease of getting over, status as a franchise player, etc., that to give him great star quality but then have an owner goal that keeps him from getting to the top you are making a clock run backwards and then reflecting it in a mirror rather than just letting it run clockwise: using stats the way they were designed to be used.

The stats don't quite work in the way you think they do though. There is a chance that Foley wouldn't end up anywhere, even with all the other things going for him, if he doesn't have SQ. You say 50-60 range, and I would have him at a strong 70-75 range. Gives him room to improve, but enough of a gap not to end up being the prime player in a national company. Maybe at this point in his carreer, yes, but earlier I would have it my way.

 

The easiest thing to do is copy/paste the Default database, and do what was suggested by another poster... Make everyone fair game for every company, and see what happens (can keep your owners and such, just start all workers out without a contract). When you see it from this level, even if you don't agree with me, you'll have to understand what I'm talking about (hiring wise, etc.). As everyone will be fair game, and your not going to see too many people without high SQ in either of the top promotions. You won't see smaller promotions having half as great of a crew as they do now either.

 

As I was saying in my last post, you can force the hiring of lesser worker's, if they don't have a choice.

 

 

I totally agree, but I'm actually using data to say "hey this is how you can improve things." I'm not saying anybody has to do things my way or that Mick Foley must have a star quality below 70, but I am looking at the database and saying "what does a hardcore tough guy without a championship look look like" and similar questions to find answers, rather than arbitrarily deciding how the game should work. If you look at the database and come up with a better answer, more power to you. But the important part is interpreting the data, because it's a tremendous resource. And to keep the metaphor running, if I want to know how to make a clock, the first thing I should do is figure out how a clock works and then take it apart and put it back together. Obviously I don't have to turn around and create an identical clock, but all the pieces should do basically the same thing.

See, you turn around and say something like that, which there is no way i could refute. Obviously your right about the clock.

 

However, your looking at a database that is filled out, with good and bad for every promotion just about, and going "Look, that's how to make a great database", and yet your haven't considered the problem with the default database in long running games. All the promotions will eventually drop lower then cult size within' around two decades. Star Quality seems to be the most noticeable thing that declines, and the knowledge we now know is that this is a direct result of physical stats being lower as time progress's. SQ at the same time remain's pretty fair/even, a little less then 63, but not so much as they shouldn't be able to learn it and keep the companies on top... but they don't.

 

Again, I refer you to my first post. Yes, those numbers do depend on the game world in part. But you can get more out of it then that. You can see what the game considers a national level brawler or a well-rounded worker and apply that to any mod.

 

I said using hiring rules to help make a mod seem more realistic (and they do). That's what they were made for, and it's a tool for the game, just as effective as stats and such. I haven't tested it as much as I would like, but there is alot of opportunities there to utilize, that can help the database work in longer running games.

 

I'm not saying the default database is broke, but I am saying that long term games aren't possible without long term planning with debuting worker's able to keep the learning (and physical stats) curve going strong.

 

I don't like mods with inflated stats anymore then anyone else... However, there are a few stats that are needed for real world mods to simulate reality at all, and one of them is the SQ (the fastest, easiest fix to the problem).

 

As I said before. I think this is a great thread that most people should find enlightening.... but the best way to make sure your mod works right is by testing it... Testing the C-Verse as well will lead you into finding things out you probably wish you wouldn't have (As it did for me).

 

Let me put it this way... IF your interest is in making a good mod that is playable for five years or so (give or take a few years), then by all means use the C-Verse as a good example of how that is done. IF your working on a historical mod, that your hoping to have many decades to browse through (even if you just want to sim through it), you'll need to test the data a few times, and find out how to get certain people hired in the game.

 

Mic Foley is one of the most popular people in Wrestling. NOT top 10, but certainly more popular then quite a few people that have had World Title's in the biggest companies. That's saying something. SQ isn't a cheat to make it easier for him, it's a tool just like the rest of them, to help you simulate reality.

[lazorbeak]

I feel like you've already come around on most things, chris! The only things I still disagree on is the stuff about Foley being taken seriously as a major star when he opens his mouth. I don't think that's what star quality is for, and you're tripping into charisma territory. Yes, the fans connect with him. But do they think he should be representing his company? Part of star quality is how willing fans are to believe that somebody's the guy. Even fat guys like Dusty Rhodes was totally believable as a top guy in his day. But in the late 90's Mankind stuck out like a missing ear. And having read his autobiography and seen the way he was used throughout his career, he was not a guy that was "taken seriously as a major star," as the help file describes. And Adrian Adonis wasn't a star, and yes, Gorgeous George and Muhammad Ali definitely did have "the look." I don't even know why you're comparing them. I've already mentioned how he never held any singles gold for a decade and was treated as a joke by his former company, right?

 

However, your looking at a database that is filled out, with good and bad for every promotion just about, and going "Look, that's how to make a great database", and yet your haven't considered the problem with the default database in long running games. All the promotions will eventually drop lower then cult size within' around two decades. Star Quality seems to be the most noticeable thing that declines, and the knowledge we now know is that this is a direct result of physical stats being lower as time progress's. SQ at the same time remain's pretty fair/even, a little less then 63, but not so much as they shouldn't be able to learn it and keep the companies on top... but they don't.

 

You're right, I'm absolutely not looking at how well the C-Verse fairs after two decades. Because I don't see them as problems with the data, I see that as being outside the scope of the goals of the game. It's not meant to perfectly mimic reality forever, or even for two decades. And I wouldn't use it as a "how to" guide on recreating the entire history of professional wrestling. It's not designed for that. But what it does do is present a playable, fun universe that can be enjoyed from any number of perspectives. And not only that, it directly sets out what the game thinks is a great worker vs. a very good worker vs. a bad worker. It provides a base so you can look at Bret Hart in 1997 or Kurt Angle in 2002 or whatever and compare him against Dan Stone Jr in 2010 and say "okay, that is what a world class wrestler looks like."

[jbergey_2005]

Excellent work!

 

I am really enjoying the breakdowns of the top 2 with the rest. This should be very helpful in getting the WWE not so far ahead in real world mods.

 

Im looking forward to an popularity breakdown. I think this is another area where real world mods get inflated. In my opinion the only wrestler that would be close to 100 in popularity would be Hulk Hogan because of the mainstream attention he got at the time. Austin and the Rock would likely be in that 90 range.

 

A lot of times Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, John Cena, Triple H, and the Undertaker are getting 85+ overness ratings which I dont know that I agree with since you ask Joe Blow down the street who any of these guys are and its unlikely if they had every heard of them unless they are a wrestling fan while most people would have stumbled upon Hulk Hogans name at one point in their life.

[Woodsmeister]

Undertaker, Shawn Michaels and John Cena from your list are defiantly B+ material at least, even Triple H if you think of the era's of popularity most of them have been through and most of it as main attractions.

 

John Cena isn't every smart fans cup of tea but he is over hugely with kids and parents I went to a few WWE live shows last year and the sea of Orange t-shirts was incredible, usually with arm bands and caps to match, plus he always wins awards with nickelodeon and kids tv channels, he has been plastered over almost every WWE merchandise lunch box, pencil case, book etc... So people might not recognize his name but they will associate his likeness to WWE.

[BurningHamster]

Excellent work!

 

I am really enjoying the breakdowns of the top 2 with the rest. This should be very helpful in getting the WWE not so far ahead in real world mods.

 

Im looking forward to an popularity breakdown. I think this is another area where real world mods get inflated. In my opinion the only wrestler that would be close to 100 in popularity would be Hulk Hogan because of the mainstream attention he got at the time. Austin and the Rock would likely be in that 90 range.

 

A lot of times Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, John Cena, Triple H, and the Undertaker are getting 85+ overness ratings which I dont know that I agree with since you ask Joe Blow down the street who any of these guys are and its unlikely if they had every heard of them unless they are a wrestling fan while most people would have stumbled upon Hulk Hogans name at one point in their life.

 

Your point makes some sense in a "I've never tried to make a mod" kind of way and I used to subscribe to your theory. But, if you have a mod say based in the present time and WWE is an international company (which I think, judging by their TV deals and international tours, is a fair call) and nobody on the roster has above 85 popularity in the US, and most significantly less ... well, WWE is going to fall to Cult pretty soon. And people will be bitching and whining about it and ready to write your mod off as terrible.

[lazorbeak]

Good points, everyone else! I'm glad my top two breakdowns are helpful. Again, that is sort of a baseline average, so about half the roster should be better and half should be worse. WWE's should maybe be a little worse in some respects because of their youth, but you should still have guys that are among the top in the world in nearly every category.

 

I think there is some truth to what you're saying; yes, mods tend to have higher popularity scores than in the C-Verse. Part of that is trying to insulate the database, and part of it is when stats get lowered in other areas, people feel like popularity needs to compensate.

 

I'm not going to do a full breakdown right now, but 90 and above overness in the USA is two guys: Jack Bruce and Sam Strong. In Canada, it's the Stone family (minus Duane and Edd), and Sam Strong. In Mexico, it's just El Patron. Note that that's 3 active wrestlers with a 90 or better in the default game world.

 

Now this is one stat where I don't think absolute conformity with the C-Verse is a good idea, let alone a must.

 

Im looking forward to an popularity breakdown. I think this is another area where real world mods get inflated. In my opinion the only wrestler that would be close to 100 in popularity would be Hulk Hogan because of the mainstream attention he got at the time. Austin and the Rock would likely be in that 90 range.

 

A lot of times Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, John Cena, Triple H, and the Undertaker are getting 85+ overness ratings which I dont know that I agree with since you ask Joe Blow down the street who any of these guys are and its unlikely if they had every heard of them unless they are a wrestling fan while most people would have stumbled upon Hulk Hogans name at one point in their life.

 

Okay, your example about asking guys off the street is not quite how popularity works. You might notice that even at a huge size, your promotion only gets around 15K attendance for your TV shows, even with high popularity and a great industry. Similarly, you might have one million viewers on a given night. Since the C-Verse presumably still has 300 million plus in the US alone, that's not a huge chunk. So Joe Blow on the street isn't watching. Whether he knows who Hulk Hogan is doesn't particularly matter because he doesn't care about wrestling and wouldn't pay money to see Hogan even if he knew who he was. From the help file: "This is a worker’s name value in relation to the reactions he gets from a crowd (overall, not just “entrance pops”) and what sort of impact his name would have on ticket sales." So just having heard of somebody is not the prerequisite. It's how a worker is viewed among wrestling fans, that niche audience that goes to shows and watches it on TV, and how likely people are to buy a ticket/ppv/whatever based on that guy being on the show.

 

So I totally disagree that Austin and the Rock shouldn't have A popularity at their peaks: not only were they the top guys in the company at respective points, they were the biggest names in the industry at one point in time. The fact that maybe Grandma hadn't heard of Steve Austin is totally irrelevant, because Austin was the most over guy on the planet in terms of wrestling fans from 1998 to 2001 or so. You could've put Steve Austin vs. absolutely anyone on the card and people would watch.

 

In the same way, John Cena right now is the most over guy in American professional wrestling. He's been the #1 name for the top promotion in the world for five years, he gets huge reactions (even if they are/were sometimes negative) all over, and he sells merchandise and pops ratings among wrestling fans. So I don't see any problem giving him an A for popularity at all. Randy Orton would be right there behind him, as he gets crazy reactions and is probably their #2 most over guy. Again, it doesn't matter if Cena doesn't have a great acting career or Orton isn't known among people who don't follow wrestling, because that's not what popularity measures. I wouldn't give either a 100, because then you're talking Hogan in 1986 or Austin in 1999 territory and it also gives them no way to improve, but for better or worse they are the two biggest names in the industry right now.

 

But on the other side of that, you're right when you point out that Ric Flair shouldn't be that popular. The truth is, there isn't that same audience that wanted to see him wrestle as there was at his peak. In 1992, maybe he needs a 90 in popularity, because he was wrestling in the main event at Wrestlemania. But in 2010? Even in late WCW? He wasn't the guy people paid to see. Look at Sam Keith's popularity in the default game world (70). Obviously there was a time when he was the guy people came to see, as a 4 time world champion and one of the all-time C-Verse greats. But he's 48 years old and hasn't been protected the way somebody like Sam Strong was. So a present day mod that has Flair (at age 61) with even higher popularity than Strong is waaaaay off.

 

But the point is it's not about whether non-fans would recognize somebody, it's about how excited wrestling fans would be to pay to see that person wrestle. It's the rare case (Brock Lesnar, Mike Tyson), where that wider recognition translates directly into wanting to pay to see someone wrestle. Just because people had heard of David Arquette didn't mean anybody wanted to see him wrestle. But if Arnold Schwarzenegger had wrestled Hogan or somebody 20 years ago, it would've been absolutely electric, because Arnold actually had (and still has, to a smaller degree) a following that wanted to see him fight somebody.

[Eidenhoek]

I'm sort of bumping the topic (though a week down doesn't merit that), but also joining the "very good read" crowd.

[lazorbeak]

Thanks, Eidenhoek.

 

 

I'm gonna repeat this so hopefully nobody misinterprets my goal: this is just a resource, not a mandate or a definitive ruling on how any mod should operate. If there are things you don't like about the C-Verse, by all means, change them! There are some things the C-Verse is great at and some things that it is not so great at (including extremely long-term games). Nobody has to look at data and compare it, but I'm showing how the default data operates.

 

Now, onto the next stat breakdown: Psychology!

 

The help file defines the stat as: "His ability to incorporate psychology into his matches." Wikipedia's glossary of pro wrestling terms calls it: "wrestling a match properly so that the crowd becomes personally involved in the show." Basically, it's a wrestler's ability to put together a story that gets the crowd involved.

 

In the C-Verse, top level psychology is far rarer than top level basics. In fact, only a 90 in selling is rarer among performance stats. Only 15 North American workers have a 90 or better, and all of them except Caulfield also have a 90 or above for basics. This group skews older, with Cornell and Angry Gilmore as the youngest workers at age 31. The median age of these guys is 39, making it a stat for experienced vets.

 

At the next level down, 35 workers have at least an 80. While this group is still generally over 30, Joey Minnesota and Matthew Gauge come in at this level despite their youth. Again though, these are exceptional workers; for the most part psychology is the truest "veteran" stat.

 

How does psychology interact with basics, in general?

 

Comparing basics to psychology, we see that psychology tends to be around 10-15 points lower in every measure. While the median basics score is a 71, median psychology is only a 56. This difference is smaller at the national level, as SWF and TCW have a gap of only 8 (78 and 70). It's remarkable how closely the stats fit together, as nearly every worker has stronger basics and psychology that's lower by an average of 15, dropping in the cases of older and high level workers, and growing slightly in the cases of young workers with high basics. It's an extreme rarity for anyone to have higher psychology than basics, but Chris Caulfield is the best example, as his psychology is elite and his basic skills aren't. He is one of the only workers in the game with psychology more than 10 points higher than basics.

 

What does it mean? If basics stat represents the quality of someone's training and experience, psychology is the measure of a worker's storytelling ability in the ring. While a lot of guys may have elite basics (more than any other stat in the game), great psychology is significantly rarer, and generally goes to workers with perfect to near perfect basics (all 10 perfect 100's in basics have at least an 86 in psychology), and noted veterans: Pistol Pete, Robert Oxford, etc. Note that those guys with perfect 100's for basics and B+ or better psychology are pretty much the best wrestlers in the game: this is not a coincidence.

 

Okay, so you're making a mod, who gets that coveted B+ psychology stat? The easiest answer is: the best wrestlers in the world. When you think about great storytellers and the greatest matches you've ever seen, chances are they didn't feature a pair of 26 year olds hitting spot after spot on one another. Randy Savage and Steamboat were both 34 at Wrestlemania 3. Razor Ramon was 35 when he wrestled HBK at Wrestlemania X. Austin was 33 and Hart was 39 at their match-up at Wrestlemania 13. HBK and Undertaker were both in their 40's for their first Wrestlemania match.

 

Remember, just because you gave out high stats for a worker doesn't mean you can't hurt them in other areas. Enforcer Roberts, Robert Oxford, and Steve Flash have great basics and psychology, but they also have below average charisma and star quality, along with only average top row stats. This fits into their bios which describe them as career company men, but not star attractions. So while both Flair and Arn Anderson would have great basics and psychology, other stats should indicate Flair is the franchise guy and Arn isn't.

[Rick Savant]

This is indescribably useful information and should be stickied.

 

So if I understand djthefunkchris correctly (and I'm not sure that I do) when you sim long term the game doesn't generate/develop enough SQ to replace that which is lost due to an aging roster.

 

So in brainstorming aspects of this and ways to solve it:

 

Does SQ improve over time or is it static? If it does improve has anyone tested out the rate at which it improves?

 

Would the solution to this be to raise the SQ amongst younger workers above that of the C-Verse and if so what seems like a reasonable median for young workers (say 25 and under)?

 

Would raising the death rate and allowing fo regens feed more high SQ wrestlers back into the system?

 

Would changing the products of the major companies possibly reduce their dependance on the SQ stat or is that a statistic that will always be necessary once you are at a certain level?

 

Keep the analysis coming, I'm stoked to go home and run a few mods through the same tests and see how they compare to the C-Verse.

 

And now for something completely different:

 

I used to efed for years and wanted to add the promotion I RPed in, as well as all it's various roster members over the years, into the C-Verse and play a game with them incorporated. So the question is how best to approach balance in this instance: Would it make the most amount of sense to look at the macro demographics and make sure that the 60-70 workers I add roughly correspond to world's talent distribution? Or would it make more sense to look at the stat spectrum offered only by workers commonly used by promotions of the same size and keep them within that range.

 

Obviously the one fed won't keep all the 60 or so workers as it would likely be Cult or Regional, but I'm fine with just watching them make their way through the game world.

 

Also would it be necessary to remove a few characters from the C-Verse to keep the game balanced or would there being an additional promotion solve that?

[djthefunkchris]

This is indescribably useful information and should be stickied.

 

So if I understand djthefunkchris correctly (and I'm not sure that I do) when you sim long term the game doesn't generate/develop enough SQ to replace that which is lost due to an aging roster.

 

So in brainstorming aspects of this and ways to solve it:

 

Does SQ improve over time or is it static? If it does improve has anyone tested out the rate at which it improves?

 

Would the solution to this be to raise the SQ amongst younger workers above that of the C-Verse and if so what seems like a reasonable median for young workers (say 25 and under)?

 

Would raising the death rate and allowing fo regens feed more high SQ wrestlers back into the system?

 

Would changing the products of the major companies possibly reduce their dependance on the SQ stat or is that a statistic that will always be necessary once you are at a certain level?

 

Psychology is a needed stat for any product. Mr T Job's To Me has had luck by putting in workers sort of like Place holders, throughout time. I'm not sure how many years in between he would throw them in, but the reasoning is so you have people that other's can learn from with these stats.

 

The whole situation seems to revolve around the learning curve, or lack of learning period. When simming it's hard to figure it out unless you go one day at a time, and I doubt that's going to happen.

 

As Lazor said though, the mod/game is NOT meant to go decades into the future..... as people normally don't go much more then five years. It's after all the current stars start getting too old that you even see the change really... however, if you watch before they retire, you will see most of the same people headlining (or used to, not sure with the update to the database).

 

The actual stat that seemed to be the reason, was psychology. The fact that good physical stats seems to help development (faster), and the lack of such (good) stats coming in as new worker's, seems to hurt Psychology the most (Psychology is learned).

 

I'm like half asleep though, trying to put together everything we learned, between those of us that tested, as well as some insight from Derek_b of how the stats work together.

[nokemonster]

Is anyone building a mod around this?

[Remianen]

And just looking at the narratives, there's no way to modify a worker's star quality

 

False. Maybe you're talking about the default narratives that ship with the DB but if you actually create a narrative, setting a worker to fulfill their potential, increases their star quality to whatever their maximum value is. I know this because I added narratives to spawn trainers for my developmental promotions and I can assure you there's no other reason for Carol Singer or Speedy Marie to have 80+ star quality without that narrative.

 

but you can become popular without a lot of star quality.

 

It just takes a LOT more work/time. A whole lot more.

 

They basically set the top of the curve for sex appeal (not surprising), but they also have more charisma, stamina and athleticism than average (mildly surprising).

 

Why is the charisma, stamina, and athleticism mildly surprising? Given the girls' line of work outside of BSC (strippers, showgirls, etc), it stands to reason.

 

We can also see how huge an impact training has on stats we've already looked at. Candy Floss and Tamara McFly have an 82 and a 78 for basics, reflecting the fact that they're actually trained and have worked for real promotions before. But most of the other girls have a basics stat in the 40's, reflecting rudimentary training by a real former worker (Anne Stardust).

 

Marilyn Stardust. Anne hasn't trained a single worker in her life, I don't think. That's what Cat is/was for.

 

Now, onto the next stat breakdown: Psychology!

 

Oh boy!

 

Does SQ improve over time or is it static? If it does improve has anyone tested out the rate at which it improves?

 

Yeah, it's tied to a worker's destiny stat. It CAN increase, in the right environment and under the right circumstances, but it increases at a pace the word 'glacial' should clue you in on.

 

Would the solution to this be to raise the SQ amongst younger workers above that of the C-Verse and if so what seems like a reasonable median for young workers (say 25 and under)?

 

Absolutely not. No more than you should clearcut a forest because one tree fell. There are knock-on effects to simply raising stats across the board. Not every worker who debuts is going to be a star. What you could do is take the young workers whose SQ is just short of bonus range (66) and boost them to give them a bit of a leg up. But just raising SQ across the board basically changes the complexion of the entire game world. So, where say 58 SQ would be considered 'decent', if you raise SQ for all the young workers, 'decent' might now be 68 or 70 (depending on how aggressive you got).

 

Would raising the death rate and allowing fo regens feed more high SQ wrestlers back into the system?

 

No, for raising the death rate. Yes, regens would generally add a lot of balance to the proposition. Keep in mind, random workers aren't generated nearly as often enough to completely cover for retirements and departures (deaths, leaving the business, etc). Not even on the 'high' setting.

 

Would changing the products of the major companies possibly reduce their dependance on the SQ stat or is that a statistic that will always be necessary once you are at a certain level?

 

Again, throwing out the baby with the bathwater (or amputating a leg due to an ankle sprain). You're talking about changing THE WORLD to fix a LOCAL issue. Why would New York go under martial law because of events in Bahrain? It wouldn't! The existing promotions are designed (from roster on down) to fit their products as closely as possible. What would you change to lessen a star quality bias? Mainstream? Great, now SWF is no longer sports entertainment, it's now 'Crash TV'. Star Quality has value in EVERY product type, without exception so there's no way to eliminate its significance.

 

Is anyone building a mod around this?

 

There were many mods made using many of these principles before this thread was ever created.

 

Some folks have said my mod's stats are bloated. But none of those people tested the data over 600 times to get it just where I wanted it. lazorbeak's findings are spot on, which is why I have SO many workers with high SQ, sex appeal, and in-ring stats. The thing many don't realize is that workers (especially WOMEN) lose stats due to age and that loss can sometimes be drastic (like 4 points of SQ a year, just for being on the wrong side of 30). So many of the women I boosted have their values set higher than I would've done otherwise, to combat that possibility. Catherine Quine has 100 star quality for just that reason. Given her age, she could lose lots of it well before she retires (and in one test game, she wrestled until she was 50!).

 

If you want to change the long term issues, go through the workers yet to debut and pick a handful of workers who debut between 2015 and 2022 and boost them. You're seeding the future to account for the past. You don't have to raise EVERYONE to fix a problem that doesn't typically affect everyone. What I do sometimes is boost the UK School's graduates (like War Machine) to give that area some future stars to work with. I also on occasion pick some workers from struggling promotions (like MOSC) and boost them, to give them a way to generate cash and stay afloat. Jeff McPeterson with 82 SQ and better in-ring stats and a fixed PPA deal of 5 or 6 years in length (at say, 200-300 per appearance) can do a lot to improve MOSC's fortunes.

[lazorbeak]

Great discussion guys.

 

It just takes a LOT more work/time. A whole lot more.

 

I was talking about the default narratives and the lack of understanding of the stat it would take for someone to think writing a book = increases in star quality. While it may be possible to raise SQ otherwise, not the way he was suggesting and not through the existing material in-game. I haven't played much with narratives though, so I'll defer to you on that one.

 

 

 

Why is the charisma, stamina, and athleticism mildly surprising? Given the girls' line of work outside of BSC (strippers, showgirls, etc), it stands to reason.

 

Mostly because so few mods reflect this. Girls aren't top talents so they don't have top skills at anything. The game is deep enough that you can give Dharma Gregg or whoever great athleticism and charisma without her becoming the next Ric Flair. And yet fitness models routinely get athleticism scores in the 50's or worse.

 

My takeaway from that BSC breakdown is that even bad workers have real strengths.

 

 

There were many mods made using many of these principles before this thread was ever created.

 

Some folks have said my mod's stats are bloated. But none of those people tested the data over 600 times to get it just where I wanted it. lazorbeak's findings are spot on, which is why I have SO many workers with high SQ, sex appeal, and in-ring stats. The thing many don't realize is that workers (especially WOMEN) lose stats due to age and that loss can sometimes be drastic (like 4 points of SQ a year, just for being on the wrong side of 30). So many of the women I boosted have their values set higher than I would've done otherwise, to combat that possibility. Catherine Quine has 100 star quality for just that reason. Given her age, she could lose lots of it well before she retires (and in one test game, she wrestled until she was 50!).

 

I think it's great that you use these stats, and it makes sense because you have a very deep understanding of the game. I'm not doing anything that isn't freely available, but what I am doing is explaining important concepts using the C-verse as a reference.

 

I like your fix ideas, too.

[lazorbeak]

Life-stages of a wrestler

 

 

Okay here's something a little different. I took all the active workers in the database (previous research has been limited to workers who can work in the US) and broke them up into 4 groups by age. 18 to 23 year olds (rookies), 24-27 year olds (sophomores), 28-33 year olds (juniors), and 34 and up (seniors). I made my age groupings where I did because it balanced things the closest. One of the things that becomes quickly apparent is that the C-Verse is a relatively young game world. This is in part because as discussed earlier it leaves out all but the most notable former wrestlers and for the most part only includes workers that have some value: not everyone from 1980 needs to be in a data set that begins 30 years later, Sam Strong and other big names are the exception.

 

Part of the "long term" problems discussed earlier is that while 409 workers are included as "yet to debut," eventually you get to an aging world where you have a significant amount of clutter and a lack of talent. Plus old has-beens and never weres slow down the game and add nothing. If Blackjack Robbins retires in 2010 in a particular game, he sits there as a useless lump for the next 10 years.

 

There were two common trends: stats that increase in an almost linear fashion, and stats that drop off at the junior level. The numbers in parenthesis are the jump from the median freshman to the median top scorer.

 

Linear stats (Seniors are the best): Brawling (+9), Hardcore (+17), Mat (+10), Chain (+6), Submission (+10), Toughness (+18), Power (+16), Basics (+18), Psychology (+24), Safety (+10), Consistency (+8), Respect (+36), Menace (+15), Intensity (+2 [almost uniform across the board]), Stiffness (+4)

 

So the median 35 year old is better at a lot of stats than the median 21 year old. Part of that is that most 35 year olds who are useless have moved on to greener pastures and aren't in the game, while there's plenty of incredibly green young workers who could either become something or end up doing nothing. Other stats are better just as a reflection of greater training or skill. Power is probably more about the style of wrestling that was more popular. Respect going up the most isn't surprising either.

 

Stats where Juniors are the best: Microphone (+8), Charisma (+1 over freshman, +4 over seniors), Acting (+1, Athleticism (tied with freshman, +6 over seniors), Stamina (+4), Selling (+3), Sex Appeal (+3), Star Quality (+6)

 

Basically juniors are the top in every entertainment and look skill except menace. This makes sense as 28-33 year olds generally aren't improving much in these areas and in fact start falling in the looks department. Their advantage over the seniors makes sense as Looks tend to start fading into the mid and late 30's. It also makes sense for the slight decline in stamina that seniors have. Also note that the gaps in these stats is significantly smaller from Freshman to Junior in all of these skills: An average senior is over 20 points better at psychology than an average freshman, yet a junior's mic skills are only +8 over a freshman and his charisma advantage is basically nothing. What that means is that while an average 21 year old shouldn't have great basics (median 60 to seniors median 78), their median star quality (56 to juniors 62) doesn't change much across the board.

 

Freshman are the best stats: in a few rare cases, freshman have the highest median. The number in parenthesis is their advantage over seniors, who are the lowest in these 3 areas.

 

Aerial (+18), Athleticism (tied with juniors, +8 on seniors), Resilience (+7.5)

 

So in three stats the median freshman is better than the average senior. This is explained by age and injuries limiting a senior's aerial ability, and wear and tear causing drops in athleticism and resilience. The significant increase in aerial may also reflect a shifting trend in wrestling styles moving forward.

 

Remember these are just medians that show data trends, not hard and fast rules. Some 35 year olds have great aerial skills: Sean McFly, Black Eagle, Duane Stone and others are over 80 despite their age. But they are balanced by about 90 seniors having aerial skills below 10. Freshman have less at the top (Gino and Emerald Angel are the only two over 80), but less than 50 freshman have an aerial skill under 10 and most fall in the middle. You also have the odd freakish 22 year old like Wolf Hawkins or Matthew Gauge that is far above any median worker at any level, and is only going to get better. These are your "can't miss" type guys that in 5 years of playing are going to be among the top workers in the game if they develop. In your data, you don't want to have them tripping over each other, but it's worth checking out what a prospect that good looks like at a young age. The list of top seniors on the other hand is a who's who of the top workers in the world. Most promotion's main event talent fits into this category (not TCW's, as most of their top guys are juniors or younger). While some seniors may get slightly better in a few stat categories, most of them are going to start dropping in stats once they end up on a "time decline" list.

[Remianen]

What's particularly frustrating about the whole deal, in line with your Blackjack Robbins example, is that many of these has beens/never weres retire to become really crappy road agents. That's another problem that arises after several years: a lack of quality road agents. Given how key that position could be, in light of the lack of psychology issue, it compounds the problem like mafia interest. It seems like if you aren't a bonafide legend (Crippler Ray Kingman) or an early retiree due to injury (Craig Prince), or a rare breed top flight career journeyman (Duncan Kendall), you're destined to be a local level RA with little to no chance of moving up (because your skills will never be good enough).

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="29997" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What's particularly frustrating about the whole deal, in line with your Blackjack Robbins example, is that many of these has beens/never weres retire to become really crappy road agents. That's another problem that arises after several years: a lack of quality road agents. Given how key that position could be, in light of the lack of psychology issue, it compounds the problem like mafia interest. It seems like if you aren't a bonafide legend (Crippler Ray Kingman) or an early retiree due to injury (Craig Prince), or a rare breed top flight career journeyman (Duncan Kendall), you're destined to be a local level RA with little to no chance of moving up (because your skills will never be good enough).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> /nod to all points you've said. I and other's have done quite a few "tests" with the default database, as well as others.</p><p> </p><p> The thing I just want people to keep in mind with is that these are mainly only going to effect you after a decade of play... although sometimes as short as five years it can be seen (especially if your not manipulating the data by at least playing a promotion). </p><p> </p><p> I always figure it would take a few more years to actually effect a playing player.... meaning if your actively playing a game, thinking of the future with your workers and getting them to learn off each other. As opposed to just simming 10 years in the default database, actually playing and doing things to keep yourself going up or at least staying at a certain level... will also help out the rest of the data when you release stars that can teach other's... The characters actually learn off each other in other promotions as well. The AI I guess just doesn't take into account the future as much as a player would.</p><p> </p><p> I said a while ago, that in my opinion the tests I've done indicate that if you play long enough, and know how to play the game... you will eventually be the top promotion in the gameworld. You would have to play just like the AI does to not end up there.... meaning, only go for stars that are already created, not creating any, not worrying about characters learning off each other and going for the "moment" instead. Then you would have problems eventually.</p><p> </p><p> Of course, you have to have people in your promotion that do have the stats to start with for other's to learn off of... however, I've noticed that they can actually go upwards in some stats (maybe all) over time if you push the envelop.... Having them do "Brawler" or "Technical" etc... type match's can increase the skill in both of your workers (for example). The psychology thing though, that's a tougher one... as you said, this effects Road Agent material, but the whole gameworld is effected alot worse then I would like...</p><p> </p><p> Again, this isn't just playing for a couple of years.. this is over a good amount of game years, probably at least 10 before you would even notice it.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Remi's point (and also MrTJobsToMe's) about placing "Stat" characters in the timeline (future workers), will help with alot of the problems if your going for a long term game. Takes more then most think though... Unless your only thinking of YOUR promotion.</p>

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="29997" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The thing I just want people to keep in mind with is that these are mainly only going to effect you after a decade of play... although sometimes as short as five years it can be seen (especially if your not manipulating the data by at least playing a promotion).<p> </p><p> I always figure it would take a few more years to actually effect a playing player.... meaning if your actively playing a game, thinking of the future with your workers and getting them to learn off each other. As opposed to just simming 10 years in the default database, actually playing and doing things to keep yourself going up or at least staying at a certain level... will also help out the rest of the data when you release stars that can teach other's... The characters actually learn off each other in other promotions as well. The AI I guess just doesn't take into account the future as much as a player would.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The problem with this is, not many people book in that fashion. Then again, not many people play games for 5-10 years either so it might be a wash. If you "know how to play the game", this never becomes an issue for you because chances are, you've seeded the future to balance out the AI's ineptitude in developing workers. For the record, even if you know how to play and you plan it out very well, you still wind up with a deficiency if any of your top skilled workers retire or are forced to quit due to catastrophic injury (or become a Kenny statistic). Any of those random events can derail your plans (as they should, that's what they're there for) so seeding becomes even more important. Heck, I even went a step further in my mod update and made the best young worker in the world graduate from the dojo of the world's best promotion, specifically so she'd inject skill into the lower reaches of the promotion's roster. That guarantees the result.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

The problem with this is, not many people book in that fashion. Then again, not many people play games for 5-10 years either so it might be a wash. If you "know how to play the game", this never becomes an issue for you because chances are, you've seeded the future to balance out the AI's ineptitude in developing workers. For the record, even if you know how to play and you plan it out very well, you still wind up with a deficiency if any of your top skilled workers retire or are forced to quit due to catastrophic injury (or become a Kenny statistic). Any of those random events can derail your plans (as they should, that's what they're there for) so seeding becomes even more important. Heck, I even went a step further in my mod update and made the best young worker in the world graduate from the dojo of the world's best promotion, specifically so she'd inject skill into the lower reaches of the promotion's roster. That guarantees the result.

 

/nod. This is why I make sure to place a good amount of quality stat keeper's in the future worker's area. This is advice I took from MTJTM a while back, and your post above suggests doing the same thing. I definately agree with you here. I've done dozens of tests and the outcome is always the same, just sometimes faster or slower (but only a couple of years difference). The world of wrestling loses it's spark globally (well, the wrestler's go down the tubes is what causes this), and all promotions start falling, stagnating, or outright go out of bussiness.

 

I think that's what bother's me most about this "overall" feel of the thread... You can come in here, check the default stats with the "new" mod your wanting to play and go "Hmm... This mod isn't even close to the defualt stats, it must suck!" IN the case of a mod that is only going for the first two or three years of play, yeah... that might (but it still depends on the situation) be a reason to think the data sucks... However, if you do not play the mod, and have no idea what the mod's intention was, you can't really know till after you play the mod. ANY Mod, that's trying to emulate the "real" world, for example, the stats aren't going to match up. The real world is alot different then the Default database. At one time I think it was quite compatible, but the default database has grown into it's own world IMO. Any historical, emphasis on women, and various other variable's can make using the default stats (overall) a problem with your data. A guideline, sure... A way to "rate" or using it as an exact reference for your own mod, can lead to serious problems if your world is different.

 

Understanding what each stat does is a GREAT benefit however, and is one of the many reasons why I like this thread. The thread inspires discussion and many people have had different experiences, which enables us to see just how strong of an effect one stat can have in the overall picture.

[Rick Savant]

I don't know if anyone else does this, or has plans to do it, but eventually I want to play a simmed-to-the-future game for a while. So you load up an 80s mod and then sim to the modern day to play in an alternate reality.

 

Just another instance where solving this issue would be helpful.

 

Heck, I even went a step further in my mod update and made the best young worker in the world graduate from the dojo of the world's best promotion, specifically so she'd inject skill into the lower reaches of the promotion's roster. That guarantees the result.

 

So what would a pumped future worker, like the one you created, look like? Who would be a good model amongst the C-Verse future workers to base future seeds on?

[lazorbeak]

I think that's what bother's me most about this "overall" feel of the thread... You can come in here, check the default stats with the "new" mod your wanting to play and go "Hmm... This mod isn't even close to the defualt stats, it must suck!" IN the case of a mod that is only going for the first two or three years of play, yeah... that might (but it still depends on the situation) be a reason to think the data sucks... However, if you do not play the mod, and have no idea what the mod's intention was, you can't really know till after you play the mod. ANY Mod, that's trying to emulate the "real" world, for example, the stats aren't going to match up. The real world is alot different then the Default database. At one time I think it was quite compatible, but the default database has grown into it's own world IMO. Any historical, emphasis on women, and various other variable's can make using the default stats (overall) a problem with your data. A guideline, sure... A way to "rate" or using it as an exact reference for your own mod, can lead to serious problems if your world is different.

 

Which is why I've said about a million times that my purpose is not to say "all mods have to look like the C-Verse." Remi and I both addressed that point in page 1 of this thread. My goal has always been using actual data to actually measure how things work. I'm using the default data only because as the makers of the game, I assume Adam and Co. have a strong idea of how they want stats to work.

 

Understanding what each stat does is a GREAT benefit however, and is one of the many reasons why I like this thread. The thread inspires discussion and many people have had different experiences, which enables us to see just how strong of an effect one stat can have in the overall picture.

 

I am definitely glad there's been some discussion based on what I've found in the data, and I hope it's strengthened everyone's understandings both of how stats work and how they fit together.

 

I don't know if anyone else does this, or has plans to do it, but eventually I want to play a simmed-to-the-future game for a while. So you load up an 80s mod and then sim to the modern day to play in an alternate reality.

 

Just another instance where solving this issue would be helpful.

 

 

 

So what would a pumped future worker, like the one you created, look like? Who would be a good model amongst the C-Verse future workers to base future seeds on?

 

I think the Gauge brothers specifically and most any 2nd generation "yet to debut" character gives a good sense of what he's talking about. They don't necessarily have to also possess world class charisma or star quality, but they come in with very high performance stats so they can train others, even if they're training their seniors.