Jump to content

Derek B's Mod-Making Guide


Recommended Posts

Fantastic read Derek!

 

Any chance you could expound on the Personality stats, and specifically what they relate to in-game and what the medians might look like?

 

For instance while I can see how how egotistical someone is might increase likelihood of backstage incidents, what does a worker's optimism play into? How well they take losses? A prerequisite to being a locker room leader? Or is it just a general thing to help add to that backstage harmony rating?

 

In reference to medians I tend to look at 50/50 as being the average for most, but skew a little higher for Dependability and Drive, (the former assuming that having the majority of workers who are flaky 50% of the time would make for an annoying experience). Not sure if this is correct though.

 

I'm planning to look at this a bit in a later post when I talk about long term aspects of how a mod should play out. Personalities are kinda hard to work out, but once I've covered how to balance out the numbers side of things I can talk about the long term and how that will affect a worker... just need to work out some good examples in real life to translate it. It'll probably end up being more theoretical than practical for modmaking, as it's really hard to give personalities to people who are mostly ever only seen on camera playing a character that isn't really them. :p

 

But I will do what I can with it, while probably repeating that just giving some kind of non-default personality is better than not doing it at all. :)

 

Incredible Derek, if I ever do decide to make a mod (be it Historical of Fantasy) I would definitely use this as a good way of balancing it out. In a small question, I noticed that you skipped over Match Intensity and Match Danger. I was wondering if you had nothing to really say about them, as they are very straight forward concepts, or if you forgot about them. Either way, thank you Derek for taking the time to do this.

 

I had originally skipped them with intent to mention them elsewhere, but I'll probably add them to that section later and quote that section of post as a reply here at some point. :) They're note very complicated really, but since I've broken everything else down I really should add it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 333
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Great post, Derek. :) I have a queries/suggestions/opinions on it though:

 

Brawling: Fairly simple, this is the kind of thing you generally see in the WWE where two guys fight each other in fairly simple fights, and more importantly, how much you can make the fans care about it. Fists fly, it’s not about finesse as much as it is about just being able to make it look like a fight and bringing energy into this can really help. As with all top row stats, it not just about how good you mke your own offense look it’s about how well you deal with your opponent’s offense too, being able to react to their brawling ways when they interupt whatever you are doing. There are various styles of brawling, from energetic fist fighters/bar room brawlers like Steve Austin (probably in the low 90s at his peak), to more methodical, slow paced brawlers like the Undertaker (consistently in the 80s until a few years ago due to Time Decline) to the wild fury of Samoa Joe (somewhere in the 80s range, crowds chant for a reason). Each of these guys are among the best in brawling in recent memory, though both Austin and Undertaker would have long faded from their peaks in this stat, leaving Samoa Joe as probably the best brawler in TNA/WWE today. Other parts of the world may have better guys, but I don’t know them. :p

 

Suplexes and powerbombs and such go here too. I've seen mods making Taz out to be a fantastic mat wrestler, which isn't really true. He had fantastic Brawling, not Mat Wrestling, and was certainly not a "technician"!

 

Safety: Fairly simple, this is how safe a worker is in the ring. A guy might be able to hit hard, but if he can do it in a way that doesn’t actually hurt his opponent then that is awesome as it can make a match look good. This is one stat that can start at almost any level. Some guys are naturally clumsy and prone to hurting people (The Great Khali, Mark Henry in the past)[...]

 

...HEIDENREICH! :D

 

Also worth mentioining is that just because Japanese workers tend to drop people on their heads a lot, doesn't mean they have low safety. If anything, they have HIGHER safety. If guys like Kobashi had low safety, Japanese wrestling would've died a long time ago.

 

Literally. ¬_¬

 

Also, it's not necessarily how likely you are to injure your OPPONENT, but also how likely you are to injure YOURSELF also (hi Randy, how're you doing?)

 

Selling: There are a few different aspects to this that often go overlooked. The most obvious definition here is that it’s about making the impact of moves look good. It’s also about bringing in the effects of being hit by moves into the long term plan of a match, so selling a knee five mintues after it’s been hit can remind people that you are hurting and add to the drama of the match. And there’s knowing when to sell and when not to… for example, Undertaker sitting up after being hit with a move may be no-selling it, but the very act of no-selling ADDS to the drama of the match so this is a good example of selling[...]

 

The Undertaker example is a great point. He shouldn't be rated terribly highly or anything, but just because he DOESN'T sell doesn't mean he CAN'T sell. There is a notable difference, when you watch his matches, between him intentionally no-selling a move because it's part of his character, and him not selling a move because he forgot. He does a cool facial expression thing when he's being all supernatural (as opposed to forgetful ¬_¬). Most unusually large monster types have an element of no-selling to their character (usually just 'brushing off' lower-impact moves, like strikes and stuff, and occasionally clotheslines with the traditional "you can't knock me down" spot), and shouldn't be marked down because of that if it's intentional. If it's intentional, like Derek said, it ADDS to the match, not detracts from it.

 

There's a difference, in other words, between NOT selling and NO-selling.

 

And there's an opposite of 'no-selling', which I've come to call 'selling the intent', which is where when a move is botched you know what was supposed to happen, so you sell it as if it did happen. This is terrible, IMO, and makes both parties look stupid. Obvious examples are an embarrassing number of early RKOs, where Orton misses his opponent's head completely and falls over grabbing thin air, so the opponent falls over too for no reason a second or two behind him (another example is a worker very obviously ramming his own head into a turnbuckle during multiple head-ramming spots regardless of whether his opponent is doing anything). Obviously mega-spots (like Shane O'Mac's elbows from ridiculous heights) are exempt from this, as if you no-sold them you'd probably be fired. It's not like he can do it again while keeping the suspension of disbelief. ¬_¬

 

 

Sex Appeal: [...]Most of the WWE Divas and TNA Knockouts are going to be in the 80 range for this, with some of the particularly attractive girls going above and beyond this. [...] Trish Stratus was a high 90s sex appeal, Stacy Keibler, Torrie Wilson, Christy Hemme, Dawn Marie, Mickie James… some beautiful girls who all deserve 90+ in the Sex Appeal stat.

 

I know that this is probably the most subjective stat in the game, and this is probably the opinion I'll have most trouble getting across, but I have to disagree with some of what you said here (mostly with Christy and Dawn being 90+).

 

To me, Sex Appeal isn't so much about how physically attractive a person is (because that's immensely subjective), it's about how well (or not) they USE their attractiveness, and like all stats, the main question should be: "If they appeared in an angle rated on sex appeal, how well would the majority of fans react?"

 

To me, Trish, Torrie and Stacy from your list are legit bonafide 90+, probably 95+. Trish definitely 95+.

 

But below that sort of "godlike" level, I think we need to be a little more careful than some mods in the past have been. There's no point in having the stat if everyone who's a little bit attractive gets a 90+. Dawn Marie, for example. Imagining for a moment her primary method of getting over was her looks (it wasn't, she was a damn good wrestler). Did she get over? Really? No. Her looks killed Al Wilson, I guess, but is that something you want on your CV? :p

 

For instance, even though most of them are pretty attractive to me personally, I wouldn't give the following females a sex appeal stat of more than about 80:

Lita, Molly Holly, Dawn Marie, Michelle McCool, Jacqueline, Stephanie McMahon, Victoria, Ivory, Vickie Guerrero.

 

As I say, most of them are perfectly attractive, but they didn't have the sort of... I dunno... "thing" that made you want to see them in an angle rated on sex appeal. :p

 

On the other hand, I'm looking at a mod in which Aja Kong has 0 for sex appeal. So... let's not go too far the other way either. :p

 

In my opinion, Sex Appeal should follow the same sort of guidelines as other stats (for women at least): 70-80 for regular run of the mill females, 80-90 for particularly attractive female wrestlers or not very successful female valets/model types (including WWE Diva style 'valets who wrestle'), 90+ for the cream of the crop, workers who are known for getting over almost entirely on their looks.

As intoxicating as Portia Perez is, she's unlikely to get over based on her looks (because she'd probably beat the crap out of any booker brave enough to suggest she try to). Whereas someone like Sable is more inclined to use her looks to get her over (no pun intended). Mmm. Sable. Portia isn't significantly less attractive than Sable (or, less attractive at all) she's just less likely to flaunt that fact.

 

Below 60 would be reserved for particularly masculine women (Chyna, potentially Jazz), and women who for whatever reason aren't considered attractive by society in general (not just the mod maker!) - Aja Kong, Luna Vachon, Linda McMahon, Lioness Asuka, etc. Or more senior ladies, like Fabulous Moolah. Below 40 is probably insulting, except to Nicole Bass. :p

 

Menace:

 

Mostly agree with that section, although IMO you don't have to be physically intimidating to have a high menace. Three good examples of people I'd give a highish menace score too even though physically they're not up to much:

Paul Bearer, Kevin Sullivan, Brian Pillman.

 

Also, less of a good example because he's physically quite intimidating too, Raven.

 

 

Microphone Skills:

 

You talked a lot about examples, but not much about WHY those guys are good.

 

Something I see in loads of mods, which always annoys me, is anyone who isn't American or William Regal being SLATED for mic skills, almost automatically. It'll probably happen less these days because of the likes of Wade Barrett and Drew McIntyre doing well in the WWE, but a few years ago practically every mod was giving guys like Nigel McGuinness a D. D?! McGuiness was GOLD on the microphone. So much so he went into commentary when he retired. Magnus is too to a lesser extent. Also, you don't have to speak English to be good on the microphone (Hiro Tenzan), though obviously it's much harder to judge if you don't speak their language.

 

Mic Skills should be about the confidence and smoothness with which they talk, not just the pitch of their voice or their accent.

 

Kurt Angle, for instance, has one of the more annoying voices in pro wrestling for me personally (which actually HELPS when he's a heel, same with Heyman), but nobody can deny the guy is great on the microphone.

 

Tell-tale signs of bad microphone skills are constant "umm" and "er" and pauses while they think of stuff to say or remember the script, mumbling, etc.

Constant freudian slips (accidentally putting words - often embarrassingly - into sentences where they don't belong at all), catachreses (mixed metaphors and misuse of words to an extent that the phrase no longer makes sense) and malapropisms (using a similar - but contextually incorrect - word instead of the one you meant to use, often giving the phrase a vastly different meaning) are also generally signs that a worker doesn't deserve top grades. Scott Steiner is king of all of those things BUT he doesn't deserve too low a grade (I'd go with a C) because his actual delivery is very good, and when he doesn't screw up, he's capable of good promos.

 

Acting: [...] I’m genuinely struggling to thing of many more people I’d give a high acting score to…

 

Nick Dinsmore deserves a bit of credit... he never went FULL retard. :p [/obscureReference]

 

Chris Jericho, surely? He may not have actually done any movies (or has he?), but he's done TV presenting and has fronted a successful rock band. That's got to count.

 

I'd probably say Vince McMahon, too. Just for his facial expressions.

 

Refereeing:(Charles Robinson is great at wincing when people get hit hard)

 

Bryce Remsberg makes him look a rank amateur. ¬_¬ Seriously though, Bryce sells more than the guy getting hit sometimes. He's also a solid announcer. Edit: Not that I'm saying Remsberg is better than Robinson. That'd be silly, even taking my massive CHIKARA bias into account. ¬_¬ Just putting it out there really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm planning to look at this a bit in a later post when I talk about long term aspects of how a mod should play out. Personalities are kinda hard to work out, but once I've covered how to balance out the numbers side of things I can talk about the long term and how that will affect a worker... just need to work out some good examples in real life to translate it. It'll probably end up being more theoretical than practical for modmaking, as it's really hard to give personalities to people who are mostly ever only seen on camera playing a character that isn't really them. :p

 

But I will do what I can with it, while probably repeating that just giving some kind of non-default personality is better than not doing it at all. :)

 

Awesome to hear; I'm definitely more keen to think of it in terms of how a mod will play out than capturing "real life" as it were, so I'm keen to see the write up.

 

One other thing: in relation to Star Quality, should that be a factor when configuring Managers/Valets, Personalities, or Color Commentators? Rumor was that it was in the past, but I wondered if it's still the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great guide Derek though it's a lot to read :p Anyways just wanted to comment that I'm surprised to see that you would rate Eddie Guerrero at "A" aerial (and Mysterio lower than him?!!). I love Eddie but in my opinion he should be more like "B", Mysterio in the 90s an "A", and mid-2000s "B+". It's just that if you rate Eddie at "A", then a lot of luchadors need to be set way higher than him (because lets face it, they are better pure flyers). Eddie wasn't so great because of his aerial abilities, but because of his great all-around skills, basics and psychology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the help file TEW has always needed. Thanks so much for this, Derek. I feel like we'll finally get a realistic and functional modern day update in this gen of TEW because of these write-ups and I'm really looking forward to it because there's never really been one.

 

While I'm here, will you be doing a section on creating angles? I put out a streamlined TEW2010 set for people who weren't interested in sifting through 5,000 angles every time they booked a show and am planning to redo them for '13 but after reading your seminars (:p) here and realizing how much I've learned about the inner-workings of the game from them I'd really like to soak in whatever knowledge about the subject you have before I get started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To agree with D-Lyrium about Sex Appeal, I've always thought the better way to think about it was to not ask "How attractive is she?" but rather "How many people in the crowd would find her attractive?". It takes the subjectivity out of it. A mod-maker might find 2001 Lita to be the hottest thing ever... but that's not everyone's cup of tea. There's a reason Vince likes the hot-blonde-big-boobs look. It's got a fairly widespread appeal, whereas (and I don't want to sound racist here) Gail Kim might not float everyone's boat. The goal of a sex appeal angle is to get as many people in the crowd riled up as possible.

 

It also tracks with men. The female audience is smaller (these days) so John Morrison doing a strip-tease is undeniably going to work for a smaller percentage of the crowd.

 

I also agree with FlameSnoopy about Guerrero, but... we could spend all day going back and forth about stats. I'm finding Samoa Joe to be rather over-rated in the example's Derek's given, but... Yeah. Subjectivity. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to address a few points here but going to try to avoid multiquoting in the process.

 

@D-Lyrium

- Good points on Taz, brawling and mic skills. Will tweak what I've written for those, probably wholesale copying what you wrote on mic skills. I don't proof-read a lot and that was about where I'd gotten to as a stopping point the previous night so I missed a chunk there.

- Sex appeal I will disagree with a bit. Dawn Marie was stupidly hot, but she lacked in other areas compared to the Trish Stratuses or Torrie Wilsons of the world. Also, you seem to have managed to get Jacqueline into your example at two different scores though I think you might've been talking about her peak and her now, possibly. :p I also disagree with the "flaunting sex appeal" as a way of rating it... that's just how about the character is booked. If Portia Perez is hot, she should get a high rating.. if she doesn't use that as her way of being pushed then she simply isn't going to be in sex appeal rated angles capitalising on it. That said, I'll tweak my definition slightly to take into account what has been mentioned since. :)

 

- Aerial, Eddie Guererro. Subjectivity is always hard to remove from things and I do consider Eddie to be better than Rey, or at least an equal. Rey is flashier than Eddie, that much is for sure, but in terms of working matches with people I think Eddie was every bit as good as Rey in the high flying style, but with less sensational dives in his arsenal which would be covered by flashiness. But I'm happy to bow to opinion on the matter, especially since Eddie won't be an active part of a real world mod anyways and I'm not actually making the mod. I freely admit I lack knowledge of pretty much anything beyond the TNA and WWE these days, and not much beyond ROH/ECW in days gone by... it's always going to be a limit on how much I can offer on workers beyond who I've managed to see through some YouTube videos. It's why I'm relying on everyone else to know what they're talking about and hopefully be able to turn everything I'm saying into a great real world mod. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's got a fairly widespread appeal, whereas (and I don't want to sound racist here) Gail Kim might not float everyone's boat.

 

Apparently she floated Hernandez's boat because he blatantly copped a feel when giving her a Border Toss several years ago. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New section has been posted about Contracts and Gimmicks. It mostly deals with all the things you can find on the contract screen and the gimmick scren, with some other bits and pieces thrown in as and when it seemed appropriate. Hopefully it's helpful, but I know it's the longest section so far with the least reward as a lot of it is about things you shouldn't be adding rather than stuff you should.

 

Next chapter is likely to be about mostly minor modding things. Stuff like company relationships, worker relationships, tag teams and stuff like that. They should all be fairly simple sections though I think I'm going to take a day or two away from writing in order to get more things done in real life. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wage: The game auto-calculates a basic wage when the game starts based on popularity and skills of a worker involved. This figure is their base rate of pay before other perks and bonuses (merchandise, PPV bonus, etc). The game’s financial system has been balanced up more tightly in TEW13 than in the past, so unless you want to alter that balance for some reason then you should leave this blank. This is NOT the same as their real world pay, so don’t put in real numbers here as it isn’t scaled the same way in TEW and you will alter the balance forever, likely for the worse. For a PPA deal this is their amount per show, for a written deal this is their amount per month.

 

A good idea for people who you know are on more than the run of the mill guys of their level (Mark Henry, Big Show, Lesnar) is to leave it blank, start a new game, and then write down what the game gives them, then use an inflated value in the database.

 

Creative Control: This will give a creative veto to the person in question, allowing them to outright block any plans they don’t like the sound of. Basically, any time you get a message about someone complaining about the booking of a match, this will upgrade that from a complaint to a rejection of the booking. You can do things to get around it, but if they still aren’t happy then your booking plans can be ruined. Most players HATE to give this out to people (for good reason) but if given to a good guy who doesn’t complain much, adding this to their contract negotiation can be the difference between them staying loyal to their home company and jumping ship. But be wary… once you start giving this out then other people at a similar level will start to demand it (or lots more money to make up for not getting it) too, which can lead to a long term spiralling of costs and promises. This is basically what happened in WCW, with workers being given so muhc creative power and money that the locker-room turned bad and creative was often unable to get anything good done as no-one wanted to lose. In a current day mod I’d only give this to owners (who tend to act as if they have it anyway), Triple H, Brock Lesnar and The Undertaker. Other people like Cena, Orton and Punk may have a lot of pull but I don’t believe any of them has the power to just outright refuse if they wanted to.

 

Hiring Veto: This gives the power to a worker to block you from hiring people (but not extending a contract). Basically, if someone doesn’t like someone and you’ve given them this then they will stop you from doing so. It’s hard to get to the top of the wrestling world without making a few enemies along the way, so if you are trying to hire a controversial star with some big name enemies that you also like… well, you might not want to do this. The Cornellverse doesn’t really have a lot of people hating each other enough for this and Company Owners already behave as if they have this regardless of their contract so you don’t even need to add it. I can’t think of anyone who doesn’t own a company who would have this, though a case could be made for any McMahon-Helmsley type who COULD become owner having this. And it’s possible Hulk Hogan would have this in TNA, though I’m speculating about that which probably means he doesn’t.

 

These are also good for guys who are in positions of power in a company but not part of the actual power structure in the game. For instance, Shane, Stephanie and Triple H probably all have both of these (if you include the former two in the game), but aren't actually owner or head booker of WWE. In some mods, Linda is in the game as WWE owner and Vince as head booker; giving Vince these would also be a good idea in this case.

 

Great post again though. :D

 

Also, you mixed up "Semi-Active Wrestler" (which is a role) and "Occasional Wrestler" (which is a push) several times throughout. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is entirely about wins and losses, and as such doesn’t apply to non-wrestlers. Enhancement talents and openers are exempt from the effects of Recent Fortunes as they are expected to lose pretty much every match and it would be a cruel world if they were punsihed excessively for doing so

 

Man, and to think I was giving my jobber tag teams wins over each other for the hell of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Hogan having a hiring veto in TNA, he has said in an interview recently that Dixie told him she was going to make an offer to Bret Hart to come do a storyline in 2011 but Hogan told her he didn't want Bret in TNA and that was the end of that. It's stupid but Hogan probably has more power and more pull on how TNA's run than Dixie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of gimmick files... I'd really hate to mass delete the gimmick file I have right now and import the default gimmick data. I can go through each worker's bio and assign appropriate gimmicks, but that would push the release back, which in effect is kinda like starting over. I feel like I'm in a no-win situation here. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good read Derek. I agree with over 90% of everything you said. The only place I don't agree with is your thoughts on John Cena. My reason is because, although no one will admit it, he IS a top sell in PPV and on par with the others you mentioned, because of his internet hate. No matter if they want to admit it or not, putting any internet favorite against John Cena, is money, because people will pay to see if their favorite topples John Cena.... even when they think Cena is going to win. They cross their fingers and hope that WWE does the "Right" thing.

 

My opinion is John Cena vs Punk or Bryan, will outsell Bryan vs Punk. Jericho vs Punk isn't as big as John Cena vs Punk, or John Cena vs Jericho (for example).

 

I know it's a blurry area though, and my insane boredom of John Cena's character made me not want to post my thoughts on it... I can't think of a single "real" world game I've played as WWE in the last year or so, that I didn't "feed" Cena to all my favorites (Punk, Bryan, Sandow, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you agree with Derek 99% then as what you just put about Cena is pretty much what he has said. ;)

 

John Cena is the golden boy at the moment the only time someone has come close to out selling him in merchandise was on CM Punks hotstreak but as soon as the storyline fizzled out he couldn't carry the company because of his lack of star quality. :p

 

I just want to say thank you to Derek as it is a brilliant read I thought I knew it all having been a wrestler and a long time modder then there is a few things that I needed tweaking on in terms of the game and you have put me on the right track.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you agree with Derek 99% then as what you just put about Cena is pretty much what he has said. ;)

 

John Cena is the golden boy at the moment the only time someone has come close to out selling him in merchandise was on CM Punks hotstreak but as soon as the storyline fizzled out he couldn't carry the company because of his lack of star quality. :p

 

I just want to say thank you to Derek as it is a brilliant read I thought I knew it all having been a wrestler and a long time modder then there is a few things that I needed tweaking on in terms of the game and you have put me on the right track.

 

Thanks

/nod. I read through the beginning posts, and didn't read through everything yet. I should have posted that before I said what I did. I haven't got to those parts your mentioning yet. I was where he had Cena at B (Maybe), along with Punk, Orton (maybe), etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Undertaker example is a great point. He shouldn't be rated terribly highly or anything, but just because he DOESN'T sell doesn't mean he CAN'T sell. There is a notable difference, when you watch his matches, between him intentionally no-selling a move because it's part of his character, and him not selling a move because he forgot. He does a cool facial expression thing when he's being all supernatural (as opposed to forgetful ¬_¬). Most unusually large monster types have an element of no-selling to their character (usually just 'brushing off' lower-impact moves, like strikes and stuff, and occasionally clotheslines with the traditional "you can't knock me down" spot), and shouldn't be marked down because of that if it's intentional. If it's intentional, like Derek said, it ADDS to the match, not detracts from it.

 

There's a difference, in other words, between NOT selling and NO-selling.

/nod. I agree quite a bit with this. I remember quite a bit of talk about Hogan no selling in the 80's at his height, when asked they were talking exclusively about him "Hulking Up"... That's part of the character, where he is getting "super" type powers from the "hulkamaniacs" in the crowd, the louder they cheered, the more power he gained... or whatever. Anyways, it was part of the gimmick, part of the character, not meant to make the other guy look bad. Funny thing is, this happened after Hogan sold hugely, and was looking like he was going to get his butt kicked... then the "Force" of "Hulkamania" would run rampant. Plus, no one ever takes his Japan work, which he was more proud of, into consideration when doing his stats.

 

Two points to my post here. Stats aren't only about How this guy or that guy worked in WWE or TNA. It's about what they are capable of. The companies are going to utilize them in ways the company are set up to highlight... So if someone is a huge Lucha star, capable of doing outrageous and exciting daredevil feats, but all the sudden ends up in WWE... You don't have to take all that away from them just because they don't do it in the WWE. The Promotional stats will not utilize that part of them, so you don't have to emulate that, just because they are with WWE now... What if I want to run ROH, and I have use for those skills, and he gets fired by WWE? It's aggravating to hire someone (especially with Fog on) you know is good at something, for that reason, only to find that their stats have been brought down to emulate how they are today, in the promotion they are in today.

???

And there's an opposite of 'no-selling', which I've come to call 'selling the intent', which is where when a move is botched you know what was supposed to happen, so you sell it as if it did happen. This is terrible, IMO, and makes both parties look stupid. Obvious examples are an embarrassing number of early RKOs, where Orton misses his opponent's head completely and falls over grabbing thin air, so the opponent falls over too for no reason a second or two behind him (another example is a worker very obviously ramming his own head into a turnbuckle during multiple head-ramming spots regardless of whether his opponent is doing anything). Obviously mega-spots (like Shane O'Mac's elbows from ridiculous heights) are exempt from this, as if you no-sold them you'd probably be fired. It's not like he can do it again while keeping the suspension of disbelief. ¬_¬.

I would emulate "Botch" type stuff in the "Basics" stat, or maybe in the "Psychology" Stat. Really, it's being aware in the ring, so Psychology would be the place to put it, but.... Psychology is so much more complicated (IMO) that Basics. So I would put it under Basics.

Sex Appeal

I know that this is probably the most subjective stat in the game, and this is probably the opinion I'll have most trouble getting across, but I have to disagree with some of what you said here (mostly with Christy and Dawn being 90+).

 

To me, Sex Appeal isn't so much about how physically attractive a person is (because that's immensely subjective), it's about how well (or not) they USE their attractiveness, and like all stats, the main question should be: "If they appeared in an angle rated on sex appeal, how well would the majority of fans react?"

 

To me, Trish, Torrie and Stacy from your list are legit bonafide 90+, probably 95+. Trish definitely 95+.

 

But below that sort of "godlike" level, I think we need to be a little more careful than some mods in the past have been. There's no point in having the stat if everyone who's a little bit attractive gets a 90+. Dawn Marie, for example. Imagining for a moment her primary method of getting over was her looks (it wasn't, she was a damn good wrestler). Did she get over? Really? No. Her looks killed Al Wilson, I guess, but is that something you want on your CV? :p

 

For instance, even though most of them are pretty attractive to me personally, I wouldn't give the following females a sex appeal stat of more than about 80:

Lita, Molly Holly, Dawn Marie, Michelle McCool, Jacqueline, Stephanie McMahon, Victoria, Ivory, Vickie Guerrero.

 

As I say, most of them are perfectly attractive, but they didn't have the sort of... I dunno... "thing" that made you want to see them in an angle rated on sex appeal. :p

 

On the other hand, I'm looking at a mod in which Aja Kong has 0 for sex appeal. So... let's not go too far the other way either. :p

 

In my opinion, Sex Appeal should follow the same sort of guidelines as other stats (for women at least): 70-80 for regular run of the mill females, 80-90 for particularly attractive female wrestlers or not very successful female valets/model types (including WWE Diva style 'valets who wrestle'), 90+ for the cream of the crop, workers who are known for getting over almost entirely on their looks.

As intoxicating as Portia Perez is, she's unlikely to get over based on her looks (because she'd probably beat the crap out of any booker brave enough to suggest she try to). Whereas someone like Sable is more inclined to use her looks to get her over (no pun intended). Mmm. Sable. Portia isn't significantly less attractive than Sable (or, less attractive at all) she's just less likely to flaunt that fact.

 

Below 60 would be reserved for particularly masculine women (Chyna, potentially Jazz), and women who for whatever reason aren't considered attractive by society in general (not just the mod maker!) - Aja Kong, Luna Vachon, Linda McMahon, Lioness Asuka, etc. Or more senior ladies, like Fabulous Moolah. Below 40 is probably insulting, except to Nicole Bass. :p.

I tend to agree with Derek over you on this one. It's not about "How" they have used it, but if they did use it "How" it might help them. It's obvious to me why Derek rated some of these girls the way he did, a simple google and seeing they have super sexy swimsuit photos and such... this is what that stat is about. Someone could be drop dead sexy, but if they don't use sex appeal to get over in Wrestling, unless I'm mistaking what your saying here, you would rate them lower then someone not as sexy, but using Sex Appeal to get over simply because they used it and the other one concentrated on actual ring work to get over. To me, that's not correct.

 

As far as examples go, that's totally subjective. What looks good to you might not to me, and vice versa. We both know what is appealing to most, so we can mutually agree on obvious examples. All I'm saying is... Let's just use Trish Stratus as an example here for ease of reference. Let's say Trish is capable of all that Sex Appeal she used over the years, but instead of using that (although she is still all over the magazine covers and such, during this time period), she goes for only using ring skills, and improves slowly but surely over the years into what she eventually become.... the difference is she never uses Sex Appeal, or appears in all those Sex Appeal angles and such. Would you then rate her lower? I wouldn't... that's my point.

Menace:

Mostly agree with that section, although IMO you don't have to be physically intimidating to have a high menace. Three good examples of people I'd give a highish menace score too even though physically they're not up to much:

Paul Bearer, Kevin Sullivan, Brian Pillman.

 

Also, less of a good example because he's physically quite intimidating too, Raven.

Again, I agree more with Derek, although I see your points to a point. Your examples though... Paul Bearer? He had something, but it wasn't menace. If Menace was "Physically intimidatin AND earie type people" I would agree. Now the guy that played Paul Bearer did have some Menace to him, but IMO, he showed that way before the Paul Bearer gimmick. As a manager BEFORE that time period, he could be bold, blunt, intimidating, etc. As Paul Bearer he was more like a guy from the TV Show, The Munsters or something. Great entertainment skills, psychology-sure, charisma, microphone, acting, all of that, yes. Menace... Not so much.... But I'm strictly talking in the gimmick he is best known for. The examples of Paul Bearer and Kevin Sullivan to me, is saying because they were Eary type villians, or "cult" like figures, they should have high Menace, and I disagree with that point only.

 

Menace is why people like Khali can get over so quickly... when first debuting, no matter their actual ring skill. I'm not saying you have to be a Giant to have Menace, but huge guys definitely need a plus in it to emulate reality. You walk up to someone like Khali in a dark alley, and he acts in any way upset with you, you're not going to feel the same as you would if it were Zack Ryder, or Paul Bearer, or Kevin Sullivan. IF you have never been around someone the size of Khali (or even close... Like 6'9), you won't understand what it really is like.

 

Acting:

Nick Dinsmore deserves a bit of credit... he never went FULL retard. :p [/obscureReference]

 

Chris Jericho, surely? He may not have actually done any movies (or has he?), but he's done TV presenting and has fronted a successful rock band. That's got to count.

 

I'd probably say Vince McMahon, too. Just for his facial expressions.

 

/nod. Good acting is good acting. Most pro-wrestlers, managers, commentators, have to have it to some extent, to act as if they actually care about anything at all, since it's all "play fighting".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I agree more with Derek, although I see your points to a point. Your examples though... Paul Bearer? He had something, but it wasn't menace. If Menace was "Physically intimidatin AND earie type people" I would agree. Now the guy that played Paul Bearer did have some Menace to him, but IMO, he showed that way before the Paul Bearer gimmick. As a manager BEFORE that time period, he could be bold, blunt, intimidating, etc. As Paul Bearer he was more like a guy from the TV Show, The Munsters or something. Great entertainment skills, psychology-sure, charisma, microphone, acting, all of that, yes. Menace... Not so much.... But I'm strictly talking in the gimmick he is best known for. The examples of Paul Bearer and Kevin Sullivan to me, is saying because they were Eary type villians, or "cult" like figures, they should have high Menace, and I disagree with that point only.

 

Menace is why people like Khali can get over so quickly... when first debuting, no matter their actual ring skill. I'm not saying you have to be a Giant to have Menace, but huge guys definitely need a plus in it to emulate reality. You walk up to someone like Khali in a dark alley, and he acts in any way upset with you, you're not going to feel the same as you would if it were Zack Ryder, or Paul Bearer, or Kevin Sullivan. IF you have never been around someone the size of Khali (or even close... Like 6'9), you won't understand what it really is like.

 

If anything, wouldn't Paul Bearer and Kevin Sullivan have high stats, maybe from 90-100(since Gimmick Performance stats don't improve, just the babyface/heel performance) in the Weird performance category? And I definitely know what you mean on the bigger guys being more menacing as I was around Hernandez quite a bit when he did indy work with XCW(back when TNA wasn't as hung up about their workers taking indy bookings), and his size alone would make me nervous. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I wanted to add a promotion that drew roughly 2,000 people in two different regions, how much popularity should they have in those two regions?

 

From some early sim tests(haven't gone in depth with them yet as I want to get the basics right first) of my Main Event mod, World Class has been drawing 2,000 fans at the Sportatorium(which is a sell out), located in the Mid South region, where I lowered their pop at 50%, because let's face it, World Class had gone downhill quite a bit with attendance(at least with their Reunion Arena and Texas Stadium shows) in Feb 1988. Now something I should point out is that I do have the Sportatorium set as owned by WCWA, so that might have something to do with them running their shows there. But anyway, back to the original question, it's looking like around 50% should be fine for drawing 2,000 fans in a region, at least in one region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The company I was thinking of adding was short lived World Wrestling Network, the Crockett and Heyman company. From what I've been able to gather, they ran shows in Texas and New York and had decent turn outs.

 

So THAT'S how the Heyman/Cornette dislike got started. :p:D j/k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, wouldn't Paul Bearer and Kevin Sullivan have high stats, maybe from 90-100(since Gimmick Performance stats don't improve, just the babyface/heel performance) in the Weird performance category? And I definitely know what you mean on the bigger guys being more menacing as I was around Hernandez quite a bit when he did indy work with XCW(back when TNA wasn't as hung up about their workers taking indy bookings), and his size alone would make me nervous. :D

 

I wasn't talking about the stats for gimmicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...