Star Quality?

[deadfireking2]

What is it exactly?

 

and since you need a worker that has tons of it. Is there a way to raise it and if so How?

 

Thx

[louis1016]

Check out this old thread by Derek that goes into details on most stats from tew2013:

 

http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=524746

 

 

"Quite simply, the innate look of being a star. Don’t confuse this with recognising someone who is already a star because it is NOT that. There is a certain intangible quality that some people have, whether it be in their body language or their look. They just shout out to the world that they are a star, they are important, they are talented or something like that. The Rock is pretty much a perfect example of Star Quality. He was good looking, he was charismatic (both different stats) but what he had was a certain swagger, poise and charm that made him stand out from everyone else. You put him in a line-up with almost anyone else and ask people to pick out a star, and even people who don’t know him would single him out. You put Mick Foley in that same line up and he wouldn’t even get a second look. Mick Foley is popular and a highly successful star in his own right several times over, but Star Quality isn’t something he has a lot of. He became a a star despite lacking Star Quality and the poor guy gets this argument used on him every time I make this point. This stat CAN go hand in hand with high sex appeal, menace or charisma but it is generally something unique to a person. Hulk Hogan had it in spades though has lost some since his peak (I’d still sit him in the 70s for Star Quality now though, more than Mick Foley ever had). The Ultimate Warrior was packed to the gills with it. The Rock has it. Stone Cold had a lot of it, but not as much as anyone else mentioned so far (I’d set him in high 80s/low 90s even at his peak). John Cena has a lot of it but not as much as Austn (I’d go with high 80s). Batista oozed Star Quality too, one of the best for Camera skills in recent times with high 90s here."

[Derek B]

There's also a question mark next to it in-game that explains it too.

[ZMAN]

Quick and to the point version: the "it" factor someone has which if its high enough grants them a grade bonus in their match performance.

[JimmyStyles]

think of The Miz

[Benjamin4011]

Mick Foley is popular and a highly successful star in his own right several times over, but Star Quality isn’t something he has a lot of. He became a a star despite lacking Star Quality and the poor guy gets this argument used on him every time I make this point.[/i]

 

I believe it was Carl Sagan who once said, "we are all made of star stuff. Except Mick Foley."

[ThatChizzle]

Star Quality was seen in the late 80's early 90's of The Rockers. You knew Shawn Michaels was oozing star quality, while Marty Jannetty was close, but not enough.

[d12345]

Quick and to the point version: the "it" factor someone has which if its high enough grants them a grade bonus in their match performance.

 

So Bobby Roode's SQ would be what? Like Over 9000???

[mrwhippy]

Star Quality was seen in the late 80's early 90's of The Rockers. You knew Shawn Michaels was oozing star quality, while Marty Jannetty was close, but not enough.

 

Really? Charismatic, yes. Sex appeal, sure. But not SQ really, they looked pretty "plain" as people if that's a good word, around a C level. Even at his absolute peak, Shawn was only around a B in Star Quality. It was super-high charisma and sex appeal that was more evident.

[vampmon]

And can it be raised?

[mrwhippy]

Star Quality can slowly rise/drop as the worker develops/declines. Bigger jumps are seen when events such as size increases occur.

[jesterx7769]

Really? Charismatic, yes. Sex appeal, sure. But not SQ really, they looked pretty "plain" as people if that's a good word, around a C level. Even at his absolute peak, Shawn was only around a B in Star Quality. It was super-high charisma and sex appeal that was more evident.

 

I was going to disagree with you, but I actually agree with you.

 

I like the "line up" argument.

 

Put guys in a line up, maybe give the 30 second elevator speech about themselves.

 

Okay, now would you pick as a figure head WWE champion?

 

HBK is small, and doesn't have that SQ in droves. I agree a C or B depending on the mod maker.

 

As you said what got HBK over was over the top charisma, sex appeal during a sex appeal time, and great match making (ladder match).

 

I don't think you would pick him first of the line up, you would pick guys like The Rock and Hogan, even Cena with how fast he originally got over.

[bigtplaystew]

In TEW 2013 I was pretty sure I saw star quality rise in promos rated on entertainment. I have yet to notice anyone's star quality rising in 2016, but I'm only like 5 shows in and I'm playing TCW so basically I've only had 5 Rocky Golden promos where I would have seen this

[fabioman3]

In TEW 2013 I was pretty sure I saw star quality rise in promos rated on entertainment. I have yet to notice anyone's star quality rising in 2016, but I'm only like 5 shows in and I'm playing TCW so basically I've only had 5 Rocky Golden promos where I would have seen this

 

Rocky Golden alredy has 100 SQ

[FlameSnoopy]

Rating Shawn Michaels at C or B star quality is a massive understatement. His star quality single-handedly carried the WWF in 1996. I'd give him a low A*. Now obviously Hogan and Rock would have a solid 100 and John Cena slightly higher than HBK.

[Icebound]

Rating Shawn Michaels at C or B star quality is a massive understatement. His star quality single-handedly carried the WWF in 1996. I'd give him a low A*. Now obviously Hogan and Rock would have a solid 100 and John Cena slightly higher than HBK.

 

This already seems like one of those "Depends on personal opinion" type questions but just to weigh in, in TEW 16 the description for it contains "If you pointed them out to someone who knew nothing about wrestling how big a star they would come across" IE. Not cutting a promo, having a interview on TV, Wrestling etc but how they carry themselves just walking down the hallway or standing waiting for a cab etc.

 

It also says it contains everything that isn't covered by Microphone,Charisma, Sex Appeal and it's nothing to do with in ring ability. On that basis HBK a A*, No. He is rated that highly in peoples mind because of the whole package he brings not because of the way he stands out in a crowd.

[lazorbeak]

Rating Shawn Michaels at C or B star quality is a massive understatement. His star quality single-handedly carried the WWF in 1996. I'd give him a low A*. Now obviously Hogan and Rock would have a solid 100 and John Cena slightly higher than HBK.

 

I disagree, I'd say a B for HBK would be fine at his absolute peak, and he was probably in the B- range for most of his career. His ring-work was great, but his star quality (along with Bret Hart) being on top in 1996 is really nothing to brag about; business tanked when he was on top, even when he was having great matches. There's already enough stats HBK should be great at, it's overkill to give him a stat that's designed to balance out the Lex Lugers of the world who have less skill but get over and stay over more easily.

 

Star quality is really built to gauge whether, when someone who doesn't follow the product flips channels, they're like "whoah check out this guy" when they see a worker. HBK was never that kind of wrestler, he was just a very, very good performer.

[Derek B]

Rating Shawn Michaels at C or B star quality is a massive understatement. His star quality single-handedly carried the WWF in 1996. I'd give him a low A*. Now obviously Hogan and Rock would have a solid 100 and John Cena slightly higher than HBK.

 

When I'm asked who my favourite wrestler of all time is I generally say Shawn Michaels... and no matter how hard I mark for him, I would never EVER have considered him to be an A* star quality guy. In the 90s he'd have 90+ sex appeal, at his peak in the 2000s he'd have 90+ for all his performance skills and a top row that would make most people cry. His charisma would be in the A range too, his physical skills would be up there too... I mean, HBK would be an undoubted ratings machine for matches and angles... BUT when it comes to the pure ability to draw eyes to the product and compete, he wasn't as good. Just not quite high enough star quality no matter how talented he was but I'd still pick him to be in any company I ran while he was an active wrestler. He might not be able to carry the company in a National Battle, but he could easily get our name involved in it.

[OldStingberg]

Keep in mind there are a lot more factors that go into whether or not a company draws money than the star quality of one main eventer.

 

Seriously, just because the WWF was doing poorly for part of the time HBK was on top doesn't automatically mean that was because HBK wasn't a star. The WWF was coming off all sorts of bad publicity, the previous years had seen uninspired title reigns by a stale Hogan, Yokozuna, Backlund, and Diesel, their undercard was littered with terrible gimmicks, the UFC had just started and was really drawing a distinction from the WWF's childish product, etc.

 

I would argue it was a mark of HBK's star power that managed to keep the product from completely sinking and eventually helped turn it around. He might not have been an A*, but I'd say he was an easy A. He wasn't big, but he had a presence about him that made you notice him.

[Self]

Looking at the Cverse, having Star Quality of C or B is pretty damned awesome. Seems perfectly acceptable for a guy like Shawn to have that. It's not an "A or they're worthless" scale.

[OldStingberg]

Looking at the Cverse, having Star Quality of C or B is pretty damned awesome. Seems perfectly acceptable for a guy like Shawn to have that. It's not an "A or they're worthless" scale.

 

There are about 70 active wrestlers in the current Cverse with excellent star quality. I find it hard to believe HBK was not one of the top 70 wrestlers in the world in 1995 in terms of star quality.

[lazorbeak]

This has already been explained. You can rate him whatever you want, but in the game, it should be one of his worst qualities. If TEW Shawn Michaels has an A in star quality, he has zero weaknesses (although his mic skills are overrated sometimes, he was never an elite promo guy), when the reality is that Shawn Michaels never got to that next level and the primary difference between him and everyone that did is star quality.

 

And yes, there were plenty of guys with greater star quality than him, even at his peak. Just in his own promotion, there was Undertaker, Sid, Austin, British Bulldog, Triple H, and Ahmed Johnson. If you're a non-wrestling fan flipping channels, all those guys looked more like stars (and half of them ended up actually becoming bigger stars).

[OldStingberg]

This has already been explained.

Oh well, that settles it then.

 

You can rate him whatever you want, but in the game, it should be one of his worst qualities. If TEW Shawn Michaels has an A in star quality, he has zero weaknesses (although his mic skills are overrated sometimes, he was never an elite promo guy), when the reality is that Shawn Michaels never got to that next level and the primary difference between him and everyone that did is star quality.

I would argue HBK didn't really have any weaknesses. Not in terms of wrestling, at least.

 

I would also argue his lack of reaching Austin's level had more to do with timing, injuries, gimmick, and his personality than his star quality.

 

But silly me, this has already been explained I guess. My apologies, I can be a bit dense at times.

 

And yes, there were plenty of guys with greater star quality than him, even at his peak. Just in his own promotion, there was Undertaker, Sid, Austin, British Bulldog, Triple H, and Ahmed Johnson. If you're a non-wrestling fan flipping channels, all those guys looked more like stars (and half of them ended up actually becoming bigger stars).

If Triple H, the British Bulldog, and Admed freaking Johnson had more Star Quality than HBK, Adam might as well rename the skill 'Physique' and then there we would be done with this discussion.

 

But again, stupid me, this has already been explained.

[Pogo92]

Yeah, Shawn Michaels had GOOD star quality, but if he had elite Star Quality there would be no reason he wouldn't be as popular as Stone Cold or The Rock in reality. HBK was a complete package--Athletic, versatile, skilled, generous, intuitive, and charismatic. However, at around 6' tall and 225 pounds he simply doesn't exude the same kind of dominant arua that Heavyweights can generate. Look at Brock Lesnar: The guy has poor mic skills, decent at best ring skills, and needed to be protected early on with tons of power spots to hide his ring deficiencies. Despite all that, after a modest Monster Heel run the guy could pop like a mortar shell. Brock has that intangible look and poise that sold tickets. Shawn had a good look and aura but he could never sell seats like Hulk Hogan could no matter how well you wrote his storylines.

 

HBK can figurehead a national company no doubt, but he wouldn't be able to compete with the truly great draws of history. He still had great Star Quality despite being on the smaller end of the spectrum , but it's a difficult deficit to overcome.

[OldStingberg]

HBK can figurehead a national company no doubt, but he wouldn't be able to compete with the truly great draws of history. He still had great Star Quality despite being on the smaller end of the spectrum , but it's a difficult deficit to overcome.

 

This I agree with. I would put his Star Quality is the 90-92 range, whereas the all-time pantheon guys were obviously closer to if not at 100.

 

But just because he wasn't Hogan doesn't mean he didn't have excellent star quality.

 

From what I've read, the arguments against him seem to be either "well he'd be too perfect then" or "business wasn't great in 1996". The former is certainly irrelevant. His ability in the ring has no bearing on his star quality.

 

The latter argument, and the one that keeps coming up, surprises me. By that logic, shouldn't Tommy Cornell and Rocky Golden have a C star quality since they've presided over arguably the biggest decline in TCW history? They obviously couldn't carry the company to success, right? Or can we all agree that a company's success has many more contributing factors than simply one main eventers star quality?