Star quality

Peter.1986 · July 25, 2017

I know there has been countless discussions on this, but I keep changing my mind and would like people's input/opinions.

So I'm the game star quality can be on of the biggest skills. It helps with the pop cap, also helps pop grow and helps in segments and matches especially for pop based companies.

It also declines with time decline, but increases with workers bulking up

So my issue is when rating people in real life. If we were to compare every wrestler at every point in their career and the 100 rating would be for only one person, how would we rate people?

In my eyes it's clear that hulk hogan and the rock are in a category of their own here. I would say hulk hogan, the look, the height he got to pop wise and looking at his other skills, his star quality definitely was his biggest thing.

So I'd say pretty much 100

Then there's the rock, although I believe the rock had a lot of other skills that were better than hulk, you look at the height of his popularity and everything and again I'd say the rock is pretty much 100 on this.

But then begs the question, if you compare the rock in 2000 to the rock after he bulls up then is the rock in 2000 a 100 in star quality?

Then I look at stone cold, one of the biggest names in wrestling, but outside wrestling never got anywhere near these two. Again had better skills than hulk hogan else where, in ring and outside the ring, but the 'look' certainly doesn't beat hulk hogan. Taking into account everything I'd be loooing around 90

Ric flair is one of the greatest workers of all time, in the ring, he looked like a major star, but if you took his gimmick away from him and put him in the ring in pants and boots, would he come across the same as the other two? Also I'd say flair had greater in ring skills than the others above, was better in mic, charisma etc than hogan, probably similar to stone cold, but not as good as the rock in the entertainment skills. So what stopped him being bigger than hulk hogan when all his other skills pretty much exceed? Is it star quality? I used to think flair would be in the 90s for star quality, but the more I think about it, he is that good in every other department that the only thing that could stop him in game being bigger than hulk hogan and the rock is star quality, maybe in the mid 80's?

Macho man, again not bad in the ring, much more entertaining than hogan. A guy who I always thought had star quality in abundance, but again something held him back? So would savage be around mid, to late 80's when you look at macho man in all the gear he looks like a major star, but isnthat the gimmick and not the worker?

Bret hart. I always thought star quality was what let Bret down, but the more I think about it, the less it think that's true. Bret was one of the greatest to watch in ring, but had poor entertainment skills, the more I watch his promos the worse I think they are. But to look at Bret and back in the day he was a major star, would he actually have low entertainment skills (which held him back) but higher star quality say mid 80s?

There are many many more which I just can't decide on, especially the bigger workers who were not so good in the ring and had low entertainment skills, but star quality could be the only thing hat got them over etc warrior, Yokozuna (although I believe Yokozuna was better at selling than people give him credit for and he had decent ring psychology)

The more I think about what star quality does on the game, the more I change my opinion on their ratings

Bigpapa42 · July 25, 2017

Part of the problem I'm seeing is that you are looking at who WAS a star rather than who SEEMS like a star. And that's where it really starts to get blurry. You are also pulling in elements that don't really pertain. There are dozens of reasons why one person became a bigger star outside of wrestling than someone else, but it doesn't necessarily come down to Star Quality. The "gear" or outfit someone is wearing should have a pretty minimal impact on the idea of SQ. its down to the worker and their aura. Another factor is that Star Quality isn't static. It changes. The Rock wasn't at 100 SQ in 1996. But in 1999? Sure. Triple H in 1996? High. Triple H in 2000? Higher. Part of the aura is how someone looks (with tattoos, facial hair, haircut, and even gear being a small part of that) and part of it is simply the way they carry themselves. <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div> From Derek B's Mod-Making Guide Star Quality: Last but not least in this section is a stat that is universaly helpful. 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. In terms of Divas, Trish had huge Star Quality… there was just a presence with her that wasn’t just her boobs looking you in the face, there was more. The current crop of gals wish they had what she had but most of them are simply attractive but with nothing to say “I’m a megastar” about them. Which is kinda why the Divas get overlooked a lot… there is some talented girls there, but they don’t have star quality the same way that some of the Attitude Era girls did. Tamina Snuka? Eve? The Bella Twins? Rosa Mendez? Mediocre star quality… though the Bellas might be a little better off in that regard than the others. As for the effect of the stat… it adds a little to everything a worker is part of, so while you might not see any obvious effects the little extra boosts you get will slowly add 0.1 popularity here and there. After a while it all adds up. At 100 I think this stat adds about 5 points to your contribution to a segment AND it helps you to shift a lot of merchandise, which is profit for your company. </div></blockquote>

Peter.1986 · July 25, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Bigpapa42" data-cite="Bigpapa42" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Part of the problem I'm seeing is that you are looking at who WAS a star rather than who SEEMS like a star. And that's where it really starts to get blurry. You are also pulling in elements that don't really pertain. There are dozens of reasons why one person became a bigger star outside of wrestling than someone else, but it doesn't necessarily come down to Star Quality. The "gear" or outfit someone is wearing should have a pretty minimal impact on the idea of SQ. its down to the worker and their aura. Another factor is that Star Quality isn't static. It changes. The Rock wasn't at 100 SQ in 1996. But in 1999? Sure. Triple H in 1996? High. Triple H in 2000? Higher. Part of the aura is how someone looks (with tattoos, facial hair, haircut, and even gear being a small part of that) and part of it is simply the way they carry themselves.</div></blockquote> I'm trying to look at people in the past and judge them based on where they were at that moment in time. As for the elements I pulled in, I only mentioned 2 people (the rock and hulk hogan) who's star quality and took them onto becoming much bigger outnside wrestling. In my opinion I would think 100 star quality would really only be for those who have done that through wrestling? I've seen the mod making guide, but what I'm trying to do is create a mod, but I don't want it to be overpowered, I've played many where I can get 6 or 7 workers at a time to 100 pop without actually having to manipulate the game. I think personally that should be extremely hard to achieve. I know it's a hard one to judge and its all opinions. But I'm also trying to stop a worker bulking up twice and ending up 100 star quality at the same time

Irish Wolf · July 25, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Peter.1986" data-cite="Peter.1986" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm trying to look at people in the past and judge them based on where they were at that moment in time. As for the elements I pulled in, I only mentioned 2 people (the rock and hulk hogan) who's star quality and took them onto becoming much bigger outnside wrestling. In my opinion I would think 100 star quality would really only be for those who have done that through wrestling? I've seen the mod making guide, but what I'm trying to do is create a mod, but I don't want it to be overpowered, I've played many where I can get 6 or 7 workers at a time to 100 pop without actually having to manipulate the game. I think personally that should be extremely hard to achieve. I know it's a hard one to judge and its all opinions. But I'm also trying to stop a worker bulking up twice and ending up 100 star quality at the same time</div></blockquote> So there are 2223 active workers in the Cverse at the begining of the game. About a 3rd of those are out of ring workers so 1482 in ring workers. Of those in ring workers only 73 have a star quality above 88 that's about 5% so for game balance reasons you're only gonna want about 5 percent of your workers to be over 88 SQ. Of those only 5 workers are 100 SQ, that is about 1/3 of one percent (.337%) of workers who are at 100 SQ. So although it may not seem realistic, I would chose that .337 of your total number of workers and figure out which ones you think have enough of the intangible to have 100 SQ and then work your way down from there.

TeflonBilly · July 25, 2017

I like the concept of Star Quality, but since it was turned into the be-all and end-all for National Battles, I've looked at it more critically. My problem with it is that I think it has too much impact for something that's, almost by definition, undefinable. What makes this person stand out as a Star? In wrestling you've got Size, Physique, Charisma, Looks(as in attractiveness), Look(as in a unique or highly recognizable appearance), maybe some I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. I'm limiting this strictly to "first glance" kinda stuff, which is my understanding of the stat. All of those things are already covered by other stats. It just seems like an arbitrary cap on a worker's ability to be a star, and even that's covered in part by the destiny roll.

If this thread isn't the place for this discussion, I apologize for side-tracking it. But SQ has been kind of in the back of my head since I got back into the game, and I've considered starting a thread to discuss it. I posted here rather than starting what I thought would be a redundant thread.

Peter.1986 · July 25, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Apupunchau@optonline" data-cite="Apupunchau@optonline" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So there are 2223 active workers in the Cverse at the begining of the game. About a 3rd of those are out of ring workers so 1482 in ring workers. Of those in ring workers only 73 have a star quality above 88 that's about 5% so for game balance reasons you're only gonna want about 5 percent of your workers to be over 88 SQ. Of those only 5 workers are 100 SQ, that is about 1/3 of one percent (.337%) of workers who are at 100 SQ. So although it may not seem realistic, I would chose that .337 of your total number of workers and figure out which ones you think have enough of the intangible to have 100 SQ and then work your way down from there.</div></blockquote> Interesting to know that to be honest. I was thinking more along the line of 100 star quality is for one worker who has the highest star quality of all time at their peak, and working down from there. Until you mentioned this

Peter.1986 · July 25, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TeflonBilly" data-cite="TeflonBilly" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I like the concept of Star Quality, but since it was turned into the be-all and end-all for National Battles, I've looked at it more critically. My problem with it is that I think it has too much impact for something that's, almost by definition, undefinable. What makes this person stand out as a Star? In wrestling you've got Size, Physique, Charisma, Looks(as in attractiveness), Look(as in a unique or highly recognizable appearance), maybe some I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. I'm limiting this strictly to "first glance" kinda stuff, which is my understanding of the stat. All of those things are already covered by other stats. It just seems like an arbitrary cap on a worker's ability to be a star, and even that's covered in part by the destiny roll. If this thread isn't the place for this discussion, I apologize for side-tracking it. But SQ has been kind of in the back of my head since I got back into the game, and I've considered starting a thread to discuss it. I posted here rather than starting what I thought would be a redundant thread.</div></blockquote> I think one thing star quality has separate to the rest is it helps with the pop cap. It also helps segments and matches (I think charisma does too) I suppose years ago when I first played tew I was linking star quality to charisma. Now I think of those giants that get over but have no charisma and barely any other skills, I'd say star quality. Ultimate warrior a prime example. I don't know anybody that thinks he was good in the ring, or out of the ring. But he was somebody people wanted to watch

TeflonBilly · July 25, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Peter.1986" data-cite="Peter.1986" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think one thing star quality has separate to the rest is it helps with the pop cap. It also helps segments and matches (I think charisma does too) I suppose years ago when I first played tew I was linking star quality to charisma. Now I think of those giants that get over but have no charisma and barely any other skills, I'd say star quality. Ultimate warrior a prime example. I don't know anybody that thinks he was good in the ring, or out of the ring. But he was somebody people wanted to watch</div></blockquote> But that's the problem. Watchability, for lack of a better word, is covered by Charisma. A compelling personality is practically the dictionary definition of charisma. And, as I understand it, pop cap is covered by the destiny roll, which makes a star quality pop cap redundant, imo.

SirMichaelJordan · July 25, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TeflonBilly" data-cite="TeflonBilly" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>But that's the problem. Watchability, for lack of a better word, is covered by Charisma. A compelling personality is practically the dictionary definition of charisma. And, as I understand it, pop cap is covered by the destiny roll, which makes a star quality pop cap redundant, imo.</div></blockquote> You can have charisma but lack star quality, I mean look at all of the indy darlings. SQ is just that "It" factor. Brett Hart, great charisma but lacked star quality. Most of it is the looks (not sex appeal) you have to look convincing and most of that have to do with body, posture, size, confidence, etc...After all wrestling is fighting...And acting so looking like a movie star does help.

Peter.1986 · July 25, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="SirMichaelJordan" data-cite="SirMichaelJordan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You can have charisma but lack star quality, I mean look at all of the indy darlings. SQ is just that "It" factor. Brett Hart, great charisma but lacked star quality.</div></blockquote> Or was it the other way round? I don't think Bret had a lot of charisma, but he became a star and to look at he was a star (especially at his peak)

SirMichaelJordan · July 25, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Peter.1986" data-cite="Peter.1986" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Or was it the other way round? I don't think Bret had a lot of charisma, but he became a star and to look at he was a star (especially at his peak)</div></blockquote> Bret is my favorite of all time. He definitely had charisma by its definition. He never had the look of a star. He looked like a 80's rocker in the mid 90's... Besides he was the top guy in WWE when it was at its worst... Went to WCW and never stood out but that could be because of other situations.

Peter.1986 · July 26, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="SirMichaelJordan" data-cite="SirMichaelJordan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Bret is my favorite of all time. He definitely had charisma by its definition. He never had the look of a star. He looked like a 80's rocker in the mid 90's... Besides he was the top guy in WWE when it was at its worst... Went to WCW and never stood out but that could be because of other situations.</div></blockquote> This was my opinion originally, But the more and more I think about it, you look at Bret in the ring, you look at pictures of Bret, he looks like a star. You watch his interview and his promos and he doesn't have an awful lot of charisma. I'm not saying 90+ star quality. People always say at its worst, but he was the main guy when HBK was there, Scott hall, Nash, many wrestlers who's were stars

Kiheiji · July 26, 2017

If you look at someone like Ultimate Warrior, he absolutely looked like a star, and people definitely bought it for a period of time. He was incredibly over, but once WWF tried to position him as Hulk Hogan's replacement, he kinda fell short and the ticket sales reflected on it.

Lex Luger was the same. He looked great, and was over to a degree. I'd argue he was better on the mic than Sting but not as naturally charismatic. Despite all that, Lex never made it as far as he should have.

Then we look at Steve Austin. He was one of the biggest draws ever in history, but did he looked the part in 1994? I don't think so. He was in good shape (arguably better than he was in WWF), looked credible, but didn't quite scream 'face of the company'.

So if SQ covers everything else that isn't covered by charisma, mic skills etc., then perhaps drawing power should be taken into account as well. Hulk Hogan was the biggest star in wrestling and he had everything else that made him look like a star, so giving him 100 SQ sounds reasonable to me. The Rock was big star, though not as big as Steve Austin during the same era, but he came across like a superstar wrestler and obviously had the movie star aura, which gave him and edge over Austin. Anything above 96 makes sense for The Rock at his peak. I think the problem is when modders make Austin and Rock incredibly neck-and-neck in terms of stats, overness, and SQ that looking mathematically you just had to pick Rock over Austin.

Then, we take a look at the 'New Generation' guys. They were stars when WWF were at a slump. Neither Bret Hart nor Diesel were big draws, but it makes sense for Diesel to have bigger SQ than Bret, no?

Peter.1986 · July 26, 2017

If you look at someone like Ultimate Warrior, he absolutely looked like a star, and people definitely bought it for a period of time. He was incredibly over, but once WWF tried to position him as Hulk Hogan's replacement, he kinda fell short and the ticket sales reflected on it.

Lex Luger was the same. He looked great, and was over to a degree. I'd argue he was better on the mic than Sting but not as naturally charismatic. Despite all that, Lex never made it as far as he should have.

Then we look at Steve Austin. He was one of the biggest draws ever in history, but did he looked the part in 1994? I don't think so. He was in good shape (arguably better than he was in WWF), looked credible, but didn't quite scream 'face of the company'.

So if SQ covers everything else that isn't covered by charisma, mic skills etc., then perhaps drawing power should be taken into account as well. Hulk Hogan was the biggest star in wrestling and he had everything else that made him look like a star, so giving him 100 SQ sounds reasonable to me. The Rock was big star, though not as big as Steve Austin during the same era, but he came across like a superstar wrestler and obviously had the movie star aura, which gave him and edge over Austin. Anything above 96 makes sense for The Rock at his peak. I think the problem is when modders make Austin and Rock incredibly neck-and-neck in terms of stats, overness, and SQ that looking mathematically you just had to pick Rock over Austin.

Then, we take a look at the 'New Generation' guys. They were stars when WWF were at a slump. Neither Bret Hart nor Diesel were big draws, but it makes sense for Diesel to have bigger SQ than Bret, no?

I'm sort of thinking along the same lines as this. The only couple of things I'm kind of thinking differently (and it's probably down to opinions) is the following

I'd say the rock was arguably as big as stone cold in the same era, especially towards the end of the attitude era. I would definitely say he had higher star quality that stone cold.

As for Nash and Bret. I used to be of the opinion brets star quality held him back, but when I think about it, Nash had much more charisma than Bret. However when look it from a star point of view Bret was a bigger star. If you didn't know anything about wrestling and looked at Bret hart and diesel. I think you would think Bret looks more like a star. I think it was his charisma and entertainment skills that stopped him becoming as big as stone cold, rock, hogan etc.

Now I would also say these have higher star quality than Bret, but Bret led the company and I don't although it was a rougher period I don't think that was down to Bret not being a big enough star.

It's certainly a hard one.

TeflonBilly · July 26, 2017

This discussion is kinda my point. Don't get me wrong, I like SQ conceptually. But it has a little too much impact in game, imo, for something so nebulous. It's essentially the reverse of the definition of porn. "I don't know what Star Quality is, but I know it when I don't see it."

There's also the fact that it's one of a small number of stats that almost never changes. That makes sense, as it's really something that you either have or you don't. But that should mean that it's independent of other factors like gimmick, for instance. I think it would be fair to say that Kane probably has somewhere in the, what, 65-80 range, to give something of a margin for personal taste. Would anybody have given Issac Yankem or PseuDiesel that same rating?

And didn't Mick Foley mention in his book that when he first saw Rocky Maivia, he didn't think that Maivia had "it"? For SQ to work the way it's sort of explained, The Future Rock should have stood out even as a young pebble. It seems to me that the stat really only works when looking at why two similar wrestlers' careers would peak at two different levels. Why did Lex Luger spend the better part of his career in the World Title picture when Chris Masters never really got past the MasterLock Challenge stage? In retrospect, it must be Star Quality.

I love this game, and have played it pretty religiously since 2004, iirc. But SQ has always seemed kind of sketchy to me, and making it the focus of the National Battle is just... I don't know, it just doesn't click for me.

SirMichaelJordan · July 27, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TeflonBilly" data-cite="TeflonBilly" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>This discussion is kinda my point. Don't get me wrong, I like SQ conceptually. But it has a little too much impact in game, imo, for something so nebulous. It's essentially the reverse of the definition of porn. "I don't know what Star Quality is, but I know it when I don't see it." There's also the fact that it's one of a small number of stats that almost never changes. That makes sense, as it's really something that you either have or you don't. But that should mean that it's independent of other factors like gimmick, for instance. I think it would be fair to say that Kane probably has somewhere in the, what, 65-80 range, to give something of a margin for personal taste. Would anybody have given Issac Yankem or PseuDiesel that same rating? And didn't Mick Foley mention in his book that when he first saw Rocky Maivia, he didn't think that Maivia had "it"? For SQ to work the way it's sort of explained, The Future Rock should have stood out even as a young pebble. It seems to me that the stat really only works when looking at why two similar wrestlers' careers would peak at two different levels. Why did Lex Luger spend the better part of his career in the World Title picture when Chris Masters never really got past the MasterLock Challenge stage? In retrospect, it must be Star Quality. I love this game, and have played it pretty religiously since 2004, iirc. But SQ has always seemed kind of sketchy to me, and making it the focus of the National Battle is just... I don't know, it just doesn't click for me.</div></blockquote> I think its simple, people just have their own definition to what SQ is and inject their bias to real world examples despite what it does in the game. You bring up Kane but how much of a star and draw was he actually? His size will bump his rating but he's never been in the top tier guys. It wouldn't be a stretch for someone to rate Dr Issac Yankem in the 70's for his size alone but he's way more menacing than having a star look. Rock looked like a star in USWA and I think Mick was referring to having "it" as a worker and entertainer.

marsupial311 · July 27, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TeflonBilly" data-cite="TeflonBilly" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>This discussion is kinda my point. Don't get me wrong, I like SQ conceptually. But it has a little too much impact in game, imo, for something so nebulous. It's essentially the reverse of the definition of porn. "I don't know what Star Quality is, but I know it when I don't see it." There's also the fact that it's one of a small number of stats that almost never changes. That makes sense, as it's really something that you either have or you don't. But that should mean that it's independent of other factors like gimmick, for instance. I think it would be fair to say that Kane probably has somewhere in the, what, 65-80 range, to give something of a margin for personal taste. Would anybody have given Issac Yankem or PseuDiesel that same rating? And didn't Mick Foley mention in his book that when he first saw Rocky Maivia, he didn't think that Maivia had "it"? For SQ to work the way it's sort of explained, The Future Rock should have stood out even as a young pebble. It seems to me that the stat really only works when looking at why two similar wrestlers' careers would peak at two different levels. Why did Lex Luger spend the better part of his career in the World Title picture when Chris Masters never really got past the MasterLock Challenge stage? In retrospect, it must be Star Quality. I love this game, and have played it pretty religiously since 2004, iirc. But SQ has always seemed kind of sketchy to me, and making it the focus of the National Battle is just... I don't know, it just doesn't click for me.</div></blockquote> I think the Luger/Masters comparison is off. They probably have similar star quality but the era they competed in valued star quality differently. Luger also had a big ally in Sting so backstage politics obviously played a role while Masters had most of his WWE success at a young age and then had some wellness problems when wellness problems were career killers for people not named Randy Orton. Both had an SQ probably in the high 80's and then the other factors lead to their success. The thing that a lot of people don't factor in that it appears the game and default database does is crossover appeal and success. Being successful in wrestling doesn't effect SQ but being successful anywhere else seems to. This would give someone like The Miz or Randy Savage more SQ than someone with a similar look who is only successful in wrestling. Lesnar/Rock/Hogan probably get bumped to 100 SQ based on their success in other avenues (though Hogan/Lesnar were probably there already in their primes, Lesnar probably is currently 100 SQ based on all his UFC success, Rock probably in the 90's during the Attitude Era and 100 once he did Scorpion King). SQ doesn't guarantee success though. A guy like Samoa Joe or Kevin Owens is probably a 60 in SQ but obviously have been far more successful than their SQ. Guys like Masters/Jindrak were probably higher SQ but other factors kept them from being successful.

Poputt · July 27, 2017

I guess you should look look at how the game is treating SQ and Charisma to see how those stats would make sense in reality. Even the apparent intentions aren't exactly what the game seems to be processing in a lot of cases. For example, Charisma affects how likely the audience is to accept wins and dominant performances/squashes by bumping up or penalizing the pop gains from going over. Star Quality just makes things better and seems to basically be an abstract metric of "drawing ability" or just how much the audience cares about them (which is pretty much the definition of charisma, but not necessarily the game's stat called Charisma). So a lot of historic underdog/midcard babyface workers really shouldn't have high charisma and low(ish) star quality like they do in a lot of mods, it should be reversed.

Take Liger for example: big star everywhere he went (even before he put on the mask) but he was always a babyface and was never put into that monster push scenario, it happened slowly and was carried by his ring ability. This might be because he lacked charisma, but he was still loaded with the "x factor" or whatever, and delivered on that feeling with great ring work that enhanced that feeling. He wasn't a guy people bought being able to kick everyone's ass, and no one really came to see that, they just wanted him to wrestle and win, so I would give him high SQ and low Charisma by the game's logic.

Then you look at someone like Cheeseburger from ROH. Something about that guy makes people like him, but he isn't really charismatic at all, he's meek as hell. Like Liger, people naturally like him, but no one is going to buy him being in full control of a match. Also, his ring work is typically sloppy and disjointed, which hurts his chances of breaking the glass ceiling and making it big, but I'd still say that based on the game's logic he would have higher Star Quality than almost all of the current ROH roster. So yeah, SQ is a weird stat <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/confused.png.d4a8e6b6eab0c67698b911fb041c0ed1.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />

Oh, and Jindrak has had a good amount of success in Mexico, and Billy Gunn got pretty over in New Japan last year, so even the examples we've been using for a decade aren't totally accurate.

TeflonBilly · July 27, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="SirMichaelJordan" data-cite="SirMichaelJordan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think its simple, people just have their own definition to what SQ is and inject their bias to real world examples despite what it does in the game. </div></blockquote> I agree with you about personal definitions being a problem. But, as I said, it's defined very vaguely for something with so much impact. As I understand it, which may not all be true so please correct me if I'm wrong, it has an effect on pop cap, a small impact on match rating, and the big magilla, it determines National Battle victory. And, conceptually, it has to be a little nebulous. I understand that. But AD&D would have big problems if ten different people could give ten different definitions for Armor Class. And that's the basis for my issue with it. It's not just a subjective opinion on who has a memorable look. It's a game mechanic, and a one that determines victory at the National level. When it was just a quirky little stat, more powerful than Intensity was but still just a stat, it was no big problem for me. Now... Like I said, I love this game. SQ screwing up National Battles isn't close to a deal breaker for me. But I won't lie, it pulls me out of the game sometimes.

marsupial311 · July 28, 2017

Billy Gunn's like upper midcard in NJPW which is probably lower than Attitude Era midcard so his overness cap probably doesn't change too much he's just in a different situation.

I think a lot of the issue is not be able to separate SQ from other stats. Liger is good in the ring, that doesn't give him SQ. Cheeseburger (I don't watch ROH so idk who that is but going by what you're saying) has entertainment skills, that doesn't give him SQ. SQ is, you show someone who doesn't follow wrestling a guy and this is how they would rank them out of 100 so it factors in "hey, I saw that dude in a movie" or "Is he in this band? He looks familiar" to a point along with the basics of "he just looks like someone I would want to watch on TV"

I do agree that it's too big of a factor for National Battles. The fact that National Battles don't take into account show quality is very off putting. Right now I'm behind 300 points another company in National Battles but I'm putting up show that are 10 points higher regularly and losing pop.

Mortis · July 28, 2017

I know it would be exceedingly difficult to integrate into the game, but I think the problem with SQ is that it's treated as a static has-or-hasn't stat. I think SQ has a lot to do with the fans and the products in the area. Between the 80s and the 90s there's an absolutely massive shift in what fans wanted to see.

Consider Steve Austin. In the 80s there's no way he'd have been considered a top guy and that's partly why he was forced to leave WCW and, after a sujourn in ECW and a gimmick change to tap into the 90s anti-authority, anti-hero zeitgeist, he becomes the biggest draw of the decade. Did he always have SQ 100 (I'm tew terms), or did that go up as the wrestling culture and wider culture changed?

I guess, boiled down, what I'm trying to say is that star quality, to me, is a lot more connected to gimmick than it is body type... and how the gimmick affects star quality is controlled by the wrestling culture of the area.

James Casey · July 28, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Mortis" data-cite="Mortis" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Consider Steve Austin. In the 80s there's no way he'd have been considered a top guy and that's partly why he was forced to leave WCW and, after a sujourn in ECW and a gimmick change to tap into the 90s anti-authority, anti-hero zeitgeist, he becomes the biggest draw of the decade. Did he always have SQ 100 (I'm tew terms), or did that go up as the wrestling culture and wider culture changed?</div></blockquote> Emphatically not. Austin is the prime example of someone who was very good at most things wrestling-related, without being the best at any one thing - He wasn't as naturally charismatic as Rock or Hogan, wasn't the technician that Hart or Steamboat were, lacked the looks of Shawn Michaels, couldn't brawl as well as Foley and certainly couldn't fly like Owen or Pillman. But he was still very charismatic, he was still a tremendous brawler, was still striking in his looks ('Stunning' in WCW)... 70s and 80s across the board, maybe higher for mic skills, but never had the star quality that Rock and Hogan did that let them transcend wrestling (and Rock is really the only one who made that move full-time). What Austin benefited from was being one of the cornerstones for the single greatest angle of all time - and make no mistake, no-one else in the business at that time could have done as good a job in the Austin role as Austin did; Austin was the rebellious redneck, and that was clear in how he came across on screen. It was a perfect storm, and made Austin the biggest star the business has ever seen, even without Star Quality is an intangible. Hollywood would love to be able to define it, but more or less they find two or three uber examples per generation (e.g. Tom Cruise, Will Smith, Arnie) and do the best they can with those who have less (e.g. Eddie Murphy, Sylvester Stallone, Tom Hanks). Doesn't mean that the 'lesser' performers don't do as good a job, of course! Another way to think of SQ is how well a meal is cooked - You can have an amazing meal cooked with lesser ingredients (e.g. Daniel Bryan, unexceptional SQ but very good charisma, tremendous ability and a white hot gimmick), and a disappointing meal cooked with incredible ingredients (e.g. Lex Luger high SQ, athleticism and looks but never became the focal draw WCW and WWF expected). Perhaps an alternative name for it could be Magnetism - How much people are drawn to a performer on an instinctive level. Think of the Monday Night Wars in 1996/97: Hogan, Nash, Hall, Goldberg and Sting vs. Michaels, Sid, Hart, Austin, Undertaker. WCW's top stars had that instant connection to their audience at that time... but it still needed them to be booked in an engaging way.

Mortis · July 28, 2017

I guess I'm conflating popularity and star quality a bit, but I still stand behind the underlying point that star quality is affected by the culture of the area/time.

SirMichaelJordan · July 28, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="James Casey" data-cite="James Casey" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Emphatically not. Austin is the prime example of someone who was very good at most things wrestling-related, without being the best at any one thing - He wasn't as naturally charismatic as Rock or Hogan, wasn't the technician that Hart or Steamboat were, lacked the looks of Shawn Michaels, couldn't brawl as well as Foley and certainly couldn't fly like Owen or Pillman. But he was still very charismatic, he was still a tremendous brawler, was still striking in his looks ('Stunning' in WCW)... 70s and 80s across the board, maybe higher for mic skills, but never had the star quality that Rock and Hogan did that let them transcend wrestling (and Rock is really the only one who made that move full-time). What Austin benefited from was being one of the cornerstones for the single greatest angle of all time - and make no mistake, no-one else in the business at that time could have done as good a job in the Austin role as Austin did; Austin was the rebellious redneck, and that was clear in how he came across on screen. It was a perfect storm, and made Austin the biggest star the business has ever seen, even without Star Quality is an intangible. Hollywood would love to be able to define it, but more or less they find two or three uber examples per generation (e.g. Tom Cruise, Will Smith, Arnie) and do the best they can with those who have less (e.g. Eddie Murphy, Sylvester Stallone, Tom Hanks). Doesn't mean that the 'lesser' performers don't do as good a job, of course! Another way to think of SQ is how well a meal is cooked - You can have an amazing meal cooked with lesser ingredients (e.g. Daniel Bryan, unexceptional SQ but very good charisma, tremendous ability and a white hot gimmick), and a disappointing meal cooked with incredible ingredients (e.g. Lex Luger high SQ, athleticism and looks but never became the focal draw WCW and WWF expected). Perhaps an alternative name for it could be Magnetism - How much people are drawn to a performer on an instinctive level. Think of the Monday Night Wars in 1996/97: Hogan, Nash, Hall, Goldberg and Sting vs. Michaels, Sid, Hart, Austin, Undertaker. WCW's top stars had that instant connection to their audience at that time... but it still needed them to be booked in an engaging way.</div></blockquote> Agree with this.

SirMichaelJordan · July 28, 2017

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="marsupial311" data-cite="marsupial311" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Billy Gunn's like upper midcard in NJPW which is probably lower than Attitude Era midcard so his overness cap probably doesn't change too much he's just in a different situation. I think a lot of the issue is not be able to separate SQ from other stats. Liger is good in the ring, that doesn't give him SQ. Cheeseburger (I don't watch ROH so idk who that is but going by what you're saying) has entertainment skills, that doesn't give him SQ. SQ is, you show someone who doesn't follow wrestling a guy and this is how they would rank them out of 100 so it factors in "hey, I saw that dude in a movie" or "Is he in this band? He looks familiar" to a point along with the basics of "he just looks like someone I would want to watch on TV" I do agree that it's too big of a factor for National Battles. The fact that National Battles don't take into account show quality is very off putting. Right now I'm behind 300 points another company in National Battles but I'm putting up show that are 10 points higher regularly and losing pop.</div></blockquote> WWE doesn't always put on the best shows but they somehow always come out on top. Only WCW rivaled them but they had better star power at the time. Do you think NJPW should be winning national battles over WWE?

Sign In

Star quality

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived