Jump to content

Recommended Posts

<p>Some of you guys are ignoring what effect it has in the game. Like I said earlier, the intention or expectation of what the stat means is not always accurately reflected. If you guys want it to have a certain effect, fine, but it might not actually be doing what you think it is when you boot the game up.</p><p> </p><p> </p><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>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"</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Did you just ignore the post? I used both guys as a an example of people who <em>don't </em>have entertainment skills, but still have an inexplicable magnetism. And it seems like you're basing SQ solely on a picture, which can't be how it's supposed to work. I think Derek said in a mod making guide that SQ can be determined by looking at a line up of people and saying who stands out as being a star, but again I don't think that makes sense. Hollywood needs more than a headshot to cast someone in a leading role, and Freddie Mercury was just a weird-looking man with bad teeth until he came out on stage to start his performance.</p><p> </p><p> </p><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>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.<p> </p><p> 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?</p><p> </p><p> 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.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I suppose the "product trends" are partially designed to show that kind of audience shift, but it would be interesting to see it really impact something like SQ or pop caps/etc. If you look to the C-Verse, Nicky Champion is a bland, boring in-ring worker (but still a megastar) in the top promotion in the world, while Tommy Cornell was one of the most exciting in-ring workers in the world, who also got to superstardom in the same country. It seems strange that two very different ideas of "top guys" in two very different products can stay at the top for so long without one of them being hurt by a shift in audience expectations. That being said, people were still paying to see Ric Flair matches in 2004 so maybe don't go fixing what isn't broke <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> But yeah, seeing more shifts in Star Quality other than body type changes (or hell, keeping it hidden) might make it a bit more realistic. Or maybe less?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

<p>My opinion on a few posts above.</p><p> </p><p>

Stone cold I don't believe ever had 100 sq. just because he was the biggest name in wrestling for a certain period doesn't make it all down to sq. for an entertainer he had good in ring skills, great psychology, and good entertainment skills. In wcw he wasn't at his peak and was held down by other stars. The potential was tapped into by WWF which allowed him to progress his other skills (in and out of ring) the gimmick invented at WWF along with his progression in other stats allowed him to tap into his potential. He did have high star quality in wcw but it was held back by him not being at his peak, his gimmick, and his push</p><p> </p><p>

Kane another example, when he played the dentist or fake diesel, they were poor characters, he has been a top tier guy, he was champion at one point and always in the main event at a certain point. As he wouldn't have the best entertainment skills or in ring skills, star quality would help him, due to his size, star quality is the only way to get this over (as menace doesn't help in games)</p><p> </p><p>

Lex Luger to look at was an amazing star, I would say he had great star quality, what let him down was his other skills, in ring, psychology and entertainment skills.</p><p> </p><p>

As for the early rocky miavia, Mick foley may not have seen his star quality, but again was he given the right character? Vince saw this early and tried to push him, but it wasn't accepted, again he was only young and his other skills and gimmick held him back. Mick foleys opinion doesn't mean he didn't have it, it's all about opinions and if you look at comments from wrestlers now after seeing people in their prime they still doet agree with each other.</p><p> </p><p>

We also need to remember we have the opportunity to look back and the stats we see each worker has would be hidden. For example the rock in 95 could be 90+ star quality, however we only see this mixed in with other things, pop, gimmick, in ring skills. If he doesn't get the chance to show his star quality then it doesn't mean he didn't have have it.</p><p> </p><p>

I think the problem we have is you look at what star quality in the game is supposed to be, and you look at Kane, big show, Yokozuna etc and you think well they didn't have a lot of it.</p><p> </p><p>

But you look at how the game works and they clearly have high menace, however this doesn't make a difference in the ring and pop wise it only makes a difference if you have angles related on menace.</p><p> </p><p>

But when you look at what star quality does in the game it makes sense to give these 3 workers a higher rating because that is the only thing that would help get them over and nothing else fits the 'believability' that the big workers have.</p><p> </p><p>

Size and looks has a big effect on star quality in the game. I had one worker who went from toned, to muscular and then ripped and ended up at 100 sq. so it's also about balancing this. If workers increased in size throughout their career then you can give them a lower sq earlier on in their career.</p><p> </p><p>

Some of our favourite wrestler who we think had it all but didn't become the biggest names like hulk hogan and the rock, must have had less star quality than we think, especially when you look at flair, HBK, savage. They had great in ring skills, psychology and great entertainment skills, but if you look at their size and body type, they wernt big or ripped, and this would give them lower star quality and stop them possibly becoming hogan and rock status.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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>But when you look at what star quality does in the game it makes sense to give these 3 workers a higher rating because that is the only thing that would help get them over and nothing else fits the 'believability' that the big workers have.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Well Charisma iirc is what is determining whether or not the crowd is buying into their performance, not so much Star Quality. If you put a guy with high Menace and SQ in Domination squashes then the fans won't buy into it unless he has Charisma. That's what I was saying earlier with the babyface underdog thing.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Poputt" data-cite="Poputt" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Well Charisma iirc is what is determining whether or not the crowd is buying into their performance, not so much Star Quality. If you put a guy with high Menace and SQ in Domination squashes then the fans won't buy into it unless he has Charisma. That's what I was saying earlier with the babyface underdog thing.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't think it is. </p><p> </p><p> I think some put an actual dictionary quote on here of what charisma is. </p><p> </p><p> I wouldn't say any of the 3 mentioned (big show, Kane, Yokozuna) had great charisma. But they all had decent star quality. People bought into the rises of all 3 of these.</p><p> </p><p> I'd say somebody like Jericho who's charisma was higher than his star quality. People would find him entertaining to watch, than they would actually believe that he could go out there and beat every guy in wrestling. </p><p> </p><p> This is why I believe Vince always went for big guys when he could. The star quality is made by their sheer size and the believability that they would be too hard to beat. Even though some people found them less entertaining as an individual, the hype around their matches means more people watched.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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 don't think it is. <p> </p><p> I think some put an actual dictionary quote on here of what charisma is. </p><p> </p><p> I wouldn't say any of the 3 mentioned (big show, Kane, Yokozuna) had great charisma. But they all had decent star quality. People bought into the rises of all 3 of these.</p><p> </p><p> I'd say somebody like Jericho who's charisma was higher than his star quality. People would find him entertaining to watch, than they would actually believe that he could go out there and beat every guy in wrestling. </p><p> </p><p> This is why I believe Vince always went for big guys when he could. The star quality is made by their sheer size and the believability that they would be too hard to beat. Even though some people found them less entertaining as an individual, the hype around their matches means more people watched.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I.E Brock Lesnar in UFC, dude was a big draw with a poor MMA record and first UFC showing...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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 don't think it is. <p> </p><p> I think some put an actual dictionary quote on here of what charisma is. </p><p> </p><p> I wouldn't say any of the 3 mentioned (big show, Kane, Yokozuna) had great charisma. But they all had decent star quality. People bought into the rises of all 3 of these.</p><p> </p><p> I'd say somebody like Jericho who's charisma was higher than his star quality. People would find him entertaining to watch, than they would actually believe that he could go out there and beat every guy in wrestling. </p><p> </p><p> This is why I believe Vince always went for big guys when he could. The star quality is made by their sheer size and the believability that they would be too hard to beat. Even though some people found them less entertaining as an individual, the hype around their matches means more people watched.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> How do you not understand what I'm arguing? I'm saying that what you think the stats should do in the game isn't necessarily what they're doing. I know what charisma is. Do you know what the game stat "Charisma" does? Clearly not.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you not understand what I'm arguing? I'm saying that what you think the stats should do in the game isn't necessarily what they're doing. I know what charisma is. Do you know what the game stat "Charisma" does? Clearly not.

 

But that's part of the issue. I like this discussion, I enjoy the subjectiveness of trying to rate wrestlers, as well as picking apart game mechanics. But charisma has a meaning, and if you have to differentiate what a word means versus what it means when you say it, then that's an issue of game mechanics. Now Charisma, while it has pretty wide-ranging effects, isn't really a game changing skill. If its effects aren't completely intuitive, that's not really a big deal. But Star Quality seems to mean something different to everybody, and for a stat that changes the game from a booking simulator into a buying simulator at the National level, it can't really be a vague, quirky stat anymore.

 

To bring D&D back into the mix, pretty much everybody has an idea what's meant by "hit points". If I make a game and decide that "hit points" are a resource your character spends to try to successfully hit your opponent in combat, that's my prerogative as a game designer. But I better dang sure make that clear to the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Poputt" data-cite="Poputt" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>How do you not understand what I'm arguing? I'm saying that what you think the stats should do in the game isn't necessarily what they're doing. I know what charisma is. Do you know what the game stat "Charisma" does? Clearly not.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Charisma does what it should, you get a bonus in matches and you get a big bonus in angles. That's what would realistically happen in real life.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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 part of the issue. I like this discussion, I enjoy the subjectiveness of trying to rate wrestlers, as well as picking apart game mechanics. But charisma has a meaning, and <strong>if you have to differentiate what a word means versus what it means when you say it, then that's an issue of game mechanics.</strong></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I agree. And as a fellow D&D DM you know how annoying it is to explain the difference between what a stat <em>should</em> mean or do, and what's <em>actually</em> going on.</p><p> </p><p> </p><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>Charisma does what it should, you get a bonus in matches and you get a big bonus in angles. That's what would realistically happen in real life.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> And...? There's something else you're missing that I've posted twice already.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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 part of the issue. I like this discussion, I enjoy the subjectiveness of trying to rate wrestlers, as well as picking apart game mechanics. But charisma has a meaning, and if you have to differentiate what a word means versus what it means when you say it, then that's an issue of game mechanics. Now Charisma, while it has pretty wide-ranging effects, isn't really a game changing skill. If its effects aren't completely intuitive, that's not really a big deal. But Star Quality seems to mean something different to everybody, and for a stat that changes the game from a booking simulator into a buying simulator at the National level, it can't really be a vague, quirky stat anymore. <p> </p><p> To bring D&D back into the mix, pretty much everybody has an idea what's meant by "hit points". If I make a game and decide that "hit points" are a resource your character spends to try to successfully hit your opponent in combat, that's my prerogative as a game designer. But I better dang sure make that clear to the players.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't think there's an issue regarding what star quality means in game. There is actually an explanation of it. I think the issue is how people rate real life wrestlers based on it. </p><p> </p><p> Personally I think people forget you can only judge someone based on what you see, not what skills they've got.</p><p> </p><p> If you only ever see usain bolt in a long distance race, you probably wouldn't think he has the short distance speed he has</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Poputt" data-cite="Poputt" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I agree. And as a fellow D&D DM you know how annoying it is to explain the difference between what a stat <em>should</em> mean or do, and what's <em>actually</em> going on.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> So what do you think is going on in game with charisma?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wait. Do people who think Billy Gunn is an upper midcarder in New Japan actually watch New Japan? The guy is like an enhancement talent.</p><p> </p><p>

The dude wrestled in six mans for like three months and then had a terrible match with Tanahashi at the Long Beach show that wasn't even part of the main tournament.</p><p> </p><p>

What are you talking about?</p><p> </p><p>

Nobody in New Japan cares about Billy Gun. He's not even in the G1. Toru Yano made the G1 and Billy Gunn didn't! </p><p> </p><p>

He's been in the third match on almost every card he's wrestled on. </p><p> </p><p>

The upper midcard of New Japan is Tanahashi , Big Mike, Ishii, Suzuki, Goto and then maybe Cody, Sanada and Evil. With Naito , Omega , Ibushi and Okada being the main event.</p><p> </p><p>

Everyone else is midcard or lower.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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>So what do you think is going on in game with charisma?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I said earlier that Charisma heavily determines how effective dominating performances are in matches, not Star Quality, and you said the exact opposite was true.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Poputt" data-cite="Poputt" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I said earlier that Charisma heavily determines how effective dominating performances are in matches, not Star Quality, and you said the exact opposite was true.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> San far as I'm aware both star quality and charisma help boost any pop related matches and angles.</p><p> </p><p> As for dominating performances I know a particular gimmick type helps gain pop quicker.</p><p> </p><p> I was of the understanding charisma helped gain pop by actually making match ratings and angles higher rated.</p><p> </p><p> If charisma makes dominating performances gain pop quicker I have missed something.</p><p> </p><p> However what I did say was that star quality helps workers get over, not that it makes dominating performances gain pop quicker, I said the bigger workers had more star quality because of the believability they will win matches, such as the guys I mentioned earlier, basically their size is what got the to main event status and the WWF title which would come under star quality as the rest of their skills (apart from power) were lower than a lot of other workers who never got there</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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>If charisma makes dominating performances gain pop quicker I have missed something.<p> </p><p> However what I did say was that star quality helps workers get over, not that it makes dominating performances gain pop quicker, I said the bigger workers had more star quality because of the believability they will win matches, such as the guys I mentioned earlier, basically their size is what got the to main event status and the WWF title which would come under star quality as the rest of their skills (apart from power) were lower than a lot of other workers who never got there</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It used to be Menace, now it's Charisma. And I don't agree with the idea that Star Quality is tied to people thinking someone is going to win/do whatever, it's making them want to see that. If you want to see someone do stuff then that person has some Star Quality, in my understanding.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Poputt" data-cite="Poputt" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>It used to be Menace, now it's Charisma. And I don't agree with the idea that Star Quality is tied to people thinking someone is going to win/do whatever, it's making them want to see that. If you want to see someone do stuff then that person has some Star Quality, in my understanding.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> What's i mean is, from the point of view of someone watching, you look at the big show, Kane, Yokozuna, Andre the giant etc they all have a lot of star quality just form their sheer size. </p><p> </p><p> Vince always went for big guys when he could, because people bought into the face the big guy looked like he could genuinely beat people, in the art of kayfaybe if you have crash holly, Rey mysterio, beating these people, the fans don't buy it. </p><p> </p><p> The big guys look like they can do more damage and people buy into them winning. This is what I mean by them having star quality. </p><p> </p><p> Now a lot of 'wrestling' fans may not buy into this as they are more interested in a good worker, but entertainment fans do. why else would people watch a Japanese sumo wrestler who doesn't talk and can barely move around the Ring? </p><p> </p><p> It's more than just that, that's why I wouldn't say these guys are 100 in sq. you look at hulk hogan and randy savage, hulk hogan didn't have many stats better than randy savage, but there was a massive difference in popularity, hulk exceeded wrestling popularity and that was due to his star quality, what set him apart? The look, his size, his gimmick then allowed him to tap into this star quality, he wasn't as good on the mic but people bought into him and wanted to see hulk hogan rather than randy savage. </p><p> </p><p> I would say personally randy savage was more charismatic, you go back and watch the stuff and macho man is someone I'm always watching in a match or in a angle, but people bought into hulk hogan, if he was smaller than savage I don't think he would have been anywhere near as big popularity wise.</p><p> </p><p> Edit:</p><p> On the whole though it's pretty much what you're saying. People do want to watch people with star quality, that's what generates the hype. </p><p> </p><p> People may enjoy watching chris Jericho on the show but they paid to see Goldberg. That's how I would explain charisma v star quality</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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 don't think there's an issue regarding what star quality means in game. There is actually an explanation of it. I think the issue is how people rate real life wrestlers based on it. <p> </p><p> Personally I think people forget you can only judge someone based on what you see, not what skills they've got.</p><p> </p><p> If you only ever see usain bolt in a long distance race, you probably wouldn't think he has the short distance speed he has</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> My issue isn't necessarily with the ratings people give wrestlers, like I said, SQ may be the most subjective of all the stats. My biggest issue is the degree of impact such a vague stat has on the game. Going by judging what you see, which is the heart of the stat, almost all the factors that make you stand out are already covered. Size, physique, looks, all of those already exist. The fact that improving your physique also gives a small kicker to SQ implies that there is some degree of synergy between all of these stats. If you eliminate the ones that already exist, all that SQ can logically represent is "it factor", for want of a better term. </p><p> </p><p> It's entirely possible that I just have a mental block as far as SQ is concerned. Maybe I don't quite "get it", and maybe I won't. But, in the years of enjoying this series, the change in National Battles using SQ instead of booking is the only part of the game that I view as a total misstep. Part of that is, obviously, that it's a mistake to make the booking irrelevant in a booking simulator. But part of it is because this stat is too vague to be that important, imo.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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>What's i mean is, from the point of view of someone watching(...)</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't know, I feel like you started this thread with the exact opposite intention of what you're doing: "<em>The more I think about what star quality does on the game, the more I change my opinion on their ratings.</em>" You should be trying to fit a real person into the game mechanics, not fit the mechanics onto a person. In the game these are just values, not esoteric concepts (even when they're based on them), so asking, "How does TEW's vague definition of star quality explain the apparent drawing power of Rock and Austin?" is much more ridiculous than asking, "How do I convert this real person into a pretty understandable RPG character version of them?" I thought you were thinking more along the lines of the second question, but now it seems like you're rationalizing how valid the game concepts are if you apply them to the real world, which is a dead end in my opinion. Like you said at the end of your first post, you just kind of have to figure out what the game is doing and then fit that guy/gal you have in mind into how that works. Some stuff is super-self explanatory (gee I wonder what the "Aerial" stat is), but other stuff like Star Quality isn't, and even interacts/conflicts with other common perceptions of stats, especially Menace, Sex Appeal, and Charisma.</p><p> </p><p> </p><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>It's entirely possible that I just have a mental block as far as SQ is concerned. Maybe I don't quite "get it", and maybe I won't. But, in the years of enjoying this series, the change in National Battles using SQ instead of booking is the only part of the game that I view as a total misstep. Part of that is, obviously, that it's a mistake to make the booking irrelevant in a booking simulator. But part of it is because this stat is too vague to be that important, imo.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I (and probably way more people thanks to the tweaked National Battle mechanic which suddenly made SQ a make-or-break stat) would probably prefer if SQ was removed, made less important, or turned into some hidden destiny roll value or some such thing, but for now it's in the game and it does have value, so it's worth discussing I think.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Poputt" data-cite="Poputt" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I don't know, I feel like you started this thread with the exact opposite intention of what you're doing: "<em>The more I think about what star quality does on the game, the more I change my opinion on their ratings.</em>" You should be trying to fit a real person into the game mechanics, not fit the mechanics onto a person. In the game these are just values, not esoteric concepts (even when they're based on them), so asking, "How does TEW's vague definition of star quality explain the apparent drawing power of Rock and Austin?" is much more ridiculous than asking, "How do I convert this real person into a pretty understandable RPG character version of them?" I thought you were thinking more along the lines of the second question, but now it seems like you're rationalizing how valid the game concepts are if you apply them to the real world, which is a dead end in my opinion. Like you said at the end of your first post, you just kind of have to figure out what the game is doing and then fit that guy/gal you have in mind into how that works. Some stuff is super-self explanatory (gee I wonder what the "Aerial" stat is), but other stuff like Star Quality isn't, and even interacts/conflicts with other common perceptions of stats, especially Menace, Sex Appeal, and Charisma.<p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I (and probably way more people thanks to the tweaked National Battle mechanic which suddenly made SQ a make-or-break stat) would probably prefer if SQ was removed, made less important, or turned into some hidden destiny roll value or some such thing, but for now it's in the game and it does have value, so it's worth discussing I think.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> None of those stats does the same thing as star quality, yes they all can help gain popularity but not at the same rate as star quality. Quite frankly, look, size, charisma doesn't make up star quality, it contributes to it. This is why I don't get the opinion that SQ doesn't work for japan. SQ is a undefined intangible which is why its always called "x factor" or "it factor". A person's mental make up can contribute to SQ like confidence or something as small as the way you stand. Billy Gunn had the size, look and body and was also a decent worker but couldn't make it pass midcard at the top level...He also didn't have the mental make up or mannerism (part of what makes up charisma). Road Dogg made up for what he lacked and vice versa, that is why they was over so quickly even before joining DX. Yes the game has stats that contribute to SQ but it also doesn't include all of the undefined tangibles that comes with it.</p><p> </p><p> As for national battles....If your favorite sports team had a few player that had the it factor or tons of potential, wouldn't you be more invested in that team than if they had a bunch of scrubs with a low ceiling? National battles are more realistic this time around and it replicates Monday Night Wars. You have to build stars are bring in washed up high popular wrestlers...TNA had more quality of wrestling but that never threatened WWE, they had to bring in guys like Hogan to even try to compete with ratings...They even changed their product for the worst to compete...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Poputt" data-cite="Poputt" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I don't know, I feel like you started this thread with the exact opposite intention of what you're doing: "<em>The more I think about what star quality does on the game, the more I change my opinion on their ratings.</em>" You should be trying to fit a real person into the game mechanics, not fit the mechanics onto a person. In the game these are just values, not esoteric concepts (even when they're based on them), so asking, "How does TEW's vague definition of star quality explain the apparent drawing power of Rock and Austin?" is much more ridiculous than asking, "How do I convert this real person into a pretty understandable RPG character version of them?" I thought you were thinking more along the lines of the second question, but now it seems like you're rationalizing how valid the game concepts are if you apply them to the real world, which is a dead end in my opinion. Like you said at the end of your first post, you just kind of have to figure out what the game is doing and then fit that guy/gal you have in mind into how that works. Some stuff is super-self explanatory (gee I wonder what the "Aerial" stat is), but other stuff like Star Quality isn't, and even interacts/conflicts with other common perceptions of stats, especially Menace, Sex Appeal, and Charisma.<p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I (and probably way more people thanks to the tweaked National Battle mechanic which suddenly made SQ a make-or-break stat) would probably prefer if SQ was removed, made less important, or turned into some hidden destiny roll value or some such thing, but for now it's in the game and it does have value, so it's worth discussing I think.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> My intention was to discuss it which we are doing.</p><p> </p><p> i can understand how it contributes to national battles, but so does other stats and popularity </p><p> </p><p> Originally I was talking about people who seemed to have it all but didn't end up as big as others for example</p><p> </p><p> Ric flair v hulk hogan</p><p> Flair had just about everything over hulk hogan.but was never anywhere near hogans popularity on the mainstream scale</p><p> </p><p> Stone cold v the rock</p><p> Stone cold was one of the biggest names wrestling ever had, but the rock came along and went to a whole new level. </p><p> </p><p> Shawn Michaels v Bret hart </p><p> Shawn had much better entertainment skills, but from a mainstream point of view Bret hart was bigger, I prefer Shawn but Bret was always a bigger name</p><p> </p><p> But then you have your fans, you have the so called 'smarks' and these people always see ric flair as the biggest deal because they don't think hulk hogan can work anywhere as good as him, but when you add in other fans, such as the so called 'marks' and then other people who maybwatch wrestling on and off, then hulk hogan was much bigger than ric flair</p><p> </p><p> Even macho man was arguably bigger than ric flair at some point. </p><p> </p><p> I don't know I think this thread has kind of derailed slightly. I suppose I was hoping more for people discuss more what they would rate people at sq and have a discusssion based on this.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think Star Quality should fluctuate on more than whether a guy bulks up his physique, as Stone Cold was in better physical shape as Stunning Steve, yet wasn't seen as valuable in WCW. It was only when he became Stone Cold that he really took off, so maybe a red-hot gimmick should play a part in Star Quality increasing.</p><p> </p><p>

Quality of shows should also play a part in the National Battle, to what degree is debatable, as it can get a bit frustrating sometimes when you're putting on shows a good 10-15 points better than your rival does, but you lose the National Battle because of Star Quality alone, when they're clearly not even utilising their stars properly.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="rtandtuk" data-cite="rtandtuk" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think Star Quality should fluctuate on more than whether a guy bulks up his physique, as Stone Cold was in better physical shape as Stunning Steve, yet wasn't seen as valuable in WCW. It was only when he became Stone Cold that he really took off, so maybe a red-hot gimmick should play a part in Star Quality increasing.<p> </p><p> Quality of shows should also play a part in the National Battle, to what degree is debatable, as it can get a bit frustrating sometimes when you're putting on shows a good 10-15 points better than your rival does, but you lose the National Battle because of Star Quality alone, when they're clearly not even utilising their stars properly.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Looking at the stone cold comment and looking at how it works.</p><p> </p><p> Stone colds size and body type would not have changed at all from being stunning Steve to stone cold </p><p> </p><p> Just because he wasn't a popular or as hot a stunning Steve doesn't mean he didn't have star quality. It means his star quality was never fully tapped into. </p><p> </p><p> The red hot gimmick does play part in star quality, but a gimmick doesn't give you 'more' star quality it allows you to utilise your star quality more.</p><p> </p><p> As does with all other stats, a poor gimmick will penalise any worker, it doesn't actually decrease any other stats.</p><p> </p><p> As for the national battles, I'm pretty sure popularity is one of the biggest things, but personally I do think star quality should also have an effect.</p><p> </p><p> An example, at any point hhh and the rock were similar popularity wise (from the IC title up to when they were challenging for the title. If you put them both in separate companies as the main guy around any time they had similar pop I would certainly be drawn to watching the rock. That's what the national battles are meant to do. </p><p> </p><p> I do agree with the show to a certain extent. But what you have to remember is some people are drawn into watching the stars rather than the show.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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>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.<p> </p><p> Do you think NJPW should be winning national battles over WWE?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> They wouldn't in America because they aren't National size in America. They would lose them in America not because of Star Quality but because of the pop difference. The top guys in NJPW are probably C overness at best.</p><p> </p><p> Probably would win National Battles in Japan during their peak in the 90's but right now, there's probably a big pop difference between WWE and NJPW.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Poputt" data-cite="Poputt" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="44007" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Did you just ignore the post? I used both guys as a an example of people who <em>don't </em>have entertainment skills, but still have an inexplicable magnetism. And it seems like you're basing SQ solely on a picture, which can't be how it's supposed to work. I think Derek said in a mod making guide that SQ can be determined by looking at a line up of people and saying who stands out as being a star, but again I don't think that makes sense. Hollywood needs more than a headshot to cast someone in a leading role, and Freddie Mercury was just a weird-looking man with bad teeth until he came out on stage to start his performance.</p><p> </p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You said you'd rank Liger as high SQ, low charisma. He has inexplicable magnetism because of his in ring skills which is NOT Star Quality. He puts on good matches and that raises his name value (popularity in game). </p><p> </p><p> Freddie Mercury has low Star Quality and excellent performance skills in a music sim using the same stats. Again, I think a lot of people make it more complicated than it is and think that success = star quality.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...