notatardis

I'd think that's a wee bit high for Cole and Elgin.

His psychology is superb. Second to none. There is simply no arguing that. There is no "psychology" stat in EWR, so we need to improvise. It definitely has parts of it in selling (which is why he has one of the best selling stats in the game) and it has a place in charisma (which he has on the higher end), but for Undertaker out of the wrestling style options (brawl/speed/technical) it makes its place felt most in the brawl side. Whether it is how his matches are linked together move to move, sell to sell, or even how the moves are actually performed, whether they be actual moves or strikes, he is second to none.

Now, I see some people are saying that his matches are plodding or boring. To me that seems like a subject of taste, not of actual skill or merit. Stephen King is without doubt held as one of the greatest horror novelists of all time, but if someone didn't like horror stories, would that mean they consider Stephen King a bad writer? No, it just isn't their thing.

Sure, Undertaker's way of wrestling/storytelling may not be everyone's thing, the same way death match wrestling or lucha libre isn't everyone's thing, but that doesn't mean he should have low brawl just because you don't like it. If someone doesn't like lucha they wouldn't suggest lowering Sin Cara's speed just on that premise. I feel it's the exact same situation for the Undertaker. His style to some may be niche (just as lucha or death match wrestling is), but he excels at it. If it were up to me he'd have a brawl in the high 80s in the least, but seeing as this isn't up to me and it is a place where we need to compromise, the lowest that I think is fair is 81.

I think you make a very valid point, one I've used in terms of discussing music, but at the same time, there's no absolute objective measure. Good and bad are purely subjective, as are the scales we use when deciding. There's no one unanimous scale. Some people think how well you play your instrument is the key talent factor. Other singing voice. Another song writing. The only reason we "know" that King is a good writer is that's what the masses and critics say. Masses also said black people were subhuman, so I'm not a fan of mob rule, but I digress. We could look at his story mapping, his usage of language, so many other things. Same with the wrestlers.

I look at the stat as how well he executes brawling type moves, and how many of them he has. He's got almost none these days, though the execution is fine. That warrants a low 70s in my book. You see it as something different. I don't think either method is inherently better than the rest, but yes, I'd argue the fact his moves are almost non existent these days (not that he had many to begin with, but he used to move much better in general, again, I digress) and that he's such a Larry Zbyszko, his over (people's knowledge of/reaction to him) and his charisma and selling (which I throw psychology under) help carry his matches, which are mostly laying around spot fests.

But it's fine we disagree, I think both viewpoints, as I said are equally valid. The issue comes with you saying, if I read it right, "The compromise should be the absolute lowest I feel is acceptable". The problem is, this isn't about just you. You have a wide array of people saying 81 is insane for him. Their input is just as valid as yours, and not weighted, that averages out to a 71. Your opinion is not any more special than nay other poster's. Now, if you;'re saying, "okay, I give a little, I can reasonably state that 81 is okay enough, now you guys come up to the highest you think he can be, and we'll go from there", that's fine and I apologize, but it hasn't read that way. As the music forum's tagline goes "Some people like Paul McCartney, but there are over 100 musical acts preferred by EWB." This is the subset of people we have voicing opinions, just like on a board of teenage girls, Stephen King would get a low rating from them. It is what it is, what we have to work with. It's a pretty democratic process thanks to Bill, and sometimes things don't break the way we would like them to, it happens.

I hope that made sense and didn't come off too douchey, I was just trying to strongly explain my point and why I'm a bit exasperated.

And that would be where us lower stat guys are coming from.

Change mine to a 100 so the average comes out closer to correct, because it's obvious the guys saying 61 are trying to bring down the average.

That's the problem with doing those. Some people are going to abuse the mean and state something 10 or 20 points lower than what they actually feel it should be so the average will come out closer to what they want.

The fact is, Undertaker is still a great brawler. By EWR terms, he should still at least be an 81.

Then everyone is clearly just going to vote load, and in the end, what will happen will work out in favour of the people who think he deserves lower, simply because 86 is closer to 100 than 0 and there's enough on the other side. If everyone here is that petulant, I'll gladly go back to just reading the Doctor Who/TV threads since I barely have time to play the game as is.

I think Taker's matches now are boring as shit, and belongs nowhere near an 81. Others disagree, that's fine. There's room for honest discussion.

BTW, I'm not singling you out, I've just noticed in the past some members here can be rather immature and act like a bunch of teenagers, and things can snowball for the worse rather quickly.

We just had the Taker argument within the last few months. It makes no sense to work out something, then start banging at it to be changed again.

It does when what the outcome was didn't represent the overall opinion. More people argued for a brawl in the 80s than one in the 70s or lower.

It was exactly even last I recall. It was pretty much split down the middle, and a couple of people were calling for his numbers in the 60s so Bill compromised.

The majority of people called for it in the mid 80s. One person called for it in the sixties. A better compromise would be 81 IMO.

Here's what was in the July thread:

I said low 70s.

You have 86.

Mister Potato Head said 61

Lineker agreed with MPH.

jupiterhill said 78-81

Owned by Quickquid said 61 was a decent compromise

Conker had him at 86

Mancuerda has him mid upper 80s

720 didn't state specifically, but indicated that 86 was way too high. I know he's not here anymore, but he had a very informed opinion, and I think including as many good eyes as possible is a good idea.

I'm not going through the posts again for selling, but it was mostly the same.

So you have a 70s, 61, 61, 61, 86, 86, 86, and 80 not including Red. That averages to about the low 70's, and doesn't include a 61 as a compromise. And that's 5 for lower and 4 for higher, drop Red it's even. I'm not sure if it's just the way you recall things or do it on purpose pulling a Fox News since it's popped up in other arguments, but the data's there, and you're flat wrong on this one. Feel free to double check my work.

We just had the Taker argument within the last few months. It makes no sense to work out something, then start banging at it to be changed again.

It does when what the outcome was didn't represent the overall opinion. More people argued for a brawl in the 80s than one in the 70s or lower.

It was exactly even last I recall. It was pretty much split down the middle, and a couple of people were calling for his numbers in the 60s so Bill compromised.

We just had the Taker argument within the last few months. It makes no sense to work out something, then start banging at it to be changed again.

Watching TNA tonight, I feel like Bully Ray is VERY overrated when it comes to brawl. From what he displayed in that match I wouldn't put him higher than a 73. Maybe in a more hardcore environment he can go, but I would lower his brawl to at least the early 80s. Raise his technical to 36. Lower his stiffness to 64. Lower his attitude to 74 and his behavior to 71.

I also feel like Jeff Hardy's speed is incredibly overrated. No more than 73.

-Raise Madison Rayne's stiffness to 37 and selling to 53.

Wait, what? Isn't this the exact same argument I made for other guys?

But the WWE has more, a lot more of an audience. That is the way the game works, from the game's own FAQ and mechanics. Yeah "experts" know of him and how good he is, but they make up a very small segment of the wrestling fan population. I run an American Football board, with people who watch wrestling. I think maybe 2 or 3 of them know of Richards. You know what they talk about more? The WWE. Because that's what wrestling fans at large know. We're a small special population, hardly indicative of the wrestling fan population at large.

I don't care about who buys a ticket to see who or whatever, overness doesn't measure that. It measures how well a wrestler is known, and if you polled all wrestling fans, they would know who Heath Slater was more often than Richards.

You can posit all the ifs and buts about if their situations were reversed, but they aren't. Pretty sure Claudio's been doing the same thing, as most other heels, and not all reactions are the same. Slater may be another WWE guy, but those guys, they're pretty well known. If you talk about overness being a worker in his role, which it is, to an extent, then Davey can be a 67 and still be a Main Eventer at the Cult Promotion level, which is exactly what he is.

And here is the Problem. You say "Overness" means how many People knows Heat Slater. I say Overness ist how People reacts to a Wrestler. And you say Overness does not mean a wrestler "sold tickets"? For me this is a big factor in the Overness Value.

How many "casual" fans know the WWE Guys that are used almost only for superstars and live events? Not as many as you might think! WWE has more audience no doubt. That does not mean that the casual fans know the worker from the Undercard

Yeah...Richards could Main Event a cult promotion with 67. But Slater wouldn't headline any show for ROH. Slater wouldn't headline any Show in Japan. He would be just a guy known from WWE.

And the game says fuck your definition of overness. As already explained the game determines overness by how well known the worker is. It is ludicrous to argue that a guy who has never been on national tv in any prominent role is as over or more over (which the game determines as who is more well-known) than someone who is on televisions world wide. Remember, Raw is broadcast on stations in many countries, not just America.

You don't get it. A lot of the WWE Guys in the Undercard you never see at RAW or SmackDown. Bateman, Curtis, JTG, Reks, Hawkins, Beretta, Riley, Camacho, Hunico, McIntyre, Jackson, Usos, Mahal, Gabriel, Ryan, McGillicutty, Tatsu and, besides the Legend-Angle, Heath Slater....all these guys are mostly used only for Superstars and NXT. NXT and Superstars runs on the Internet not on national tv. In many Countries you can't see these shows at all. In many countries you can not even see the complete RAW and Smackdown Shows. And if these guys are sometimes used on Smackdown or RAW then as jobbers. (And guess what ... you can see the ROH Weekly free on the ROH website worldwide! And hey...you can't see Superstars (legally) worldwide on the Internet) So you argue that these people are known worldwide even though they are NOT on worldwide television...although they're not even on national TV? Just because they are on wwe.com roster page?

And what says the Game really about overness?

Over: This is how much the crowd react to a worker. 0 means the person is totally unknown, 100 means a worker is known worldwide (such as The Rock). Generally wrestlers below 10 will be working for backyard federations, wrestlers around 60 will be working for Cult promotions, and workers over 80 will be working for Global promotions.

So if you want the game more realistic then lower also the overness of the WWE and TNA Under Carder

Good thing you edited what you originally said since your reading comprehension would be seen as suspect at best. You pointed out one small part of the whole thing, one that I originally posted. Read right after that. And then the sentence after that. It's clear it's basing it on a large crowd. Again the game works on one scale, that scale being set to the WWE. We know that some guys in the E would get less reactions than some guys in the indies if they are both in the indies, and that the reactions would be reversed if they were both in the E. We can't account for that, there's no ability to parse overness for what a wrestler would be at different companies. Therefore, following the game's mechanics, we work off of that one scale, which is set to the E. It's unfortunate all we have is a linear scale, but that's what it is. You want to argue some of the lower carders are perhaps well known, that's fine. I can see it. But in the case of specifically Heath Slater and Ryback, who I started my comparison with, it's not so.

Does it though? Using EWB as a guide, I see a lot more talk about Shimmer than about PWG. Just because it limits itself to a certain style doesn't mean it's less popular.

It depends, where do you see more talk about it? Overall in the wrestling world I'd give a slight edge to PWG as far as brand awareness goes, as well as overall attendance figures.

Where do you hear the buzz on PWG anymore? In 2005, there was a lot and through I would say 2008/9 there were still talked about but now, it is mainly when they have angles. The last time I really hear of PWG on wrestling news sites is through the Kurt RussleMania shows which are bigger due to the reunion it is a part of. I think SHIMMER is actually a larger promotion in name value than PWG is at this point. A majority of the main PWG talent have left for WWE, TNA or even retired in the case of Human Tornado, Scott Lost and Chris Bosh

The fact is, SHIMMER itself currently draws 200 people at their home location but I think they can draw more than 400 people if they moved to a larger venue, they are a very known as people from all over the world travel to see the shows and could very well run more than 200 people. The brand is one of the better and known in wrestling. I would put it as the highest women's promotion and possibly 5th/6th overall.

That last part is completely speculation. As for PWG, I hear about them a lot on various wrestling forums. Are they having the same buzz as a few years back? No, but I'd still say a bit more than Shimmer is, not to mention, regardless of building size or anything like that, they are in fact drawing more fans. Would Shimmer draw more if they moved to a bigger building? Maybe. But maybe they'd draw the exact same amount, too.

As for Davey Richards, he is at the level that he is as well known as you can get for someone who is strictly indies. I would put him at 70.

Following this, I have these suggestions:

Raise Eddie Edwards overness to 68

Lower Homicide's overness to 70

Lower Jay Briscoe's overness to 69

Lower Jay Lethal's overness to 70

Lower Kevin Steen's overness to 70

Lower Mark Briscoe's overness to 69

Lower Roderick Strong's overness to 67

Agree with all except Homicide's. He has a lot of fame from his work in TNA, I would put him at 73.

Works for me, I was on the fence about him.

With Shimmer and PWG, I think maybe they are pretty much at the exact same level, just different appeal if that make sense. Different but equal.

Add Mike Sydal to ROH with his current info listed in the first slot, open contract.

Look no further than the current discussion over Davey Richards' overness... The guy is at 74 over currently and I've seen damn near a page of posts debating what would, at most, result in a 4 point drop to 70... IMO, it's a bit ridiculous, especially when we just did an overness tree that everyone had the chance to weigh in on last month.

-Bill

To be fair, it's more about the future mechanics of the game than the overness itself. That'll go a long way for stability in the future. Also, I didn't have enough time last month to really work with the overness bit, but as I said in whatever post, I thought everyone was getting a -5 off their overness. With that not the case, I can toss out some numbers now, and just did.

As for Davey Richards, he is at the level that he is as well known as you can get for someone who is strictly indies. I would put him at 70.

Following this, I have these suggestions:

Raise Eddie Edwards overness to 68

Lower Homicide's overness to 70

Lower Jay Briscoe's overness to 69

Lower Jay Lethal's overness to 70

Lower Kevin Steen's overness to 70

Lower Mark Briscoe's overness to 69

Lower Roderick Strong's overness to 67

Upon thinking it over, NWA-F1 hasn't run in 4+ months. WXW C4 runs 2-3 times a month. I think they would be a great replacement, given that they are about the same size as F1. I will be providing stats for all of the workers as well as the company so it is ready for next month's release, if Bill is interested in swapping it out for NWA F1.

Doesn't matter to me... Currently, I have Resistance Pro's roster ready to go in as well, just need suggestions on the promotion info (Size, Image, Risk, etc).

One thing I will say is that I want to get all of the promotions in the game adjusted into an agreeable order before I add or remove any promotions... That's one reason I'm trying to get feedback on how I slotted the Cult promotions... So far, you're the only one to respond with an opinion.

Normally, I'm up later into the evening, but probably won't be up much longer tonight, so hopefully more opinions on the matter will come in overnight.

Based on the opinions I get, I'll adjust the Cult list and see if we can come to an agreement there, so we can move onto the Regional promotions.

-Bill

For what it's worth, I haven't chimed in because I agree. It's pretty much spot on with what I was espousing last month.

I would put PWS and 2CW at an equal level. Also, I wouldn't put Shimmer at higher than PWG. I would say Shimmer should be in the 12-15 range.

If ROH is going to be at 76, NO WAY should Chikara be so close at 48. I would suggest Chikara be 38, DG-EVO should be 36, and ROH at 86.

As for Davey Richards, he is at the level that he is as well known as you can get for someone who is strictly indies. I would put him at 70.

-Raise Lance Anoai's overness to 34.

-Raise KC Blade's brawl to 49, overness to 34, and charisma to 76.

-Raise EC Negro's brawl to 47 and overness to 34.

-Add Mikey Valentino to the game:

Mikey Valentino

Valentino

January, 22

Lightweight

Image

B 44

S 54

T 49

Stiff 41

Sell 60

Over 22

Charisma 53

Att 90

Behav 90

Check Shooting Ability.

Face, Armed Forces

3,000

Speaks

American

Front Flip Piledriver (impact)

Front Flip Piledriver (impact)

Loyalty to Supreme Lee Great and Samu.

Alter Egos: Mike Vess, Private Mike Vess, Private Valentino, Private Mikey Valentino, Private Mikey.

Upon thinking it over, NWA-F1 hasn't run in 4+ months. WXW C4 runs 2-3 times a month. I think they would be a great replacement, given that they are about the same size as F1. I will be providing stats for all of the workers as well as the company so it is ready for next month's release, if Bill is interested in swapping it out for NWA F1.

Davey I agree with, but ROH, I dunno. A few months ago I'd agree, but people are leaving in droves, and they keep getting hit with pretty bad PR. As I said, I think they have peaked and are starting to slide.

But the WWE has more, a lot more of an audience. That is the way the game works, from the game's own FAQ and mechanics. Yeah "experts" know of him and how good he is, but they make up a very small segment of the wrestling fan population. I run an American Football board, with people who watch wrestling. I think maybe 2 or 3 of them know of Richards. You know what they talk about more? The WWE. Because that's what wrestling fans at large know. We're a small special population, hardly indicative of the wrestling fan population at large.

I don't care about who buys a ticket to see who or whatever, overness doesn't measure that. It measures how well a wrestler is known, and if you polled all wrestling fans, they would know who Heath Slater was more often than Richards.

You can posit all the ifs and buts about if their situations were reversed, but they aren't. Pretty sure Claudio's been doing the same thing, as most other heels, and not all reactions are the same. Slater may be another WWE guy, but those guys, they're pretty well known. If you talk about overness being a worker in his role, which it is, to an extent, then Davey can be a 67 and still be a Main Eventer at the Cult Promotion level, which is exactly what he is.

And here is the Problem. You say "Overness" means how many People knows Heat Slater. I say Overness ist how People reacts to a Wrestler. And you say Overness does not mean a wrestler "sold tickets"? For me this is a big factor in the Overness Value.

How many "casual" fans know the WWE Guys that are used almost only for superstars and live events? Not as many as you might think! WWE has more audience no doubt. That does not mean that the casual fans know the worker from the Undercard

Yeah...Richards could Main Event a cult promotion with 67. But Slater wouldn't headline any show for ROH. Slater wouldn't headline any Show in Japan. He would be just a guy known from WWE.

I don't say that, the GAME says that. It's in the FAQ. I'm not trying to redefine what the game says. By the game's definition, it's how well a wrestler is known by the wrestling fans, and how wrestling fans as a whole would react to said wrestler. It's not completely real life accurate, as you note about a WWE midcarder moving to the indies (though, we had a discussion on that last month), but a lot of things don't so we have to work within the confines of the game. The game doesn't account for that difference, it keeps it all on one scale, and for better or for worse, that scale is set to the WWE.

But the WWE has more, a lot more of an audience. That is the way the game works, from the game's own FAQ and mechanics. Yeah "experts" know of him and how good he is, but they make up a very small segment of the wrestling fan population. I run an American Football board, with people who watch wrestling. I think maybe 2 or 3 of them know of Richards. You know what they talk about more? The WWE. Because that's what wrestling fans at large know. We're a small special population, hardly indicative of the wrestling fan population at large.

I don't care about who buys a ticket to see who or whatever, overness doesn't measure that. It measures how well a wrestler is known, and if you polled all wrestling fans, they would know who Heath Slater was more often than Richards.

You can posit all the ifs and buts about if their situations were reversed, but they aren't. Pretty sure Claudio's been doing the same thing, as most other heels, and not all reactions are the same. Slater may be another WWE guy, but those guys, they're pretty well known. If you talk about overness being a worker in his role, which it is, to an extent, then Davey can be a 67 and still be a Main Eventer at the Cult Promotion level, which is exactly what he is.

Although some people, like Davey Richards might need a slight overness lowering. I think he was bumped to 74 because of the move to national anyway. There's no way he's more known, than say, Heath Slater or Ryback. The top ROH guys should be mid to high 60's maybe early 70's (like 70-71) at most considering the guidelines we set last month, but considering 67 gets them to main event status at Cult, which is accurate, they should all be around there.

Again.."Well known" is not the same as "Overness".

Again

Over: This is how much the crowd react to a worker. 0 means the person is totally unknown, 100 means a worker is known worldwide (such as The Rock). Generally wrestlers below 10 will be working for backyard federations, wrestlers around 60 will be working for Cult promotions

it kinda is. We discussed this last month. 200 in a bingo hall is the same as 200 in a large arena. It's still not a lot.

ROH's tough, they are really starting to lose a lot of momentum and push. I truly think they have peaked earlier.

I'd definitely place 2CW ahead.

I'm torn on the amount of events factor. I can see points on both sides.

TNA's ratings aren't THAT bad, they're still around the 1. whatever mark. I don't think Spike is more known than USA.

I was checking the internet and found tv by the numbers which came up with the .4-.5 rating numbers which was for the 18-49 viewership. In comparing the week of Julty 17 (the last two hour RAW) TNA had .5 with 1.316 million total viewers (source) while WWE had a 1.7 and 1.8 rating for the same viewership with 4.72 and 5.038 million viewers during the 9 and 10 o'clock hours (source.) When you average the total WWE RAW which comes out to about 4.88, which is actually nearly four times large audience. So yeah, TNA should be national. It is no where near WWE's level.

I understand what you're saying now. I agree with TNA being solid National as I did before, I just wasn't catching the specific ratings argument.

Yeah, we're just going to accept the overness boost as part of the game and not worry about it. If we drop overnesses for TNA, why wouldn't we do it for all of the other promotions? Just doesn't make sense. Especially since with a Cult promotion like ROH, do you drop them 10 points off of where they "should" be, because of the possibility to rise in size twice? Just seems silly.

I will say that, with us not worrying about the overness boost, TNA and ROH should probably be a bit higher in image than they are currently. While I don't agree with the 10-15 points that Kris suggested earlier, I do think a 5-7 point boost should be discussed, especially since the reason we didn't want them higher was due to getting to the overness boost "too quickly."

We can discuss it further, but I think TNA would be good around 79 National, while ROH would be good at 83 Cult. Just my opinion on the actual numbers.

-Bill

Would that prevent them from gaining the boost too quicky? I think the general issue was several months into the game, TNA moved up to Global, and then a few months after that was constantly battling the WWE, which isn't realistic at all. I think as long as that timeline is elongated, it will suffice. Otherwise we're just going to be back at square one. I guess I mean to say, at some number, whatever that is, if they're on the precipice of moving up a level, then it's silly to put them there and not just bump the size. TNA doesn't strike me as an almost global company.

I was pushing for Shimmer to be a Cult level when I first joined, so it has got my vote.

I thought we were bumping PWS down to regional though?

Although some people, like Davey Richards might need a slight overness lowering. I think he was bumped to 74 because of the move to national anyway. There's no way he's more known, than say, Heath Slater or Ryback. The top ROH guys should be mid to high 60's maybe early 70's (like 70-71) at most considering the guidelines we set last month, but considering 67 gets them to main event status at Cult, which is accurate, they should all be around there.

I think 1 is the best option. Making TNA and ROH global and national when they are at best only arguably so, with a roster that would be ill suited for such a rank makes little sense. It makes more sense to have the two lower image wise than higher than they should be image wise game mechanics wise. Sure, maybe TNA and ROH are more popular than their image suggests (though TNA's recent house show numbers don't offer any proof there) but this way is a better work around for long term growth and accuracy when factoring it all in. If the wrestlers on each roster fit better in the higher size option, I'd suggest the other way, but both rosters are pretty suited to National, and Cult, respectively.