notatardis

when I get a chance I'll check on the boosts, but IIRC it's a flat 5 or 10 upgrade I think. Someone may already know.

It's nice we talk about what they WOULD be IF they were in another promotion, but we're dealing with what is, and that's where they are in the WWE. No matter what, they are in the E and have a set role, for most, if not all these guys. I still think a bulldozer of sorts is needed if you want accuracy. Drop TNA, drop ROH, drop the overness by the amount of points they gain when they jump a promotion size, and those midcard WWE numbers are accurate main event numbers for the indies.

As for the definition of overness we have: 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, well known, is at least a large part of overness, but there's also the matter of reaction, the likes of which those lower guys don't get much with WWE, but would if returned to the FA pool.

Couldn't agree more. There are too many guys who are only in WWE and only seen in WWE and would not be OVER in the independent scene or elsewhere. While WWE makes up the majority in terms of wrestling market share, they aren't the sole company. We know what over equates to what card level in those promotions as well. Someone who was a main eventer in RoH or that quality should be at least 66 over; a main eventer in TNA should be at least 81 over (if national). I still would like to really push for TNA to be 60% national and WWE to be about 80% global. I don't understand why people feel we HAVE TO put TNA as global. Because of the excessive overness boost issue. I laid out an alternative, but it doesn't seem to be looked at as a worthy idea. I saw some bit about Davey earlier, I think he should be lower than 75 over, but it seems there's a whole overness discussion going on anyway.

Well to play devil's advocate... if we bumped up TNA to Global to avoid the overness issue, why not pre-emptively lower everyone's overness by the amount they will gain, so when they do get there, they will be at a correct number? Same ends, different means?

gratzi, I'll poke at it soon, and anyone else who wants to chime in can too. The more the merrier.

To be fair, though, if anyone mentions something and anpther person disagrees with it, I keep note of any argument(s) made and try to find an average of everyone's opinions on the matter. For example, the Anbrose charisma thing... One said 87, another said 89... Guess what? He'll probably get 88, unless other opinions come in within the next couple days. I just found it shocking that currently, we'd be putting Ambrose's charisma over Rhodes, Ziggler and Orton... Regarding Orton, he might not be the best promo guy in the world, but my guess is, if you stuck him and Ambrose in the ring at the same time, Orton would be getting a good majority of the fan reaction. Looking at the definition of charisma: "A personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure." So, while crowd reaction is a big proponet of overness, it also ties into charisma... -Bill I don't disagree with your idea at all. Orton should be over Ambrose, at least currently. The game doesn't account for potential,and Ambrose could get above Orton, he also could not. Charisma is more than just talking, and Orton's RKO does have a special affinity with the crow on top of it, which is where the Cena thing ties in too, as was covered. So I think we're completely in tune in that regard.

Orton's a bland mush mouth who has spots where he's pretty good some times. Whatever with Sami. I find him boring, and his matches boring, but to everyone their own. I don't have a suggestion for his stats, was just continuing the convo. Do you have a link for some of that feud you mentioned? Considering it seems you run a little high, but being fair to consider that feud, I'd like to volunteer another set of eyes. You may say because of X thing, Y thing should happen, but based on other X things (Taker's brawl, Cena's selling, Quack, Backlund, etc) I don't think we should just roll with it when the past has shown the board at large may not agree. No one save maybe Bill should get that level of deference anyway.

There should be plenty. Think of it like a bell curve of sorts. Using our ladder, I look at Swann, do I say he's really good? Eh. Not really. Do I say he's good? Sure. I could buy it. Do I say he's decent? Definitely. He's on par with Elgin right now. I don't think that's really all that accurate. I also don't think Sami Callihan is that great. I can't recall being more than passively entertained by any of his matches.

I'd say Swann should be in the 50s, for whatever it's worth.

I don't disagree with that ladder at all, so there's that. I disagree though that Finaly would be a top in wrestling but rather rather high up of the really good, almost one of the best in wrestling. (Mind you, not enough to quibble with his actual number, we've just been using him as an example)/ Same with Quack though. One of the best going? Absolutely. All time? I don't see it.

That's one part of selling, and there's different aspects to it. Ones that Cena is rather poor in. Same with the other categories. So why not use the stats in an all encompassing form? If it covers everything, then the wrestler in question would have to be good at everything. I think it's disingenuous to say "X stat covers W, Y, and Z styles and Wrestler Q does really great at W style so he should have a high number" If that's the case, that X stat covers W, Y, and Z styles, then wrestler Q's rating should be based on W, Y, and Z styles, just not W style. Does that make sense? That's like saying a wrestler with a high brawl stat (let's for this example use Finlay) isn't skilled at deathmatch wrestling, so his brawl should be lowered. I don't buy that as valid. As for saying that getting the crowd into it involves physical charisma, you are 100% right. But that isn't all it is. It is just as much selling as well. Like Dusty Rhodes' and Hulk Hogan's selling, it was convincing enough to get the fans to care about them and have an emotional attachment. -Raise Dean Ambrose's overness to 66. 66 is the highest you can reach in-game and still be in developmental from the start, and I think that reflects accurately in real life the buzz that is around him. The problem is Cena's crowd selling sucks. He is NOT convincing when he is getting beatdown during matches. You are one of a few people who actually believe that he is good borderline great at selling when he is normally passable. I don't think Dean Ambrose should be THAT over. Buzz would not make someone over. I would lower him into the 40's due to the fact he is still in developmental and guys in NXT are in the 50's The 40s? That is ridiculous. He should be at 66 based on his indy prowess alone. The NXT guys may be in the 50s, but is there as much of a sensation online in regards to them as there is Ambrose? Do they have the same cult following? Were they main eventing large independent promotions before going to FCW? The answer to all is no. Ambrose was one of the hugest stars on the indy scene before he got signed, and now that he is in FCW he is the hottest property there. Most casual fans have little to no idea who he is, and he's not any more vaunted than Claudio, Hero, or Black, only Claudio of which is in the high 60s, and so far I don't think he's measured up to that. I don't know about the 40s, but based on comparable players, I'd say the mid to low 50s. If we're talking casual fans we would need to lower all of the indy wrestler's stats, and I don't think that is reasonable at all. If Ambrose were back on the indies he would be just as well-respected and known as Davey Richards, Roderick Strong, or any of the other top names. As for the balances to stats, I disagree, I feel they should be all-encompassing. Finlay can have a 5 star match with his style of brawling, it wouldn't be accurate to lower his stats and only have him be mediocre. While having things be all-encompassing isn't perfect, neither is the game, and it is the best solution we have. -Raise Chris Wylde's brawl to 53, speed to 67, technical to 58, selling to 74, and overness to 25. -Raise Aden Chambers' brawl to 66 and technical to 52. -Raise John Zandig's technical to 39. And you'd get no disagreement from me in terms of lowering the indy wrestler's stats. I firmly disagree that Ambrose would be held that highly simply because he wasn't before hand and hasn't done anything to change that. So basically you think it's more realistic to have pretty much any two people put together, who may have completely contrasting styles, represented by the same stat, put on a terrific match when that's more likely than not to be inaccurate? I firmly disagree that's the best solution we have. Finaly more often than not won't have 5 star matches. His and others stats should be representative of that. The missing occasional 5 star match is better than the constant 3 star affairs turned into 5 star ones. So anyone with high brawl that hasn't done a death match before should have their stat lowered? Just because two guys work different styles doesn't mean they can't have a good match. Masada is a great brawler, AR Fox is a great speed-based wrestler, but they had a fantastic match at CZW the other night. It doesn't need to be strong style/strong style death match/death match WWE style/WWE style to be good. Mixing it up can be just fine. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying we should include all aspects of a stat because the stat accounts for all aspects. It's simply logical and fair. I'm not saying different stats in terms of a matchup, I think that's very accurate. I don't think, say, Brain Damage and Finlay would put on as good of a brawl based match in general as say Steen and Richards.

And for that matter, Kris, what do you consider Mediocre? I think in terms of game mechanics, wouldn't that be about 50 or so? The game doesn't act as a test, where 70 is the average to the best of my recollection. The 70s would be solidly above average, I think.

That's one part of selling, and there's different aspects to it. Ones that Cena is rather poor in. Same with the other categories. So why not use the stats in an all encompassing form? If it covers everything, then the wrestler in question would have to be good at everything. I think it's disingenuous to say "X stat covers W, Y, and Z styles and Wrestler Q does really great at W style so he should have a high number" If that's the case, that X stat covers W, Y, and Z styles, then wrestler Q's rating should be based on W, Y, and Z styles, just not W style. Does that make sense? That's like saying a wrestler with a high brawl stat (let's for this example use Finlay) isn't skilled at deathmatch wrestling, so his brawl should be lowered. I don't buy that as valid. As for saying that getting the crowd into it involves physical charisma, you are 100% right. But that isn't all it is. It is just as much selling as well. Like Dusty Rhodes' and Hulk Hogan's selling, it was convincing enough to get the fans to care about them and have an emotional attachment. -Raise Dean Ambrose's overness to 66. 66 is the highest you can reach in-game and still be in developmental from the start, and I think that reflects accurately in real life the buzz that is around him. The problem is Cena's crowd selling sucks. He is NOT convincing when he is getting beatdown during matches. You are one of a few people who actually believe that he is good borderline great at selling when he is normally passable. I don't think Dean Ambrose should be THAT over. Buzz would not make someone over. I would lower him into the 40's due to the fact he is still in developmental and guys in NXT are in the 50's The 40s? That is ridiculous. He should be at 66 based on his indy prowess alone. The NXT guys may be in the 50s, but is there as much of a sensation online in regards to them as there is Ambrose? Do they have the same cult following? Were they main eventing large independent promotions before going to FCW? The answer to all is no. Ambrose was one of the hugest stars on the indy scene before he got signed, and now that he is in FCW he is the hottest property there. Most casual fans have little to no idea who he is, and he's not any more vaunted than Claudio, Hero, or Black, only Claudio of which is in the high 60s, and so far I don't think he's measured up to that. I don't know about the 40s, but based on comparable players, I'd say the mid to low 50s. If we're talking casual fans we would need to lower all of the indy wrestler's stats, and I don't think that is reasonable at all. If Ambrose were back on the indies he would be just as well-respected and known as Davey Richards, Roderick Strong, or any of the other top names. As for the balances to stats, I disagree, I feel they should be all-encompassing. Finlay can have a 5 star match with his style of brawling, it wouldn't be accurate to lower his stats and only have him be mediocre. While having things be all-encompassing isn't perfect, neither is the game, and it is the best solution we have. -Raise Chris Wylde's brawl to 53, speed to 67, technical to 58, selling to 74, and overness to 25. -Raise Aden Chambers' brawl to 66 and technical to 52. -Raise John Zandig's technical to 39. And you'd get no disagreement from me in terms of lowering the indy wrestler's stats. I firmly disagree that Ambrose would be held that highly simply because he wasn't before hand and hasn't done anything to change that. So basically you think it's more realistic to have pretty much any two people put together, who may have completely contrasting styles, represented by the same stat, put on a terrific match when that's more likely than not to be inaccurate? I firmly disagree that's the best solution we have. Finaly more often than not won't have 5 star matches. His and others stats should be representative of that. The missing occasional 5 star match is better than the constant 3 star affairs turned into 5 star ones.

That's one part of selling, and there's different aspects to it. Ones that Cena is rather poor in. Same with the other categories. So why not use the stats in an all encompassing form? If it covers everything, then the wrestler in question would have to be good at everything. I think it's disingenuous to say "X stat covers W, Y, and Z styles and Wrestler Q does really great at W style so he should have a high number" If that's the case, that X stat covers W, Y, and Z styles, then wrestler Q's rating should be based on W, Y, and Z styles, just not W style. Does that make sense? That's like saying a wrestler with a high brawl stat (let's for this example use Finlay) isn't skilled at deathmatch wrestling, so his brawl should be lowered. I don't buy that as valid. As for saying that getting the crowd into it involves physical charisma, you are 100% right. But that isn't all it is. It is just as much selling as well. Like Dusty Rhodes' and Hulk Hogan's selling, it was convincing enough to get the fans to care about them and have an emotional attachment. -Raise Dean Ambrose's overness to 66. 66 is the highest you can reach in-game and still be in developmental from the start, and I think that reflects accurately in real life the buzz that is around him. The problem is Cena's crowd selling sucks. He is NOT convincing when he is getting beatdown during matches. You are one of a few people who actually believe that he is good borderline great at selling when he is normally passable. I don't think Dean Ambrose should be THAT over. Buzz would not make someone over. I would lower him into the 40's due to the fact he is still in developmental and guys in NXT are in the 50's The 40s? That is ridiculous. He should be at 66 based on his indy prowess alone. The NXT guys may be in the 50s, but is there as much of a sensation online in regards to them as there is Ambrose? Do they have the same cult following? Were they main eventing large independent promotions before going to FCW? The answer to all is no. Ambrose was one of the hugest stars on the indy scene before he got signed, and now that he is in FCW he is the hottest property there. Most casual fans have little to no idea who he is, and he's not any more vaunted than Claudio, Hero, or Black, only Claudio of which is in the high 60s, and so far I don't think he's measured up to that. I don't know about the 40s, but based on comparable players, I'd say the mid to low 50s.

That's one part of selling, and there's different aspects to it. Ones that Cena is rather poor in. Same with the other categories. So why not use the stats in an all encompassing form? If it covers everything, then the wrestler in question would have to be good at everything. I think it's disingenuous to say "X stat covers W, Y, and Z styles and Wrestler Q does really great at W style so he should have a high number" If that's the case, that X stat covers W, Y, and Z styles, then wrestler Q's rating should be based on W, Y, and Z styles, just not W style. Does that make sense? That's like saying a wrestler with a high brawl stat (let's for this example use Finlay) isn't skilled at deathmatch wrestling, so his brawl should be lowered. I don't buy that as valid. As for saying that getting the crowd into it involves physical charisma, you are 100% right. But that isn't all it is. It is just as much selling as well. Like Dusty Rhodes' and Hulk Hogan's selling, it was convincing enough to get the fans to care about them and have an emotional attachment. -Raise Blk Jeez's overness to 57. Check Trainer. -Raise Joker's overness to 52. -Raise Adam Cole's brawl to 74 and charisma to 81. -Raise Robert Anthony's overness to 53. Make him a non-wrestler. -Raise Masada's selling to 74 and overness to 59. -Raise Drake Younger's speed to 53 and charisma to 76. Check SS Look. Raise his wages to 18,000. -Check High Spots and Menacing for Billy Gram. Raise his overness to 29. -Raise Dean Ambrose's brawl to 78, stiffness to 45, selling to 93, and overness to 66. 66 is the highest you can reach in-game and still be in developmental from the start, and I think that reflects accurately in real life the buzz that is around him. -Check Announcer for Zack Sabre Jr. Raise his overness to 36. -Check Announcer for Devon Moore. Raise his overness to 50. -Lower William Regal's stiffness to 71. Raise his selling to 83. -Add a dislike between Billy Gram and Devon Moore (based on Moore’s shoot with Smart Mark). -Raise Ryan Tran's talent to 73. -Raise the Young Lion's Cup's image to 42. -Raise the Campeones de Parejas's image to 52. -Raise the Chikara Grand Champion's image to 60. -Raise the CZW World Junior Heavyweight Championship's image to 54. -Raise the CZW World Heavyweight Championship's image to 58. But that's also like saying Finaly is good at deathmatch wrestling and every other type of brawl and that's not valid either. Less so in fact. In terms of more realistic and accurate, you're better off being all encompassing, because otherwise every wrestler is pretty good at something and then the stats start to lose meaning. Everyone could reasonably be put into the 80s then. The best way would be to average them all out with weights, as difficult as it might be.

Cena shouldn't be anywhere close to an 83 for selling. That's one part of selling, and there's different aspects to it. Ones that Cena is rather poor in. Same with the other categories. So why not use the stats in an all encompassing form? If it covers everything, then the wrestler in question would have to be good at everything. I think it's disingenuous to say "X stat covers W, Y, and Z styles and Wrestler Q does really great at W style so he should have a high number" If that's the case, that X stat covers W, Y, and Z styles, then wrestler Q's rating should be based on W, Y, and Z styles, just not W style. Does that make sense? I think Grizzly's also faded a bit, the lowering I feel is fair.

The ROH Tag Titles have officially been vacated.

I don't think that would suffice at all. Three (myself, Conker, and Manc) people are for 86. It should at the least be 84 for a compromise, though I still maintain 86. I didn't catch what 720 said, but MPH said 61, I'd probably say low 70s (70-73) so 84 wouldn't suffice at all. Perhaps what would be fair would let Bill arbitrate things if possible? He's the one who puts the most work in, so I feel it's fair he gets to decide issues that are as gridlocked as these. If not himself, I presume he could nominate someone or a team. Well, these all boil down to preference. You may think, rightly, it was slow paced and told a good story, others may think, also rightly, it was two guys passed their prime relying on spots in a rather actionless match. It's also a dangerous precedent in that if we use a stat to incorporate all possible aspects of something, then everyone is good at some variation of that style and we have hyper inflation where anything less than an 80% MQ with any 2 people becomes rare. You're absolutely right in that there's variation to be considered, but we also have to keep the confines of the game in mind.

I've seen 3 on both side of the argument thus far. I think a midpoint would be more appropriate, something in the mid 70s would suffice in that case I presume.

I didn't comment on the Taker bit last time because it had mostly passed, but I don't think he needs a raise. I found both of his matches with H largely boring (compared to those with HBK) and honestly feel a lot of the hype and reasons for people liking it were because of the stature of those involved, which is covered in a different stat.

I also do like conker's idea that you linked to, perhaps it could even be expanded on.

Like I said, I'm holding off on adjusting ANY stats of ANY sort until July 20th. That gives everyone who wants to participate adequate time to suggest a "universal overhaul" as was suggested last month: http://www.ewbattleg...dpost&p=2651746 Until the 20th, all's I'm focusing on is non stats related stuff, such as adding tag teams, name changes, etc... I'll likley be working on more "housecleaning" too... But, if you have the July update, you know exactly where everyones' stats currently sit, so the best time to debate them and work on adjusting them on an overall basis is now. Long story short, I can only go off of what everyone gives me... If there is a disagreement along the way, I usually end up putting the final number in the middle of the two suggested. But, if only a couple people are voicing their opinions, chances are, the game data is going to skew towards their opinions. The best way, IMO, to "balance everything out" is to get more people voicing their opinion... But, you can't force people to participate. It's also a helluva lot easier to say "the indy guys are overrated" than to go through who you feel is overrated in what areas and suggest changes to those areas. -Bill Another reason I think some guys come off as "overrated" is due to them not really being touched in the data. Take Ken Shamrock for instance... Since he hasn't been around in a while, chances are, his stats are still where they were when he was at least semi-actve. Now that he's older, his stats should (at least in theory) go down some, along with his overness. Unfortunately, when workers like this don't get mentioned in our monthly threads, they don't get messed with in the game and end up keeping the same stats throughout. So, when we look at July, 2012, he has similar, if not the same stats he had back in 2010 (and maybe even earlier for some workers). The easiest and best way to combat this sort of thing is, when you see something in the current data that yu think needs adjusting... POST ABOUT IT! At least then, it puts that "on the radar" for people to have a discussion about. If people see something but don't post, chances are, most won't even notice it. Being as specific as possible when suggesting changes is a big plus as well... if you can say "Lower worker X's overness to 73," it's a lot better than saying "I think worker X's overness is too high" or "Worker X should have his overness dropped 2-5 points." People might disagree and the change might not always go as you suggest, but at least it brings the situation to everyone's attention. -Bill Absolutely, and just in case it wasn't clear, I have no "issues" with you, or anyone specifically, it's just a natural flaw in the process I'm seeing brought up (more than once actually, which is why I'm more vocal about it now) and bringing it up for discussion as you just said. It wouldn't be a bad idea perhaps to take note of aging off the radar wrestlers and keep track of them to keep their stats up to date. I think with stat changes, something we all could keep in mind is a closest comp type thing in which ones looks at the people at or near that number. In other words, the relativity and absoluteness of a number.

As much as I love them, I think the indy guys in general are a bit overrated in many facets attribute wise, as was touched on last month. Same thing with some of the older guys. I sincerely doubt Ken Shamrock is now at 48 as good of a wrestler as Michael Elgin. It's a bit ridiculously easy to put on pretty good matches at will with just about any combination of people, and that's due to the universal stat inflation I also think some wrestlers such as Dolph get these biased type bumps, notably his charisma. He's never stood out to me. I like the idea of a democratic process in which attributes are suggested, but when we get to people only 1 or 2 people in the process know, that allows for things to become unbalanced.

Yeah, CM Punk was so angry the WWE released Ace Steel he... stayed with the company and re-signed and as far as I know hasn't been an issue.