EWR 2012 Stats Update: August ***PLEASE USE SPOILER TAGS***

[notatardis]

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.

[Mr.Perfekt]

He's at 89 in my August save, maybe he had those random drug abuse/rehab/hated in the locker room events in your game.

I started with June save and have been playing with that since. He hasn't had any of those what I remember.

[Guest Mr. Smokes]

Goddamnit the update never comes out when I'm ready to play and am pumped up..

[Owen]

He's at 89 in my August save, maybe he had those random drug abuse/rehab/hated in the locker room events in your game.

I started with June save and have been playing with that since. He hasn't had any of those what I remember.

In the June data, he still has 89 attitude. maybe you changed it to 12 by accident, with arsenic?

Edited September 2, 2012 by 0wen

[KrisClassic]

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.

[Mr.Perfekt]

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.

Yeah Taker is one of the best if not THE BEST brawler in the WWE today.

[notatardis]

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.

Edited September 3, 2012 by notatardis

[Mancuerda]

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.

[notatardis]

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.

[Mancuerda]

Well, I was being sarcastic about changing my vote to 100 to make a point. I think 81 or 82 is fine. Even the upper 70s is fine. In the end, if I really want to change it on my own, I will, and others will do the same. I just don't think it's accurate, and it's weird to me I suppose that people are suggesting low 60s for a guy whose main wrestling is brawling and he's been having 5 star matches or near 5 star matches for the last few years.

[Guest Owned by Quickquid]

He hasn't been having near five-star matches for the last few years. And even if you want to argue he was, as that's clearly an opinion held by quite a few people, the things that made them five-star matches are things reflected in Overness and Selling, not in Brawling.

[notatardis]

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

[KrisClassic]

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.

Edited September 3, 2012 by KrisClassic

[notatardis]

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.

[caucasianheat]

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.

Just download the data and change the stat yourself like a sane person.

[Gazz]

Or feel some female human breasts.

It's fantastic. (Y)

[KrisClassic]

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.

I hear what you're saying. But it is hard for me to take some of the naysayers seriously when one of the people who suggested a brawl in the 60s admitted to not even watching Undertaker's recent matches. Like said earlier, the 60s people seem like they are just suggesting lower to take advantage of the averaging.

Just download the data and change the stat yourself like a sane person.

I do, and that's fine, but that means I'm not allowed to have a debate on something? This is a forum based around a text-based professional wrestling game, and this is a topic about suggesting stats about said game. Implying that someoen else here is a loser is really a case of pot, kettle, black. CH, Gazz, grow up.

Edited September 3, 2012 by KrisClassic

[Guest Owned by Quickquid]

I didn't admit to not watching "matches", I admitted to not watching one match. And just as we don't base attitude and behaviour off of one incident in isolation, we don't base wrestling stats off of one match in isolation.

And I said when I picked 61 that it was a compromise and that I think Taker's real brawl should be lower. Not sure how that's "taking advantage of the averaging".

Edited September 3, 2012 by Owned by Quickquid

[KrisClassic]

I didn't admit to not watching "matches", I admitted to not watching one match. And just as we don't base attitude and behaviour off of one incident in isolation, we don't base wrestling stats off of one match in isolation.

And I said when I picked 61 that it was a compromise and that I think Taker's real brawl should be lower. Not sure how that's "taking advantage of the averaging".

Not watching one match is akin to not watching his last year's worth of work. If somebody pops in a tape of Kofi Kingston from 2010 it's not fair to base that off of his stats instead of his current work.

BTW, I think we should also factor in the response from industry insiders as well. I legitimately have not heard a single bad review of HBK/Taker from any journalist or wrestler. Meltzer gave both of the matches nearly 5 stars, if I recall, as well as his match with Triple H near 5 stars.

-Raise Scorpio Sky's overness to 48.

Edited September 3, 2012 by KrisClassic

[Guest Owned by Quickquid]

It's not a year's worth of work. So many wrestlers would have higher stats if they only had to worry about one match a year.