Rating the Ratings in WWE 2K17

[woodjer]

Quote: Originally Posted by nhthelegend

Yeah this is on point. Andre is rated an 80 because he is slow as **** and very immobile. However, his strength and power ratings are through the roof. He is one-dimensional which hurts his overall, but the 80 rating is a bit of a misnomer when compared to a jobber who's at a 78 overall because they are middling in all facets. There could definitely be a better way to reflect these things though, perhaps akin to what DC suggested in his post ^^^

Quote: Originally Posted by PeoplesChampGB

I wouldn't say the ratings are the problem. I would say the actual weight of the ratings which formulate the overall are the problem. For instance, who cares if Big Show is an 80 while Zach Ryder is an 81. What would really matter is Big Show's strength/grapple damage rating (which should be high) against Zach Ryder's speed and striking rating (my perfect wrestling game would also have bans on moves that would be impossible to do.) Just telling me that Big Show is an 80 OVR and Zach Ryder is an 81 doesn't justify the label of disservice to Big Show. Look at the individual ratings that make up the overall and justify it. Then we can have a discussion.

These are both completely correct. Like DC mentions, maybe get rid of the Overall rating altogether since it can be misleading since it doesn't really reflect style/moves. Andre may have a really low speed rating but if most/all of his moves don't use that, should it really drag his overall down that much?

Also, I'll put a plug in here for Hyperballer's ratings system. People are always asking him to explain the overall rating for superstars but it's really more about emphasizing strengths/weaknesses for the appropriate move types. I used it for last year and found myself having to think more about what moves I was using, if/when I wanted to try that reversal, and how I could time my finisher for when the other guy didn't have a reversal ready. As a result, the matches felt like they had a reasonable flow and length to them. It takes a while to implement them all but the quality of the results was outstanding. I just picked up 2k17 so I can't speak to how well they work this year but he puts WAY too much time into it for me to expect anything less than last year.

[DBMcGee3]

Quote: Originally Posted by woodjer

These are both completely correct. Like DC mentions, maybe get rid of the Overall rating altogether since it can be misleading since it doesn't really reflect style/moves. Andre may have a really low speed rating but if most/all of his moves don't use that, should it really drag his overall down that much? Also, I'll put a plug in here for Hyperballer's ratings system. People are always asking him to explain the overall rating for superstars but it's really more about emphasizing strengths/weaknesses for the appropriate move types. I used it for last year and found myself having to think more about what moves I was using, if/when I wanted to try that reversal, and how I could time my finisher for when the other guy didn't have a reversal ready. As a result, the matches felt like they had a reasonable flow and length to them. It takes a while to implement them all but the quality of the results was outstanding. I just picked up 2k17 so I can't speak to how well they work this year but he puts WAY too much time into it for me to expect anything less than last year.

Yeah, I just got turned onto Hyperballer's speadsheet. It's a daunting task to enter it all in, considering my gaming time is limited, but it sounds like what I want the game to reflect, which is a more distinct variation in the styles and abilities of the superstars.

Kinda figured I would choose 5 or 10 wrestlers of various styles and abilities and enter them first, so I can do some testing and see if it' worth my time to do the whole roster. I want to see how a squash match plays vs. a main event, and I want the right guys to be winning matches in my Universe when I simulate. Nothing ruins the immersion quite like having Jim Neidhart get a clean pin on Hulk Hogan.

[EJordan23]

Overalls should be gotten rid of. Even with that said, some of the ratings are horrible.

[BlueAngels98]

I'd personally get rid of Overalls also. It really is misleading

[Spartan Warrior]

Just started messing with ratings tonight and getting better matches. Wrestled Bo Dallas as Goldberg and utterly destroyed him, beat him in three minutes after he barely got any offense in. Then did Bret Hart vs. Bo Dallas, Bo got in a little bit of offense but I was able to tap him out with the Sharpshooter in five minutes or so. And he quit the first time I got him in the Sharpshooter, which was a nice change.

Then I did Bret Hart vs. 1-2-3 Kid. It was a competitive match, Kid got some shots in, blocked the Sharpshooter (stealing my finish and hitting me with a Superkick finisher in the process). I kicked out, built back to special, got him in the Sharpshooter but he got out. Pinned him shortly thereafter with a cradle.

Not making huge changes to the ratings, mostly lowering strike and grapple power (amount depends on how big and powerful a guy is) and for lower card guys really reducing the amount of damage they can take.

[Blackwood Bully]

Again, consider all of the wrestlers either tied with or rated better than Braun: Hideo Itami (NXT), Neville (205 Live), and Apollo Crews (only recently starting to get camera time). All three of those guys are phenomenal workers capable of five-star matches, but they don’t have nearly the same clout as Strowman.

You do know that Kenta has no "clout" in his thumbnail than Braun does in his entire body.

[Rebel10]

Andre is one of the greatest wrestlers of all time, and it's generally agreed upon that if he wanted to kill you in the ring, he could, and there'd be nothing anybody could do about it. But, to be fair, from 1987 and on, Andre was booked mid-card to upper and lost almost every big match he was in. He was booked as an unstoppable fan favorite giant from 1975 - 1986, but after his 2 or 3 year run with Hogan, Andre was a mid-card stable guy who was usually used as light enforcement and to put over rising talent. It's tough to rate him highly because for most of his WWF career, he lost his major matches, and in the matches he won as a heel it usually had to do with something dastardly that Heenan, Debiase, or another manager would do for him.

They should get rid of the visible overall rating because it doesn't make sense in a work. The wrestlers should be broken down by style and then have specific areas:

- Style (not a rating number, but a performance style)

Rating Numbers/Ratings:

- Strength - Ability to lift heavy guys
- Power - Ability to deal damage
- Tactician - Ability to deal damage with holds/submissions
- Stamina - Ability to maintain energy through a match, not get tired
- Recovery - Ability to get up more quickly after an attack, recoup energy, reverse moves, break pins, etc
- Speed - Ability to move around the ring
- Agility - Ability to chain moves quicker, perform specific moves, or do things like climb the turnbuckle, etc

And I'm sure there's others, if we're purely talking booked in-ring abilities those are just the ones I'm thinking of right now.

This way, you can have a guy like Wrestlemania-era Andre (1985 - 1992) have incredible power, incredible strength, but have virtually no stamina, very little recovery, and little agility and speed. This would mean that another guy could go over him who is more balanced, even if he has less power and strength.

Ultimately, because wrestling is a work and videogames (usually) treat it like a shoot, it's going to be problematic in some areas. For instance, if it's a simulation then you should never have 1994 Razor Ramon (86 or whatever) be defeated by 1994 1-2-3 Kid (65 or something, when Waltman was a jobber), yet that very famously happened as a way to put over 1-2-3 Kid and create a solid feud for the two. Pro wrestling is not a simulation, of course, and some guys should be booked better than other guys, so you almost need something like a "Booking rating" or something. Not that 2K should do this because it makes no sense given that they usually try to present their wrestling game as a simulation, which is ridiculous, but that's a digression. Otherwise, you can look at a guy like 1985-1991 Hogan and say... He has a lot of strength (slammed Andre, did press slams and power moves to lesser guys), but does not have a lot of power (none of his moves have ever been sold as devastating power moves, compared to a guy like say Lesnar or even 1995 Diesel), has great recovery (it's the essence of his character to get beaten up for a whole match and then win in 60 seconds with 3 moves), has no tactical ability, has average speed. These attributes shouldn't add up to a guy who is a world beater, and yet, for a 7 year run, Hogan lost cleanly with his shoulders on the mat only once or twice... So, obviously, there's an issue with using attributes in any wrestling game to determine the outcome of a match.

[DC]

The reason why I WOULD be in favor of erasing overalls is because wrestling is based on styles. Each wrestler already has ratings in each skill category, no need for an overall honestly.

It isn't like an Overall is needed like it is in a game like NBA 2K where the CPU uses the overall to set rotations.

Outside of WWE Wrestling games, I never see overall ratings