FORUM HOME > TNM > Discussion
hey Oliver - care to explain Workrate in TNM?

LillaThrillaPosted on 03/03/03 at 05:17:18

I'd much appreciate if you could go into some details on Workrate in TNM7: how much effect it has star ratings, how you think it should be decieded for a wrestler if you're making a brand new export, etc.  It seems like a much debated gray area and some details on it could perhaps improve future Exports.  Thanks!
91Posted on 03/04/03 at 00:12:18

I might not be Oliver, but to get the ball rolling before he trundles along, I've found, from experience, that two wrestlers with a workrate of 80 will get about a DUD, hence why I don't drop anyones workrate below 70 otherwise you're just begging for -***** everytime (which is unrealistic, natch).
LillaThrillaPosted on 03/04/03 at 01:11:01


I've found, from experience, that two wrestlers with a workrate of 80 will get about a DUD, hence why I don't drop anyones workrate below 70 otherwise you're just begging for -***** everytime
After you said that on a previous thread, I was rather shocked.  Hence my desire for some input by the guy who created the program on what it SHOULD be like...
ingusjynxPosted on 03/04/03 at 15:31:37

I've found out that it goes something like this:

100 = a ***** worker
96 = a **** worker
92 = a *** worker
88 = a ** worker
84 = a * worker
80 = a DUD worker
76 = a -* worker
72 = a -** worker
68 = a -*** worker
64 = a -**** worker
60 = a - **** worker
John ProulxPosted on 03/04/03 at 17:49:58

Now that's pretty ridiculous if true. If only a range of 60-100 is going to be meaningful, then why bother to make the range 0-100 at all? All that is is the wrestling equivalent of grade inflation ;-) . If your range is 0-100, then an average person on that scale should be 50.
Fighter_HayabusaPosted on 03/04/03 at 18:35:35

With that scale, how do you account for interaction between workers?  By Averages?  Do you mean that a guy with a 100 workrate and a guy with a workrate of 80 will always put on a 2.5* match?  That's unrealistic, if that's how it works.  

I think Oliver's smarter than to go with something that simplistic.  Especially since it doesn't take into consideration the fact that a great worker can carry a total choad to a really good match.  See: Ric Flair...Lex Luger.

Speaking of which, I think there's something in the code that adds a star or two if one of the workers in your match is named "Ric Flair" or "Bret Hart."  I vaguely remember hearing about that some time ago.

FH
91Posted on 03/04/03 at 21:16:16

On 03/04/03 at 18:35:35, Fighter_Hayabusa wrote:With that scale, how do you account for interaction between workers? By Averages? Do you mean that a guy with a 100 workrate and a guy with a workrate of 80 will always put on a 2.5* match? That's unrealistic, if that's how it works.
Well to take an example from my circuit, I had Crush (80) and Dean Malenko (94) go at it. By the above logic, it should be about *3/4, they got ***. Another time the same two got 1/2*, so it does vary - sometimes a good worker carries a bad worker, sometimes a bad worker drags down a good worker. These two demonstrated both examples.

I guess we need Oliver to explain it fully.
HugeRockStar760Posted on 03/05/03 at 23:30:45

Is overness and charisma added into the ratings formula as well?  I ask because it's not unusual for someone like Scott Keith to give Rock matches like **** stars.  He even gave Savage/Hogan **** stars.

91Posted on 03/06/03 at 00:00:50

On 03/05/03 at 23:30:45, HugeRockStar760 wrote:Is overness and charisma added into the ratings formula as well? I ask because it's not unusual for someone like Scott Keith to give Rock matches like **** stars. He even gave Savage/Hogan **** stars.

You forget that Randy Savage was an awesome wrestler in his heyday and Hogan had his working boots on (for once - or maybe Savage just made him look good), and the match deserved four stars (or thereabouts) on the wrestling alone.

As for The Rock, the guy has awesome timing. He may not have a huge moveset, but he doesn't need it, since he knows what to do and when, and that's always an important factor in making a good match.
Oliver CoppPosted on 03/20/03 at 10:39:54

The actual range is 0-100, a DUD wrestler certainly isn't one with an 80.

The point is, when figuring out match raings, so much more goes into the equation than just the workrate of the wrestlers. Among the factors are:

- match progress,
- finish,
- heat,
- how the match went down (near-falls etc),
- pacing of the match,
- how much the wrestlers are pushed,
- charisma of the participants,
- match type (putting Mick Foley into a submission match might not be the best idea; conversely, Greg Valentine in a tables match is like a fish out of water)

Hope this clears it up.

Top-flight workers usually are in the 80-100 region, and it goes down pretty straightforward from that.
Fighter_HayabusaPosted on 03/20/03 at 18:14:17

If Strict Pushes are turned off, does push still have an effect on the match's star rating?

FH
(not using strict pushes anymore, rushes off to edit every push in his new fed anyway) :)
Oliver CoppPosted on 03/20/03 at 23:54:20

Absolutely.
91Posted on 03/21/03 at 01:18:27

On 03/20/03 at 10:39:54, Oliver Copp wrote:.... Among the factors are:.......

- charisma of the participants......
Oops - a while back I got sick of the occassional "boring" chants because, damnit, I've got characters and angles for ALL my guys to get over (least I like to think I do) so I bunged everyones charisma to 100 to be done with it.

No wonder I once had a PPV where the lowest rating was ****. :P
Oliver CoppPosted on 04/24/03 at 19:23:41

LOL. Yet, it's very true: charisma can make you overlook that a match sucks... just think of the fond memories everybody has of Jake Roberts :-)
91Posted on 04/25/03 at 15:06:43

In fairness to Jake, that seemed to be more of a good substitute for the abilities he lost after the neck injury (though he certainly had oodles of charisma before, I was watching some of his older stuff from the early 80's recently, he was hella entertaining). What Jake lacked in wrestling ability during most of his WWE run, he made up for with both the charisma and good timing.

Hell, timing can sometimes be more important than general skill - look at The Rock. He utilises about half a dozen moves, yet he quite often has the best match on a PPV. Who can argue with that kind of talent?

Still, to cap things off, let's just look back fondly at that aswesome WM6 interview he did.......
Oliver CoppPosted on 04/25/03 at 15:37:22

Was just joking - I love Jake's work in- and outside the ring. Always have, always will.

91Posted on 04/25/03 at 22:51:47

He still wasn't as good as he was before the injury. Still, as I noted, with good timing he did a great job.

Bet you don't love his CURRENT work.
Oliver CoppPosted on 04/26/03 at 14:35:16

Wasn't aware that he is working... all this time I've been thinking that he's appearing in cameos in England but not actually working ;-)
91Posted on 04/26/03 at 15:49:04

Isn't he? Well, certainly his most recent work then. **insert drunken quote**
Oliver CoppPosted on 04/26/03 at 19:09:11

Well, he is... but he also isn't...
AnubisPosted on 05/04/03 at 03:33:37

I dunno . . . Whenever I put anyone with Workrate below 70 in a match, it ALWAYS (I do mean ALWAYS) gets a negative rating.  No exceptions whatsoever, really.  I've always wondered about this myself, honestly.
Critic_of_the_DawnPosted on 05/05/03 at 00:00:50

I've seen Sid Vicious put on a **** performance before, and he's got a workrate of 50.

Granted, it was against Rob Van Dam in a very close Ironman match.  But still.  ****.  Sid Vicious.  50 workrate.  The mind boggles.  I've never seen anything else even close, really.

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
A_Man_Called_MikeyPosted on 06/06/03 at 23:25:51

On 04/26/03 at 14:35:16, Oliver Copp wrote:Wasn't aware that he is working... all this time I've been thinking that he's appearing in cameos in England but not actually working ;-)
There really is nothing like going to the Fairfield Halls on a Tuesday night and seeing Jake, so badly inebriated that he is either being held up by the ropes or his tag partner.    Not that I do that sort of thing anymore but, when I did, it was a site to behold.   He was even more drunk than the Bushwackers.