Square
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Official Ambassador
Grand Poobah of Scavenger Hunts 2011
Square-Because he looks good at all the right angles.
Posts: 18,700
|
Post by Square on Dec 23, 2009 20:19:03 GMT -5
Can I just point out that I wasn't insulted or took it to heart, I was just annoyed at how there was no rhyme or reason to it and also that it gave me absolutely nothing to respond with.
You all smell like rotten eggs and pork anyway. Seriously, learn about soap people!
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Dec 23, 2009 20:51:40 GMT -5
For a ranking system, I was just thinking of something along the lines of this:
1. Each of the titles should be relatively ranked to each other; I'm thinking:
World Inter-Forum Tag Team Hardcore Heatz!1 (if it stays or returns)
==========
2. A certain victory-loss ratio should be attained to qualify for No. 1 Contendership matches.
That part I cannot think of anything per se, but here's a suggestion:
World - +15 Inter-Forum - +10 Tag Team - +5 (This is a conditional level - you obviously need to be a team to qualify at all, and the team must have a win-loss ratio of +5.) Hardcore - +5 (this is an optional level - not everyone wants the Hardcore title) Heatz!1 (if it stays or returns) - +5 (must have 5 more wins than losses)
==========
3. Just because one has an appropriate ratio does not mean they automatically get a title match as they must win No. 1 Contendership matches.
Similarly, a champion does not need to have a better ratio than any contenders - the belt is the belt.
And also similarly, If someone qualifies for a higher belt contendership, they can choose to contend for lower belts, but they must be careful not to lose their ratio that qualifies them for higher belts in the first place and they still have to win No. 1 Contendership matches to face the champ.
==========
Of course the problem here is that we don't really know what our ratios are in the first place.
I think that they plan would work fine if it was there from the beginning, but we may have to make exceptions and probably use some ex post facto for existing members.
Any thoughts on this idea?
|
|
Square
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Official Ambassador
Grand Poobah of Scavenger Hunts 2011
Square-Because he looks good at all the right angles.
Posts: 18,700
|
Post by Square on Dec 23, 2009 20:54:53 GMT -5
It seems a bit over complicated, TNA-esque. I personally just think that Drakin should book number one contenders matches with guys who he thinks deserves them/are coming to the end of their fued/guys who need to be elevated
|
|
Viva
Dennis Stamp
THAT'S MY PURSE! *kick to the groin*
You can dance if you want to.
Posts: 4,099
|
Post by Viva on Dec 23, 2009 20:55:44 GMT -5
Too complicated, dude. If we start getting in to statistics and shit, I could really see it ruining the fun and appeal for a lot of people. That's my two cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2009 21:31:35 GMT -5
Basically, the rankings are for the IF and Hardcore Titles primarily. World Title contenders will be decided independently. If we try to have an overly complicated system, my head would explode. And that would be bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2009 21:32:33 GMT -5
Well, I guess that I'll write the Battle Royal. You mean the elimination match? I already took it, man.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Dec 23, 2009 22:59:43 GMT -5
How about the Hardcore match?
|
|
|
Post by thesam07 on Dec 23, 2009 23:08:43 GMT -5
We've reached 30 pages. Let's the party continue into a new thread.
|
|