Titles.

[dukedave]

I see a lot of people post a lot of different titles. Am I the only one that thinks there should be only 3 titles, GWF, GWF Tag, and I-P. Well, Women's too but my old school is in 2092, no women's division yet.

Being in 2092, I've ignored War Games and plan on ignoring most angles and just focusing on wrestling. I keep the feuds but the whole War Games thing doesn't intrigue me, hence I never creates a War Games belt.

The whole trend in the 90's for belts for everything is what makes me feel this way. Hardcore title, US, I-C, Cruiserweight, European, etc. I want my belts to mean something. Again, am I the only one?

[atlas]

I only have the Galaxian Heavyweight, Galaxian Tag Team and IP titles, too.

[Eliath]

You aren't the only one Havoc.

I only have 3 titles too: Universal (GWF), Tag-Team & Intergalactic (I-P)

I agree with you, titles should mean something.

In our feds, they do. ;D

[maddog1981]

Nope. Even the losers need something to shoot for and it helps to focus the promotion when the roster is pushing 70 wrestlers during the peak years. This is the way my new expansion is unfolding:

2087:

GWF Galaxian Title
GWF Galaxian Tag Team Titles
GWF Interplanetary Title

2088:

GWF Holovision Title

2090:

GWF Interplanetary Tag Team Titles

2092:

GWF X Division Title
GWF HeavyMetal Title

[aquinas]

Right now I have a top singles title, a top tag title, a secondary singles title, the women's....and last year I re-added a specials match title, which I changed to something different recently....

Back when the GWF was gi-normous, I had an additional tag title and an additional singles title....but right now, I think the number I have works. I wouldn't dare increase it.

[wildfire]

I agree titles should be special, but I think there needs to be a balance, too. If you have a pool of 60 guys, only 3 titles would leave a whole lot of wrestlers basically having no chance at a title.

I think by the mid 2090s, there's a large enough pool to warrant a third singles belt... but I think it should mean something, and have some sort of character to make it more than just 'the belt for the guys that suck'

[maddog1981]

I think it just depends on how you do it. The way I work my belts are that each belt has a division. So a guy like Thantos is a Galaxian Title division guy and doesn't go after belts below that. He might do that but it's considered to be slumming in my fed. I usually only have a guy slum is if the belt is changing hands too much and I want a guy to run a 6-12 month reign to cut down on title holders.

Plus, you have to climb the charts to get to the top in mine fed. So guys like Matador of M83 won a few belts on his way to the Galaxian Title and it's fun to see the progression of a guy winning progressively more major titles as he climbs the rankings.

[traviz]

I have the Galaxian title, the Interplanetary title, Galaxian Tag titles, and the Planet X title.
The Planet X belt, introduced in 2121 is defended every card, making it the easiest to win, but the hardest to hold onto. I wanted it to be a little different.

[maddog1981]

I had a Beat The Champ Title in my EC fed. Pretty much with it you won it and defended it on every card. After 5 successful defenses you vacated the belt and two random contenders were selected to face off for the vacated title. You also won increasing amounts of money for each defense:

V1 - $2000
V2 - $4000
V3 - $6000
V4 - $8000
V5 - $10,000

So it was highly contested because a wrestler would typically be free of the championship obligations within 3-4 months and would have $30,000 in his pocket to boot.

[joseph]

I do have the extra HardCore title in my New Beginning years, but I have the stipulation that only wrestlers with a cage rating 2 or lower qualify. So it's kind of it's own division. I see it as par with the IP belt, but while IP is more wrestling the HC is just more violence.

Rahl