What happens if you put a battle royale in the main event of a Historic event?

[DreamGoddessLindsey]

Topic. Basically, does everyone in the battle royale get a "headline a Historic or Legendary event" appearance for the Hall of Immortals, or does it only count the last singles match?

 

EDIT: After checking, none of the people in the main event got any credit for headlining a Historic or Legendary event. Does that mean the main event was wasted? If so, I think this should be considered a bug or something, because there should be SOME credit for the main event. (Basically, it was a Royal Rumble type of card, and it's a Historic, so the battle royale is naturally the main event of the event.)

 

Ugh . . .

[Bigpapa42]

Really? I don't think they should get credit. It would be a really cheap way of getting a lot of workers a step toward the HoI. Theoretically, if they participated in that match at that legendary event for a number of years, they could gain nomination to the Hall of Immortals based simly on that, even if they never did anything or even did anything notable in the battle royal. Not realistic at all.

 

If the battle royal is for a tournament title that is main event level, the winner would get that credit toward the HoI. I would think that would suffice.

[kje3334]

I believe only singles and tag team matches count .. there was a thread a few days ago about this somewhere. I'll try and find it and edit it in.

 

Edit - http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125054 it was in the suggestion forum. So yeah, only singles and tag team matches apply. (Y)

[The-619]

I think the winner of the Rumble should get the recognition.

[DreamGoddessLindsey]

Hmmm . . . I did some testing, and I think some people in a battle royale do get credit. One of my people were at 84% at the start of the game, and at the time of this writing, is a future member of the Hall of Immortals. Only had one A* match, which only bumps it to 94%. This person, however, was one of the "final four" in the battle royale. The one showing would be enough to bump the person to a future member of the Hall of Immortals. It's the only other condition this worker could have met because he didn't win the battle royale or any other title, had no more A* matches, did not become a National Icon, and did not win wrestler of the year.

[Comradebot]

Technically, no...

 

BUT, if they win a "tournament title" for doing so, and it's set as a main event belt in a National or larger company, it WILL give them a boost towards the HOI.

 

And, really, an event like the Royal Rumble probably should have a title associated with it for this very purpose.

[cappyboy]

And, really, an event like the Royal Rumble probably should have a title associated with it for this very purpose.

 

Especially if you play with rules like WWE's where the winner of the Royal Rumble gets a main event title shot at Wrestlemania. Getting pushed to the front of the line to headline The Big One probably should have a title of historic import tied to it. That's something folks are going to remember long after the fact if it's treated with any kind of respect.

[DreamGoddessLindsey]

Doh, I just realized my Royal Rumble variation (Battlezone) is only "Highly Regarded". Jerry Dunvegan (the worker in question) actually headlined my version of King of the Ring (Imperial Games) which is Historic. That answers how he got a guaranteed spot in the Hall of Immortals.

 

I feel silly now. Still, I think someone in a Historic Royal Rumble style match should get headline credit . . . Like maybe the last two or something like that. Also, three and four worker matches should definitely count in all cases.

[shawn michaels]

Doh, I just realized my Royal Rumble variation (Battlezone) is only "Highly Regarded". Jerry Dunvegan (the worker in question) actually headlined my version of King of the Ring (Imperial Games) which is Historic. That answers how he got a guaranteed spot in the Hall of Immortals.

 

I feel silly now. Still, I think someone in a Historic Royal Rumble style match should get headline credit . . . Like maybe the last two or something like that. Also, three and four worker matches should definitely count in all cases.

 

I strongly disagree. Nobody remembers the last 2 guys in the rumble. And nobody remembers a rumble victory unless it culminates in a WM title win. These type of events should not count.

[The Masked Orange]

I strongly disagree. Nobody remembers the last 2 guys in a rumle. And nobody remembers a rumble victory unless it culminates in a WM title win. These type of events should not count.

 

Maybe because the "Rumble", is only a highly regarded event, not legendary. If it was the main match for WM we would be singing a different tune.

[shawn michaels]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="The Masked Orange" data-cite="The Masked Orange" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27751" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Maybe because the "Rumble", is only a highly regarded event, not legendary. If it was the main match for WM we would be singing a different tune.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's my point!</p>

[Zero]

<p>while i see your point, i think the rumble is historic, because it starts the build up to the legendary event</p><p> </p><p>

and i remember every rumble winner until 2000, when I stopped watching and thought every guy who won did something with it</p><p> </p><p>

besides Duggan and Studd but lets face it, the event was not that important until Hogan won it</p>

[The Masked Orange]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels 82" data-cite="shawn michaels 82" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27751" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That's my point!</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Maybe it's the fact English isn't your first language, or the subtleties of language that are lost in text, but I was saying that if a 30-man rumble was the Main Event of Wrestlemania then it would be important. You said that it's only important if it leads to a match at WM. Two different things.</p><p> </p><p> But, very similar. I know very winner of the rumble since it had it's own PPV and I am much younger than that. Winning the royal rumble is definetely CV worthy, let's put it that way...</p>

[Greg McNeish]

<p>I would rate Royal Rumble & Summerslam as Historic (but not Survivor Series), as they actually get treated like something special.</p><p> </p><p>

I'll echo Comradebot's comments from earlier, that a battle royal of that importance should have a Main Event-level Tournament Title associated with it. That way, the winner gets something towards the HoI, but not every space filler gets the credit. It's a terrific balance.</p>

[LoganRodzen]

I would rate Royal Rumble & Summerslam as Historic (but not Survivor Series), as they actually get treated like something special.

 

You mean for a modern day mod, right? If it was an older mod it would be considered part of the "big four" and should be Historic. It certainly has lost its value nowadays though. Not because people dislike the PPV, but because WWE refused to do anything interesting with it over the past 8 years or so - '02 was the last Survivor Series I ever purchased.... I even have it on DVD somewhere. Introduction of the elimination chamber and HBKs first 'sanctioned' match back = awesomeness.

[Greg McNeish]

Yep. That's what I meant.

 

Apparantly, the WWE is killing off the Survivor Series. I hate to see it go, but I suppose it further lays to rest the Screwjob.

[The Chosen One]

Having a Tournament Title for the Rumble is really needed, or else the victory won't be listed in the accomplishments history of their profile