Move Title - Alliances

[NotTheAEWCody]

With Kenny Omega defending his AEW World Championship in Impact, I figured I'd toss this out into the suggestion board once more. I'd like to have to ability to move our own company championships to an alliance, pretty much making it an alliance title until its moved back.

 

Currently when you try to use the Move Title feature from your office, it'll only allow a championship to be moved to a child company. The change I'm proposing would be useful for running supercards/doing a championship collector gimmick.

 

A quick example is a 21CW/TCW multiplayer game I'm doing, I'm going to loan in Tommy Cornell to TCW and put the main title on him. In order to keep the championship lineage tidy(only 10 dates per loan), I'm going to have to use the Alter Champion feature each time his loan contract runs up. If I could move the title to my alliance, I(& alliance members) could borrow that championship and worker whenever.

 

If this is possible I think it'd be a good QoL feature for alliances, the only concern I have is AI companies putting my world title on their jobbers

[spiffyone]

That's a tremendous idea, and would make it easier to have events like the old Championship Wrestling from Florida events like Battle of the Belts where you had both the NWA and AWA World champions in separate world title matches on the card.

 

Perhaps if something like what you've mentioned can't be coded an alternative could be to borrow and or loan title belts in a similar manner to how one does it for workers or have the option. The way it would be handled is that when borrowing or loaning a worker who happens to hold a title belt/is a champion, the player (or AI) can have the option to also borrow or loan the title that they hold.

 

It'd be great if, when requesting to borrow or getting a request to loan a champion (with their belt), you (or the AI) can turn down the request. Better still if when borrowing or loaning the belt alongside the worker who holds it, you (or the AI in the case of borrowing) can set a rule that the belt is not to change hands - a rule that can be broken and, if so, will set off hostilities between the companies.

[Dalton]

I would love to see this.

 

It's been happening in the real world for awhile, and would be tons of fun in the CVerse as well.

[Jaysin]

It's baffling that this isn't a thing yet

[ewitner]

Similarly just being able to either defend a developmental championship on the main roster or a main roster championship in developmental.

[Iceman90]

Similarly just being able to either defend a developmental championship on the main roster or a main roster championship in developmental.

 

This is something I think has to be implemented for sure.

[thadian]

<p>The real issue - if you move belt to alliance title, then:</p><p>

1. Allies can job the belt to blokes with low safety.</p><p>

2. Alliance Title reigns do not contribute to Hall of Immortals.</p><p> </p><p>

So, that would need a few things to change.</p><p> </p><p>

While I am here:</p><p> </p><p>

I do support allowing titles to be defended in other companies, if they have some kind of deal such as Development or Sister Company. I can see AEW having Impact titles and WWE having NXT titles, but I can't see WWF and WCW agreeing to have Shawn Michaels lose to Hulk Hogan 1997, especially in a title match.</p><p> </p><p>

I would like to see a "Personal Title" owned by a superstar - such as the FTW Title, Million Dollar Title, or Zach Ryder Internet Title. Basically, it would be attached to a worker as Owner instead of a company, and the champion is a not owner; if said champion leaves a promotion and is not the champion themselves, the current champion would be stripped and the title vacated (though the owner could be re-crowned once they sign a new deal). This should not count for HoI and such belts should be Tertiary Titles.</p><p> </p><p>

I would like to see Alliance SuperShow - Alliances should be "owned" by a head, who books the show on the same date every year. Each member gets one match, the two most popular company's most popular wrestler gets a match, and the Alliance Titles will all be defended against "the best contender". If the player owns the alliance, they should be the booker, with the other stars added to the show. If the player is not the owner, they should book only their own match's results. In this way, the SuperShow can feature promotion title changes (within the same promotions at least).</p><p> </p><p>

I will close by saying I also support having a Master-Child company arrangement should allow the master to take the child's title:</p><p>

1. The child company should be unhappy if/when it happens and demand money.</p><p>

2. The smaller company's title being used should increase that company's standing and title prestige just a bit, but not too much.</p><p>

3. When the title is returned, the child company becomes happy or angry - depending on if the prestige of the title is higher or lower than when they lent it out.</p>

[spiffyone]

I would like to see a "Personal Title" owned by a superstar - such as the FTW Title, Million Dollar Title, or Zach Ryder Internet Title. Basically, it would be attached to a worker as Owner instead of a company, and the champion is a not owner.

 

I think the problem there is that two out of the three titles you mentioned are company owned titles (I don't recall off-hand the legal status of Ryder's) so there should be a distinction between a kayfabe or in-angle "personal" title that while assigned to a specific worker is in fact company property and a more overarching beyond-storyline personal title that is actually owned by a worker regardless of what company they happen to be in at any given moment.

 

Maybe two additional options in the database could be implemented to reflect this difference.

 

1. Under "Owned by" there'd be two tick/check boxes: one for companies, the other for workers (and as I write this, I realize that "original owner" could have the same options, btw).
   

 

• For company owned titles, under "function" there could be an option for "connected/tied to worker", which would connect/tie the title to a particular worker and which, when selected, would bring up a drop down menu allowing for the selection of a particular worker (that way it doesn't necessarily have to be the current holder of the belt in the company).
  

 

This could also be handy for those lucha belts from defunct companies that are de facto owned by particular luchadores and which they and they alone defend on shows for any of the companies if so wished.

 

I would like to see Alliance SuperShow - Alliances should be "owned" by a head, who books the show on the same date every year. Each member gets one match, the two most popular company's most popular wrestler gets a match, and the Alliance Titles will all be defended against "the best contender". If the player owns the alliance, they should be the booker, with the other stars added to the show. If the player is not the owner, they should book only their own match's results. In this way, the SuperShow can feature promotion title changes (within the same promotions at least).

 

Eh, the problem I can see with that is that alliances never really operate that way. There's a president, sure, but the individual owners usually want to control their guys and how they're booked (which is why stuff like this often ended in no-decisions or double count outs or dqs). And I'm not sure the owner and/or booker of a particular territory in the alliance would acquiesce to someone else coming in and controlling a supershow in their home territory whether that someone is in a position of power in the overall alliance or not.

 

Supershows of that sort should reflect the internal politics of an alliance more than anything else in the game. Maybe have it so the booker of a supershow (which doens't necessarily have to include all alliance members, mind you) has to be the booker and/or owner of the territory in which the show is being held or someone with which they agree upon. On top of that, the supershow booker would inevitably have to deal with the other company bookers and/or owners when booking the supershow just like they would the workers themselves. So another owner or booker could fight against the idea of his guy jobbing, or be okay with it only under certain conditions, etc. all of which have larger implications in the personal relationship between the bookers and/or owners in question, the larger relationships between their respective promotions, and indeed the larger relationships of the entire alliance as a whole and those within it.

 

So if you job my guy out when I told you not to and not even sweetened the pot in any way to get me to ease up from my demand then not only have you irked him (so he's less likely to jump ship to your company), but you've irked me (so I'm less likely to work with you in the same way, and moreover our companies are less likely to work with one another), but anyone else I may be friendly with in the alliance as a whole or those with high loyalty or honesty percentages in their personal make-up may be wary of working with you (because they see that you went against a friend's desires, or those of a company with which they have a very close working relationship that they don't wish to mess up by associated with you). So every decision in a supershow booking could have long ramifications in gameplay, perhaps even be the start of an alliance fracturing and dying.