More control over Alliance Titles

[Rhaums]

Alliance Titles should be able to have a "Primary Federation" to represent the main fed for that title. If you're not the primary fed for a title, then you should either have veto for title matches, or at least title changes.

Example: I'm playing as AEW and have access to Okada's AEW Continental Championship and the NJPW Strong Women's Championship. I can book the Continental Championship as i please, and it will be defended in other feds, but will remain with Okada unless i permit a title change. Meanwhile if I wanted Mercedes to drop her NJPW title, NJPW would have to approve (likely depending on overness, skills and if they're under contract with NJPW)

Also prehaps Non-Alliance titles should be able to be defended in alliance loans or be loaned out for single matches (see Jordynne Grace defending the TNA Knockouts title on NXT in a few weeks, or WALTER defending the NXT UK title at Stand and Deliver)

[benjirino]

If I may be so bold - an alternative suggestion, as I do think Alliance titles need a tweak, but perhaps in another way. I think the size of the company should decide vote power against all other members of the Alliance (EG: Insignificant gets no voting power, Tiny gets one vote, Small gets two votes, medium gets three votes etc.). Base each vote in the same way trades are done - by relevant pop of the wrestler to the company and their main location(s). So someone with high pop in South West US but poor in Tri-State would get the approval of the South West promotion(s), but not the approval of the Tri-State promotion(s) because they might be over in the one location, but not another. Require a 51% vote share minimum (or more) to get approval to change a champion, so you never have the issue of equal vote numbers.

That or expand the titles and have both - as it does seem to be more and more common for a company to loan out their title and champion to another company, in which case the primary company should absolutely have veto power.

Edited September 7 by benjirino

[Rhaums]

3 hours ago, benjirino said:

If I may be so bold - an alternative suggestion, as I do think Alliance titles need a tweak, but perhaps in another way. I think the size of the company should decide vote power against all other members of the Alliance (EG: Insignificant gets no voting power, Tiny gets one vote, Small gets two votes, medium gets three votes etc.). Base each vote in the same way trades are done - by relevant pop of the wrestler to the company and their main location(s). So someone with high pop in South West US but poor in Tri-State would get the approval of the South West promotion(s), but not the approval of the Tri-State promotion(s) because they might be over in the one location, but not another. Require a 51% vote share minimum (or more) to get approval to change a champion, so you never have the issue of equal vote numbers.

That or expand the titles and have both - as it does seem to be more and more common for a company to loan out their title and champion to another company, in which case the primary company should absolutely have veto power.

Yeah i think they need to differentiate between titles that genuinely belong to an alliance vs a federation allowing their title to be defended in other feds