Titles

Originally Posted by EtHnic Cleansing

I only disagree with GC. That's the best of the best on LB. HOF has gotten a little loose these days so GC is the last standing greatest accomplishment you can have. The rest, sure.

I like this amendment. Make the orange titles temporary and GC permanent.

Originally Posted by EtHnic Cleansing

I only disagree with GC. That's the best of the best on LB. HOF has gotten a little loose these days so GC is the last standing greatest accomplishment you can have. The rest, sure.

I like this amendment. Make the orange titles temporary and GC permanent.

Man. Took me years to get this orange title. Fuck you for this noble.

Man. Took me years to get this orange title. Fuck you for this noble.

[ILLoKWENT]

I think it's a good idea @NOBLE take all my titles.. so if you want to keep it, you keep defending it.same wit the GC..

[ILLoKWENT]

I think it's a good idea @NOBLE take all my titles.. so if you want to keep it, you keep defending it.same wit the GC..

I sort of wish the tourny titles could be defended outside of tournaments.

I sort of wish the tourny titles could be defended outside of tournaments.

[Student]

Says the guy with "LB Patriarch" lol

Btw people, @RULE fixed the problem of keeping track of this with this section:
https://www.letsbeef.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=534

But yeah, I agree with this idea. Titles would shift to who's currently active, as it should and it would make the LBT more prestigious (But no-showing shouldn't warrant a title change, sure the challenger challenged them, the current champ agreed and they sent bars in time but that doesn't mean they would've won the battle, it should be up for grabs by the next 2 people in the LBT ranking order. I don't get why people can "skip the line" and then get a title because the other guy didn't show up).

Would Hall of Famers get a gold name or is that too much? 90% of them have GC's under their belt but not all of them do, this would help identify them when people just see their name in text.

[Student]

Says the guy with "LB Patriarch" lol

Btw people, @RULE fixed the problem of keeping track of this with this section:
https://www.letsbeef.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=534

But yeah, I agree with this idea. Titles would shift to who's currently active, as it should and it would make the LBT more prestigious (But no-showing shouldn't warrant a title change, sure the challenger challenged them, the current champ agreed and they sent bars in time but that doesn't mean they would've won the battle, it should be up for grabs by the next 2 people in the LBT ranking order. I don't get why people can "skip the line" and then get a title because the other guy didn't show up).

Would Hall of Famers get a gold name or is that too much? 90% of them have GC's under their belt but not all of them do, this would help identify them when people just see their name in text.

[RULE]

I think having permenant titles is a big part of what motivates people to enter tourneys.

Taking them away might hamper activity. Which is the last thing we need atm.

1/

[RULE]

I think having permenant titles is a big part of what motivates people to enter tourneys.

Taking them away might hamper activity. Which is the last thing we need atm.

1/

Originally Posted by RULE

I think having permenant titles is a big part of what motivates people to enter tourneys.

Taking them away might hamper activity. Which is the last thing we need atm.

1/

Word

If it's not broken don't fix it

Originally Posted by RULE

I think having permenant titles is a big part of what motivates people to enter tourneys.

Taking them away might hamper activity. Which is the last thing we need atm.

1/

Word

If it's not broken don't fix it

[Esso]

Originally Posted by RULE

I think having permenant titles is a big part of what motivates people to enter tourneys.

Taking them away might hamper activity. Which is the last thing we need atm.

1/

This. I think the potential of interchangeable titles is still slightly untapped but theres a reason bigger names crawl out of the woodwork for tournaments...theres prestige attached and you can battle against better comp than whats consistently active then not feel obligated to keep being active afterwards. It would suck to have tourney champs start to no show once they dont want to go thru the rigor of defending it...or tourney attendance go down because the favorites wouldnt be interested in sticking around to defend.

[Esso]

Originally Posted by RULE

I think having permenant titles is a big part of what motivates people to enter tourneys.

Taking them away might hamper activity. Which is the last thing we need atm.

1/

This. I think the potential of interchangeable titles is still slightly untapped but theres a reason bigger names crawl out of the woodwork for tournaments...theres prestige attached and you can battle against better comp than whats consistently active then not feel obligated to keep being active afterwards. It would suck to have tourney champs start to no show once they dont want to go thru the rigor of defending it...or tourney attendance go down because the favorites wouldnt be interested in sticking around to defend.

I actually agree with rule. I battle here and there but I enter just about any tourney I can and the title is why. People are hungry for that prestige and recognition. Maybe reduce the number of titles there are. Get rid of the one bar. Get rid of topical if that's a thing of the past.

The thing is a permanent title is a good prize. A temporary title less so. I don't usually buy lottery tickets, but if the jackpot is sky high I'm motivated to try to get in the running. Temporary titles are not as enticing a prize, so the motivation to achieve it will also be diminished.

I actually agree with rule. I battle here and there but I enter just about any tourney I can and the title is why. People are hungry for that prestige and recognition. Maybe reduce the number of titles there are. Get rid of the one bar. Get rid of topical if that's a thing of the past.

The thing is a permanent title is a good prize. A temporary title less so. I don't usually buy lottery tickets, but if the jackpot is sky high I'm motivated to try to get in the running. Temporary titles are not as enticing a prize, so the motivation to achieve it will also be diminished.

[Esso]

Originally Posted by Student

(But no-showing shouldn't warrant a title change, sure the challenger challenged them, the current champ agreed and they sent bars in time but that doesn't mean they would've won the battle, it should be up for grabs by the next 2 people in the LBT ranking order. I don't get why people can "skip the line" and then get a title because the other guy didn't show up).
.

Most #1 contenders dont skip the line....they win 3,4,5 battles in a row then write a 32. If the champ no shows, why should that contender who did everything asked of them be forced to win yet another battle? If he aint worthy, the next month's #1 contender will win and at least for his trouble, the guy who won all the battles he needed to would have 30 days to call himself champ.

[Esso]

Originally Posted by Student

(But no-showing shouldn't warrant a title change, sure the challenger challenged them, the current champ agreed and they sent bars in time but that doesn't mean they would've won the battle, it should be up for grabs by the next 2 people in the LBT ranking order. I don't get why people can "skip the line" and then get a title because the other guy didn't show up).
.

Most #1 contenders dont skip the line....they win 3,4,5 battles in a row then write a 32. If the champ no shows, why should that contender who did everything asked of them be forced to win yet another battle? If he aint worthy, the next month's #1 contender will win and at least for his trouble, the guy who won all the battles he needed to would have 30 days to call himself champ.