Hall of Fame Points System Mock-Up
 

So this is my HOF idea

HALL OF FAME total = 1,000 points

Grand Championship = 500 points
Secondary Title = 200 points
Had beaten a Grand Champion = 25 points
Has beaten a legend = 50 points

Any ideas?????? Because apparently you gotta muffler fuck a Maserati to become HOF

HOF aint a point scoring deal. Its for the greatest / most impactful to ever hit the site.

Its not bout stats (fully)

And the HOF being hard to get into is a compliment, not a bad thing. It should be hard.

Every league has a points system though. Obviously if they're hitting their points, they have the skill

LB's HOF is basically a knock knock joke.

But which 5-10 people were contacted for Pulse's HOF? It's ok if none. Just asking being that he did indeed receive majority Yes. Posting this here because I figured you didn't see my last post in the other thread

i cant remember mate that was months ago.

Knock knock joke? Minus one... maybe two... the LB HOF is pretty rockin fuckin solid i think. Before today ive heard very little negative feedback on the HOF.

& y'all mah fuckas like to whine about shit so im guessing the HOF is doing just fine.

1/

How am I whining? Because I'm having a discussion like an adult? Haven't insulted you yet nor have I shown any aggression so wheres this whining bullshit coming from? Can you or can you not handle a simple friendly discussion? If not, dont post anymore.

I'll @ someone else to have this discussion with because obviously you cant handle it.

But to the next guy who sees this message that can have a friendly discussion without wetting their pamper, what do you think about HOF Having a points system?

I think the problem with having a cut-and-dry points system is that every era has been wildly different as far as how easy points would have been to earn. I think something like HOF needs to be subjective.

For instance, Bobby Milk's induction page is all about how he was a marquee battler who was wildly famous and memorable at the time he was active. If we say for argument's sake this is true, I think this would make him worthy of HOF, because in his era there were very few tournaments, and most of the site's key activity seemed to happen in the basic arena. Conversely, in our current era tournaments are way more common and have become basically the only competitive part of the site where serious battles everyone takes seriously go down (with the possible exception of the PPV cards). Anyone qualifying for HOF from our era would have to have won multiple titles to be taken seriously at all qualifying. Edgeworth has already got more titles than DaDDiO and Illimit put together, and while he's future HOF in my eyes he definitely hasn't done enough yet, although DaDDiO and Illimit are two of the most clear-cut Hall of Famers you can imagine.

I do think the HOF needs a more transparent and structured approach though. Is it for the people who have had the most memorable impact on the site? The people who have had the most success? The people who have written the best bars of their time?

First of all, I'd like to thank you for responding without wetting yourself like some people.

Second. You make some fair points. But the way I see it, it's unfair for the guys who dominated back in the day and gets overlooked by the new wave of members. Personally I think @Manhattan should be HOF.. @Celcius if he wins the GC should be HOF. Mani Mula if hes not already should be HOF... Just C should be HOF...

Basically the only way to get HOF is win like 5-6 titles. That shits wack imo. Not everyone's going to do that especially since were only limited to like 1 and a half GCs a year each format

A more rigid criteria for defining who gets in wouldn’t be a bad idea. To me, it’s kinda simple though. If you’re telling the story of the site and you get, say 5-10 minutes per year to recap the history...who can’t you tell the story without mentioning? Those folks belong in first.

Good to see @ILLoKWENT going in...he sewed that up years ago.

All 3 @kikipeepee who had the most impact / most awards / best bars etc. For example @Mayneak was inducted and he's got no permanent titles.


Personally I don't see a need for a point system because I think the system in place is fine:
Someone gets nominated, people have a public discussion, the staff has a private one and if there's enough support then they're inducted. I agree with Kiwi's point about some people may have titles but we also have to consider the amount of tournaments going on at the time, we used to only have 4-6 tournaments a year, 2 were Grand Championships, so it was prestigious to have any title.

I say y'all not you lol stop being so emotional :D