SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

[Cubfan]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

I just sent a tweet to Stephensonmc asking about this

[thescoop]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

I agree this isn't a deal breaker, but I want to control EVERYTHING! I mean if I want to the title to change hands on FREE TV I should be allowed to make that happen. Not a deal breaker because I do understand what they are going for. Still, some of the lesser titles need to be on RAW or Smackdown shows to make them more interesting.

[goh]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

Though for that matter how are titles supposed to mean more if they're defended less? Miz sure brought credibility to that US title. Fighting champions with long reigns is what makes them mean something.

[thescoop]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

Though for that matter how are titles supposed to mean more if they're defended less? Miz sure brought credibility to that US title. Fighting champions with long reigns is what makes them mean something.

Very true. Plus no stories like Mick Foley winning the title on Raw, Kane winning the title and loosing it back to Austin the very next night on Raw. These are the types of things that Wrestling lost ever since it became more "titles only change hands at PPV." Makes things too predictible. I was hoping this wouldn't be the case in Universe and is why we don't want it this way.

I want the titles defended when i want them defended. My WWE Universe I'd rather see the titles on the line often and even switch hands at house free tv shows. These are the very things that real wrestling should get back too and a video game should definitly allow.

Now I'm going to step off my soap box and relax.

[Simple Mathematics]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

I have a question.

Since titles can only be defended against #1 contenders, does that mean title matches can only be 1 on 1? Or is there a way to have multiple #1 contenders so we can have triple threats, fatal 4-ways, etc. for a title?

[goh]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

The title holder can fight twice:



Here's the rankings screen:



Yes the title can be defended in multi-person matches. Dude is trying to figure out how to cash-in MitB.

[PantherBeast_OS]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

As I looked back at some of the Universe mode vids, every match is a title match at all of the PPV's....


Stop with these restrictions please...

Yea bro I got agree the restrictions thing is stupid. It's been on going for years now in Svr Serias and fans are sick of it. I think they should not limit to what you can do in your on universe. But yukes always mange to do something or anoth to restrict fans from doing certain things in the game. It sucks big time. I hate it aswell.

[evilc08]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

Very true. Plus no stories like Mick Foley winning the title on Raw, Kane winning the title and loosing it back to Austin the very next night on Raw. These are the types of things that Wrestling lost ever since it became more "titles only change hands at PPV." Makes things too predictible. I was hoping this wouldn't be the case in Universe and is why we don't want it this way.

I want the titles defended when i want them defended. My WWE Universe I'd rather see the titles on the line often and even switch hands at house free tv shows. These are the very things that real wrestling should get back too and a video game should definitly allow.

Now I'm going to step off my soap box and relax.

This sums it all up. Yes it's not a dealbreaker, but needs to be changed. Especially if the only title shots go to number 1 contenders always. No reason for these restrictions.

[Anaxamander]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

Looks like a workaround has been found already:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/996718-wwe-smackdown-vs-raw-2011/56880077

[thescoop]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

interesting. I'd still rather a true fix and not just a workaround. At least we have something for now.

[bruinsftw2k]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

Though for that matter how are titles supposed to mean more if they're defended less? Miz sure brought credibility to that US title. Fighting champions with long reigns is what makes them mean something.

Exactly, giving titles meaning means giving a champion a long title run and making successful defenses not defending only at PPVs, how does that make it more meaningful?

[JeterFan02]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

Exactly, giving titles meaning means giving a champion a long title run and making successful defenses not defending only at PPVs, how does that make it more meaningful?

I have to agree as well. More meaningful = more defenses especially impromptu matches!

[NYBorn81]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

Strange idea. I think it's pretty cool but does not reflect the real wwe at all. There are title defenses every week on free tv.

No they're not. Outside of the tag belts, the occasional feud (ex. Kofi Kingston/Dolph Ziggler), and the divas belt, the main titles are rarely defended on weekly television.

[vernond]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

No they're not. Outside of the tag belts, the occasional feud (ex. Kofi Kingston/Dolph Ziggler), and the divas belt, the main titles are rarely defended on weekly television.

Not being nitpicky but all those belts you mentioned are still titles, I didn't say anything about the WWE or World title exclusively. Between the three tv shows there is probably at least one title match a week.

[NYBorn81]

Re: SvR titles can only be defended at PPVs

The IC/US titles aren't defended on weekly television, the tag titles are probably defended once every two weeks, but that's because they're pretty meaningless now. The Divas title is also rarely defended on weekly programs...Just saying, titles aren't defended on weekly television on a normal basis.