FORUM HOME > TNM > Wish List
World War Three

GordbergPosted on 05/01/04 at 20:58:46

Yeah, I know it exists as a plugin, yet why can't it be on TNM itself? what if I'd like to book the winner of the match?

Which brings me up to the next question: why is battle royals limited to 50 men only?
PulsarPosted on 05/02/04 at 06:13:14

Have you ever seen more then 50 guys in a ring at once? WCW rings looked crowded with 30 in at once
John ProulxPosted on 05/02/04 at 07:50:22

I think his point is that the WW3's had 60 entrants, which is impossible as it's set up.

That brings up another possibility -- having Battles Royal stop when there are (X) men in the ring rather than just one. That would be good for both setting up WW3-style Battles Royal -- you could schedule all the winners from the three rings to meet in the final, just like in the original AND you get around the 50-man limit -- as well as setting up interesting matches. For instance, you could have the five men left standing at the end of the BR go on to face the champ in an Elimination Chamber match.

OK, I have now talked myself into wanting this option :) .
Oliver CoppPosted on 05/02/04 at 13:49:10

The reason why there's a max of 50 wrestlers in a Battle Royal is because otherwise the program would run out of memory... and that's not something one would want to happen ;-)

Having more than one (tag: two) winner in a Battle Royal could be done. However, due to the principle of early binding employed by TNM, it wouldn't be possible to use them in another match via the "winner" function.

DarkAndEvilBastardPosted on 05/02/04 at 20:17:35

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here...but didn't WCW fake the number of people in World War 3 once or twice?  Basically figuring people would lose count and not notice that there was closer to fifty?

Or am I getting my stories mixed up?

Tommy
LillaThrillaPosted on 05/03/04 at 03:47:57

Being able to stop with X guys left in the ring would be good.

Even if you couldn't use them for the 'winner' function, I've seen a number of times over the years people have had battle royales where the last 2 people left have a match the following week.
rey619Posted on 05/03/04 at 14:19:14

On 05/02/04 at 20:17:35, DarkAndEvilBastard wrote:Someone correct me if I'm wrong here...but didn't WCW fake the number of people in World War 3 once or twice? Basically figuring people would lose count and not notice that there was closer to fifty?

Or am I getting my stories mixed up?

Tommy
Yeah, I heard that as well. I think they faked the number of people in one of Smackdown's Rumbles as well, either the Battle Royal which ended in Cena and Benoit landing at the same time, or the one Eddie won.
Snabbit888Posted on 05/03/04 at 18:18:00

It was the one Eddie one.  No need to fake a 15-man Rumble.

-Nubbs
GordbergPosted on 05/04/04 at 13:54:35

Since we came to the subject of rumbles/battle royals:

In a Rumble, any way to choose two wrestlers who will be duking it out at the end of the match with both of them drawing #1 & #2? with one of them being the eventual winner and the other being the runner-up?

Best example would be the 1995 Rumble or the 1999 Rumble. suppose I'm running those two rumbles EXACTLY the way they were ran, entrances' order & all.

there's just no way I would pick Austin/Vince (in 1999) or Bulldog/Michaels (in 1995) with one of them being the eventual winner, without them eliminating each other somewhere in the process of the match instead of both men being the finalists.

That might be the best, having a "runner-up" option.