MegaAfroMan

I do hope plans call for removing the ads if donations reach a high enough point to pay the bill for a month or a few months or whatever need be.

I understand the difficulty in getting seven people to decide on something in a short time, however i do hope you continue to search for thos5 other people to at least give it a practical test run.

I'm not criticizing. You guys have done nicely with it so far. I was just wondering if the committee idea had progressed or if a new one had taken its place.

I'll have to play Der Riese again to get a good look, but sometimes people make leaps that don't actually exist, and then try to use that leap as fact. Such as the claim that Dead Ops Arcade was giving us a preview of all the future zombies maps.

Well, then I do hope that Chopper will give me a response. I'd be most appreciative.

A specific panel of staff members? All staff? All staff that can respond in time? I'm just curious. I like to know how things work.

Forgive me for being uninformed, but who is deciding the winning thread?

Actually this IS the thread to discuss legitimacy of Benn as a source for the data put into the OP. Or are we supposed to make a new thread called "legitimacy of Benn's data in the Beta of Zombies thread"? That's just ridiculous. This is NOT the thread to discuss the "what if" ideas around these discarded ideas. From what I can tell this thread is just to catalogue the discarded or changed mechanics and ideas in zombie's development.

Winter's Howl, 'cuz baby, I'm cool like that.

Shi No Numa, Farm, Nuketown, are three I absolutely try to avoid. Buried, Bus Depot, Tranzit, and Nacht, I don't like playing often. Verruckt, Ascension, CotD, Shangri La, Town and Die Rise I play sometimes MotD, Moon, Five, Kino, and Der Riese I play often. Origins has taken my top slot as most played.

Has Sledgehammer been absolutely confirmed as the lead developer? I'm uninformed.

I never play solo offline, so I don't know if there any bugs exclusive to that 'mode', but otherwise, the only things that come to mind for you to try if this is a repeating problem for everygame, is to uninstall your DLC and redownload it, clear system cache, and if you're on Xbox, try installing BO2 to your harddrive from the disc.

The piano can be very finicky if you accidently hit an extra note, it doesn't like to reset, so it'll count the next two notes you hit (first two notes of your next chord) with that extra note to make a chord (usually the incorrect one) and then that final third note you play will become the new extra note. You just have to leave and come back a round later or so and hope you can get it right that time. The switches, well, unless you're playing solo, aa growing number of people start preping that step before anyone gets any of the staves, so it may be that someone else in your game already turned all the other switches or most of the other switches. Otherwise I can't say I've ever had that particular problem. Sorry.

I would like to make a claim: The @username feature would function at its most optimal condition with notifications being turned on by default, and only turned off by means of an "opt-out" system. My reasons: The purpose of the function is to be able to call a thread or post to a specific user's attention without having to PM them seperately. Unless I missed something, this is the ONLY real reason to allow this feature. Therefore I assume the staff are on board with the fact that this idea can be beneficial. If the system is an "opt-in" then chances are many people will not take the effort (either by ignorance or apathy) to not turn on their notifications, which makes the feature pointless to use for those members. We do not have any means (other than trial and error, and simply asking) to tell whether the individual who is attempted to be summoned has notifications enabled. Because data has shown many times that in the case of an opt in v opt out feature, making something opt in, makes it far less likely to be used, than the EXACT same feature set to opt out, simply because unless people are motivated to either turn it on or turn it off, they will stick with the default option. The primary argument against this feature is that it may be misused and annoy members who get notified too frequently. If those members (and every other member who isn't enthusiastic about this idea) have to take extra steps to "opt in", chances are they'll just stick with the default and stay out. However without participating they have no grounds to determine if the feature would annoy them, and by not participating they are weakening the effectiveness of the feature making it more redundant. I conclude with saying that if it is made defaulted at on, then membes will usually only take the effort to turn it off if they find it annoying, which was the only reason given against the feature in the first place, therefore making the system run smoothly, and giving, at least initially, the most practical power available to this feature ensuring that the first few uses will be guaranteed to work allowing for more truly representative testing. Even after the initial users determine if they think it's worth the effort to turn off, chances are a large portion who would have stayed at the default "off" because of lack of motivation, would also stick with the default of "on" for a similar lack of motivation, still ensuring that for the majority of users, the feature will work as intended.

Where could I make and defend a claim regarding the @ username function? I'd like to submit that the @ username function should default at "on" and be an "opt-out" system, rather than default at "off" and be an "opt-in" system.

Clay: A discussion can be made on micro-dlcs as a whole. with just cosmetic micro-dlc there really isn't much in the way of ethics, sure, but there do exist games in which micro-dlc allow someone to buy an "edge" in a game. That is what I was refering to. Granted, I don't like that over half of the available skins, are price locked. They are purely cosmetic, but it leads into other concerns, at least for me. Liam/Nathan: I don't think I'd count cash cards as micro-DLC. Everything in game can be attained rather easily without needing to touch really money. Although GTA makes it enticing, with all the very expensive items. Mass Effect 3 multiplayer was a remarkable, balance of allowing real money purchases, but not making them very necessary at all. What you could buy for 4 dollars only takes a few in game missions to accumulate the required funds. Along with that, that 4 dollar (99000 in game credits, a handful of missions) is the most costly purchase. Plus with the contents of each purchased pack being primarily random, although you could spend large amounts of real money, it'd only make you 'better' slightly faster than just playing the game.

the discussion about the ethics of micro-DLC doesn't belong here. It could, however, be a good topic for a different thread.

Again, amazing formating! This strategy reads very simple, yet I imagine it could be quite effective, especially for those that may have trouble with any guides which only suggest maximizing spawn speed. Do update to let us know how far you can get with this, and thank you for posting another well thought out guide!

I think the solution to the future zombies section just is better moderating and cleaning really. Guidelines for acceptable posts need to set, refined, and enforced. Most of the theads in there could be thrown in the graveyard with little to no notice or remorse.

You know the game already comes with a feature to exclude those with less than optimal connection, right? Last I checked no where does it say ultra-high speed internet is required to play the main game. Excellent defense, Mocking. I need to think more about the idea. I don't feel like it can work out too well, but I'm not sure why.

Looks like a very solid strategy for those more interested on safety, and less interested in spawn speed. I look forward to your future writings!

Ollie! My good ol' pal! Great to see you back!

Mob of the Dead solo completely throws this off, as you can easily get an additional 20 or so zombies to spawn on round one.

Mob of the Dead, almost is a completely different experience to me from the traditional zombies. The lack of open areas, the strange assortment of box weapons, the unusual (and expensive) boss, the many hidden features, and the Afterlife mode all seperate this map. Individually I would have told you most of the features in MotD would be absolutely broken. Drop grabbing, always insta-kill boomerang tomahawk? Self refilling Super quick revive/who's who? A melee that works until 34? A shotgun that distracts zombies? Death machine in the myster box? Very very few valid running areas? All of these sound so preposterous to what is zombies, yet MotD balances it all almost perfectly. It's zombies, in a fresh way. I think Origins did a better job, gameplay wise, by just a little bit. Otherwise MotD is my second favorite zombies map. It is excellent. It has also tied with, if not surpassed Verruckt for the best atmosphere.

As silly as it is, even if all the maps were playable in their original form (same mechanics such as W@W sticky zombies, and the double swipers of BO), and the only addition was new achievements, and better leaderboards/matchmaking, I'd buy them all as a standalone full price game. I'd much prefer it if they were all updated in some ways though. such as: being able to choose for each and every map between BO1, BO2, and W@W box weapons Adding in a Wunderfizz where Mulekick is in the BO maps, and into the BO2 maps. New minor easter eggs, or cross injecting weapons/perks/wonder weapons in the maps (ie Wave Gun on Die Rise, Blundergat in Ascension) I think it'd be really stellar if they reskined the BO and prior maps to look like the style of Nuketown zombies. All destroyed and beautiful. But even without any additions at all, I'll still definately buy it. I may hate myself for it, but I'd buy it in a heartbeat.