MegaAfroMan

I dunno, a timed pause would be a nice compromise in my opinion, I mean in co-op you can have a short break here and there at the end of rounds by having people watch a crawler, but you couldn't exactly do overnight breaks without glitches or extreme communication.

Giving solo a fulland unlimited pause, gives solo a big advantage over co-op.

Maybe if there was a feature to pause the game for 10 minutes before it automatically unpauses or something it could cater to leveling co-op and solo, without making solo at a disadvantage like the lack of pausing does now.

Two of the BO2 EEs ended the match as well, so it isn't unheard of.

A system where you have to enable a feature to use it is an opt in system.

A system where a feature is enabled at default but can be disabled, is an opt out system.

Basically default on is opt out (because you have to disable it if you don't want it.)

and default off is opt in (because you have to enable it if you want it.)

I do see the benefits of not having signatures enabled by default, and Caddyman brought in several that I never would have thought of, but tome it comes down to what the purpose of the feature is and the purpose of the forum.

This forum, like most others, is a place for varied individuals to come and discuss many things and just be themselves (within certain confines).

Signatures are a vital method to highlight something about yourself that doesn't require people to enter your profile page to see, that isn't by default listed on your member info. Some use this for quptes, some for map records, some link to their favorite posts or call attention to upcoming events.

My signature is basically non-existent, and I'd be perfectly fine with not having my signature, but I still think it is wrong and against the whole purpose of our community and the purpose of signatures to default them at off.

I don't know how many users browse mobile ( I know I usually do and I've never had a problem with the site) and I don't know how many users will be fine with default off but switch theirs on, but if that number of users who switch signatures on is higher than those who knowingly leave it off (again, opting into signatures will result in many people simply not taking the time to make the decision at all and going with the default) then there is no good point to defaulting at off.

I ask that people consider whether they personally would leave signatures off, or if they'd switch them back on anyways, even if defaulting at off doesn't bother them.

Because I'm sure we have a good number of polite members here who would be okay with defaulting at off but would themselves immediately wswitch signatures on anyways. And that kind of sends a mixed message doesn't it?

On paper it will look like people don't want signatures on, but in actuality they would.

These are my opinion, my hypotheticals, and I don't mean to assert them on anyone.

But I sincerely believe that with this and most other features and systems, defaulting at off is absolutely the wrong choice for the greater enjoyment of the forum.

I'm with ZOTD on this one.

I like it, but I think it should default at ON with the option to disable them.

Just like when the @ mentions were brought in, the initial thought was to have them default at off and I'm glad that isn't how it turned out.

In order for a feature to be worth implementing, in my opinion, it MUST be experienced at least once by all users, or at least capable of being experienced without any self effort.

If signatures are defaulted at off, you'll either end up with:

Most people leaving it off because they either determine that signatures aren't something they want to see, or they never even think to switch them on.

Or

Most users with have to go through the effort of switching them on, so that the few who don't want to see signatures don't have to go through the one or two menus it takes to enable an intended, and almost core feature of these (and most other) forums.

If it comes to where most people don't view signatures, then signatures lose their point. It's a way to express something about yourself without requiring any extra clicks on the behalf of the viewers.

If it comes to where most people switch the signatures back ON then having it default at OFF loses its point.

Opting out is almost ALWAYS a better system.

For example, in some countries like the US the organ donor system is opt in, as such the number of organ donors is low.

Where as in other countries the system is opt out and in those almost universally, the number of donors is much much higher.

Perhaps not causation, but a definite and noticable correlation exists.

Why did I bring this up?

Because it basically goes to show that no matter how helpful (or intrusive depending on your viewpoint) the result of a yes or no question might be, most people are too lazy to opt at all rather than go with which option they'd truly prefer.

as such you'd be putting the entire feature of signatures at a disadvantage which then should just bring up the call of whether we want signatures at all.

Just my two cents, I almost always will stand by NEVER opt in, always make something opt out.

The situations are all too unique to make any one general rule about limiting the number of posts or topics to be started in some given time frame.

If they aren't blatantly spamming for post count, I don't really see what the problem is.

I don't know how to come up with realistic expectations, as I have little to no knowledge of coding and the limitations of certain bits of hardware.

That being said I do know some of the new hardware specs, and what newer games have been able to do with such.

We are going from I believe 2 gb RAM to 8 RAM. In games like Minecraft this contributed to a nearly 36x world size increase. The graphics are lower, but it is a ram intensive game. I can assume that we can have a TranZit sized map as densely packed with features as Die Rise and have issues only perhaps in network speed limitations rather than in RAM and processing power.

The processor is stronger, I want to say it is a quad coming from a single in the previous gen, but it might be an octo even. Previous gen migt have been dual. I cannot remember that spec as well.

But we can have more happening at once, so more zombies, or more moving things, more physics effects.

Video card is more powerful, of course, granted I thought I heard the One was using a GPU which I don't really know much about.

In the end however, Treyarch is still limited by the past because this is new territory. You get used to writing and making games designed formore limited specs long enough, you probably won't be able to think of enough new stuff to make full use of all your available power.

We'll probably see better graphics, more motion and physics, possibly more entities present in a map, and better lighting. We'll also see an increase in draw distance for detailed textures on larger maps.

Unless you've played the new one and disagree, I think you'd be surprised by how much they nerfed Meta Knight, he is much much slower and less mobile now.

My biggest advice, don't forget about your grabs, blocks, and dodges.

If you're playing Wii U I believe grabs are the front buttons on tob of the controller and blocks are the triggers. You dodge by tapping a direction (left or right) while pressing the block button.

I never use dodges and blocks enough and it always leads to my downfall.

Otherwise just learn to be really mobile with your character. Being able to recover from attacks is key in smash.

Legend is actually quite undefined.

It originally was for retired staff and users that undeniably contributed a major asset to this site.

There used to be a user group for time joined. Actually there were two.

They both got removed in the great purge of '11. I think it was '11.

Anyways, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Dogs don't have a 'right' to poop on any lawn other than their owners without it being immediately cleaned up.

Just as well dogs have to have owners. If you want to claim identity as a dog and poop on your neighbors lawn, you better have your owner pick it up, or else he/she will be fined. If you don't have someone to identify as your owner, then it's off to the pound for you.

What's all this about polygamy?

I left my definition open for polygamous to be an adjective which specifies marriage. However

Polygamy is an entirely different idea to monogamy as compared to the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

The discussion about polygamy doesn't belong here, nor does it pertain.And I'm pretty sure polygamy is pretty well taboo in the US and the rest of the Western world.

ALSO we may (usually) be anatomically one of two genders, but genetically there are actually a few different possible (and fairly common) combinations of XY XX XXY XXYY and etc if I remember anything from my gender identity unit in my Contemporary Sociological Problems course I took last semester.

And finally, slippery slope argument is a weak one, if not a complete fallacy that is recognized by almost every textbook or reference source on basic logic.

Actually tradition matters and is a valid argument. How would you like it if it was christmas but suddenly they changed the meaning of christmas and it was now about eating squid.....

Or better yet.... What if from now on your

Birthday instead of celebrating your birth, suddenły you were told you had to go outside and capture dead cats from now on.....

I think this was already covered quite nicely, but one of the central points to my entire post was logic. Tradition doesn't carry any weight in logic because if it was logical and right then, the rules of logic don't change. Just the way people bend things to make them fit within the rules.

Definitions can be absolutely arbitrary if you want. But then they don't serve a purpose. For definitions to make sense they have to serve a purpose and that purpose is to describe bits of reality. The definition of a word, should describe what that word is. Not what people think it is. Not what people thought it was. Not what God says it should be. Not what we feel it means, or even what we think it should be.

Definitions are supposed to describe what something is. Otherwise they are useless.

Marraige is NOT a religious institution. It may have started that way, but ever since Captains, Judges, and other such officials could marry couples it was no longer purely religiously run.

As soon as governments decided to assign privilages, rights, and responsibilities to marriage, bound in by law, it was no longer a religious institution.

So Marriage is NOT a religious coupling. What is it? Well, I think the most simple description is a union of some persons which binds them by legal, financial, and societal terms.

Any further derivation is easier and more efficient to clarify with adjectives, as opposed to inventing new nouns.

A coupling of two homosexual individuals by the court is a state sanctioned, secular, homosexual, monogamous marriage.

It's an issue of definition.

Some people define marriage by Christian terms, and if our country ran theocratically, then that would be acceptable and it would be ridiculous to propose rewriting the definition.

Then homosexual couplings would either have to be banned or placed under a different name.

However some people just argue that the definition of marriage is set due to tradition (not necessarily religious) and because of that it is unable to be changed. But that is just incorrect thinking. As EJ just said, what is in a name? Definitions are not fixed. We created them as humans and we can change them all we like. The trick is changing them in a way that makes sense.

Pure and simple, it does not make sense to have separate nouns/verbs for homosexual couplings and heterosexual couplings when they can simply be distinguished via an adjective, in this case homosexual or heterosexual marriage.

Through all logical means with the US not being a theocracy, and actually distinctly ruling in favor of avoiding theocratic behavior, there is no reason for marriage to NOT be redefined to better reflect the reality that homosexual couples can spend their lives together in the same strange joyful sorrow that heterosexual couples can.

The only logical alternative is to decide that the government has no rights to sanction unions of any kind, and that seperate channels should be made for people to list things such as medical proxy, inheritor, and people whom they share expenses and income with.

every single facet of this game looks like it has been directly ripped from another recent and major fps or co-op game. I'm not even talking similarity to some unknown indie game, I mean direct rip off of a major game. Like the exo abilities. Those are simply armor abilities from Halo. The mobility stuff and the exo suit? That's Titanfall. The survival? Well no shit it's MW3 survival with a little rehash of ME3/Gears of War.

It's almost comical at this point. This brand new studio in CoD making, opens up with seemingly zero original content.

Earthly doesn't necessarily have to mean "on Earth" Mocking.

Like Wintry doesn't have be during winter.

It's just a descriptor. Besides, Shangri-La as a proper noun doesn't necessarily have to perfectly follow any definition. I could name my dog Pickled Herring. Doesn't mean he is a pickled herring. Doesn't mean he isn't a dog.

Well, although I don't know if they'd check this far, but I'm fairly certain that neither of Mars' two moons can cause a total ecplise like we see on Earth. In fact actually it's a very rare thing in nature.

Our Moon's apparent size just happens to be perfectly slightly smaller than our Sun's apparent size (when at the right point in our orbit of the sun and the moon's orbit of us, and the wobbling of our axis.

Slade: what makes you say it is below sealevel and about to be flooded? What you might be refering to as waves, I see as cliff faces. I think. I'm not really sure anymore.

The Shangri-La on Mars thing has always troubled me. There is no good way around this.

Either you basically accept that the Vril-Ya either terraformed Mars, or created some sort of atmospheric bubble around Shangri-La (either of which are near omnipotent tasks.

Or you have to explain a giant red cliff face visible from Shangri-La that shouldn't exist anywhere in the Himilayas. And the Devs' constant mentions of it being true (whether they are just keeping up a long running joke/troll isn't exactly known).

You cannot say it is on Earth, because no where on Earth would mix jungles like that with those bold red arid cliffs.

It's tough to say Mars because of just how seemingly impossible that is.

Still, great read. Thanks for posting.

Not quite. Just Jay being himself.

Thanks Jay. I'm a sucker for recognition.

Well, it depends what exactly are you setting up for?

You can get to pretty damn good high rounds for most people just building the ice staff and forgetting all the other nonsense.

If you truly want to go far, there is no reason to have to rush the staves either. Lightning is the only staff that I would think mid-round aquisition past round 8 or so would be reasonably difficult.

All the riddles, and such are easy to do mid round, as is nabbing the parts for Ice, and Fire. Wind can be easy, if the robots cooperate.

If you get the ice staff (especially if it is upgraded) before the panzer drops, the staff will kill him pretty quick. No need to rush boomhilda.

But yeah, if you truly want to do everything and have it done in the first ten rounds, then yes. It is probably the most difficult set up in zombies, aside from a pre-game 300 in NML, or maybe setting MotD so that the only door to the cafeteria is the initial from start and the door that doesn't go upstairs.

If you try to go the long way around to the laundry for whatever reason, it can be pretty rough as it delays that step until about round 4, instead of on round 1.

However you rarely, if ever, need to actually do everything in Origins before that tenth round.

Never if you're not playing solo or not aiming higher than 60-70 or so.

There is a cipher in Thor's head that you can see with a sniper.

After you upgrade all the staves, the rings blink out a coded message in morse code at 0.3x speed or so.

I believe there are more, but Origins was one of the best maps for this type of thing in BO2.

BO1 had a decent share of this type of stuff, but World at War and Der Riese in particular were the hotspot for this little hidden Easter Eggs.

Although actually B01 had the terminal files, and GKNova site... I don't know. Both BO1 and World at War weregreat for those types of hidden info.

DBZ, that's why it is usually the staff I go for in co-op. I have the dial positions memorized, and can regularly get the three parts all in one round trip by myself, and I can read (and play) the notes for the keyboard in my sleep (I am a pianist) so it's something I can do mid round, any round, and usually when the map is opened up I can assemble and upgrade the whole rig in one go.

Even in solo sometimes I'll still build it, and use it during early rounds.

Depends on what you're looking for.

Ice staff is the 'strongest'. The ultimate form is always a kill, and the blizzard is actually quite useful.

Fire is extremely good against panzers, and pretty useful in general for awhile.

Lightning may not have longevity, but up until 40-50 it is the best for panic spaming. Just shoot the non-charged shots at your feet and you'll get out of any trouble.

Ice can be the easiest, but it can also be annoyingly difficult. If you're lucky, you can have it by 4, or you can be stuck waiting until 10.

Lightning is always constant. It's the only one without random elements. Same thing with the puzzle. That's why I think it is the easiest to build and upgrade.

As far as I know, for now and probably at least one or two more updates, the only difference is framerate, world size, draw distance, and I thought I heard more people per game.

I don't believe there are feature differences (other than little things perhaps) and won't be for at least one or two more updates.

See everything, I actually cannot think of any real exceptions, in the MP trailers and breakdowns so far, are all easily identified from other MAJOR shooters.

Laser guns from Halo. Armor abilities from Halo.

Double jumps and such from Titan Fall.

Random unlock packs like Battlefield.

I mean. this game has very little innovative about it.

However, as a mashup of all these big features in one game, it may actually do pretty well.

Or it might feel like a knock off version of a bunch of different games. No idea yet.

I don't quite know if that can be called a double standard in that sense.

I mean, just because there is cussing in the game, doesn't mean you need to cuss to enjoy the gameplay.

Again, I cannot speak for MMX, so I cannot fully explain how his value system works.

MMX has a very strict and somewhat unorthodox value system.

I mean he never uses words that could be classified as swear words, even in the context of names or quoting. That's why he refers to HellsWarrior as H-Warrior.

His value system basically condemns anything that couldn't be given a PG rating.

I think the first image was probably reacted to somewhat poorly. However the reactions to those reactions also could have used a tad bit more compassion. From there it seems to have just spiraled into a mess.

I personally am old fashioned, in the sense that this forum had operated perfectly fine for a long time without allowing for cussing, or NSFW photos, and I don't really think that needs to change. I mean, NSFW photos could be just linked to, rather than shown in post (even though that is still against the 'old' rules) and I really don't think we need to remove the discouragments on cussing. There are so many other words to use, I just don't see the point to remove the discouragement.

I think that IF, as it seems to be, the decision to throw out the more PG rules of this site is taken, then a simple indicator as Samara illustrated, would be much nicer than an entire section with limitations and age requirements.

The game is a Mature game, but that's just in principle. We cannot ignore the fact that the mature rating isn't law (at least in US), it's a warning. As such, a significant bracket of call of duty players falls under the age of 17 (which is the age at which M rated games are allowed for purchase without parental consent).