BestOfAllTime32

If they're hell bent on bringing back buildables, and perma perks, The ranking system could be tied to that. Would also give challenges to players. Build 500 career buildables on Tranzit to build stuff faster, that type of stuff. Buy 1000 perks to unlock perma Jugg.

Can't say I necessarily disagree. I just wonder if financially it would make sense. I guess everything is already made, just have to port it right. Some touch ups here and there, new textures, and bam you have a game. I want to see it, even as dlc for bo3, and I really hope it happens.

I don't know that a lot of people would buy it. What are we talking 1 million, 2 million, 8 million sales? It would certainly make some headlines as a great deal, similar to MCC, but would it be profitable to do? If it was download only maybe? I have no idea. It would be a good way to gauge interest in a standalone zombies game in the event COD sales continue to decline.

Would love all the maps back, and upgraded. Just don't know how realistic that is. 16 maps is a lot for a dlc, and as a standalone, how many would truly buy it (if just zombies).

Just so I understand what you mean, you mean a separate playlist for each map? Like "new" zombies, and classic? If that is what you mean, then I have two schools of thought. It would be great to go back to the OG perks and weapons, but my fear is that it would fracture the userbase, and make it hard to find games. Would certainly be an interesting experiment though for sure. He meant multiplayer as in if it was set in the future or whenever but their is a mode where MP is set in WW2. Oh, on a zombies forum, you get my confusion right? Well, I have no horse in that race.

Just so I understand what you mean, you mean a separate playlist for each map? Like "new" zombies, and classic? If that is what you mean, then I have two schools of thought. It would be great to go back to the OG perks and weapons, but my fear is that it would fracture the userbase, and make it hard to find games. Would certainly be an interesting experiment though for sure.

I am not kidding. Origins, once you get past the first Panzer, is ridiculously easy. All you have to do if you want to go to high rounds is stand in a corner, and shoot the ground with the ice staff. If you have multiple people, one with ice, one with fire for the Panzers, game over. Even if you want to run a train, all 4 staffs are very capable of killing a hoard of zombies in one charge, at least for the first 40ish rounds. Even with randoms, personally, you can have your staff built by round 11, and you become invincible. They may die often, but you won't. Origins is just way too easy to get to high rounds, the literal only thing that can screw you up, is running out of ammo. And I hope they don't make the next map (s) big just to be big. A big map is fine, if there are actual reasons for it to be big. Not like Tranzit, which was just big because it was big.

For grief mode there definitely is such a thing as too big. The best maps, or at least the two I liked best were relatively small (farm, mob). A game on Buried could go for years, and town too. Town is not what I would consider too big, just too open. As for cloud based stuff, simple things can be offset, such as the Drivitars in Forza (ai), so we could see a rise in zombie total, which would be great.

Yeah insta kill works lol It's great if you are playing with a few people you know. It would be much better if the zombie count was higher, but it's good for 20 kills per person, per insta kill. And I take offense to that not thinking of nades on 25. My best solo game was 39 with grenades only ( Warmachine counts right lol). Yeah insta kill works lol It's great if you are playing with a few people you know. It would be much better if the zombie count was higher, but it's good for 20 kills per person, per insta kill. And I take offense to that not thinking of nades on 25. My best solo game was 39 with grenades only ( Warmachine counts right lol). Bruh than you got skills haha And some luck of course. With no PHD, using grenades isn't as easy as it once was, but if you get a good amount of insta kills, and max ammos, then you are good to go if you get some lucky breaks. Running the buddha room helped too.

WW's absolutely make the map easier. Look at the Sliquifier glitches, the Ice staff is basically the same thing. Stand in this corner shoot the ground, repeat. You can have all 4 staffs by round 11, then it's just a matter of killing zombies the rest of the way. The mechs? As in the panzer zombies that are one shot kill with the fire staff, or the giant robots, that don't matter with the golden helmet. Now i'll give you that the lightning staff isn't particularly powerful, but the other three are hoard insta kills. Origins is one of the easiest maps in zombies history. If you can survive past the first panzer, you are good until you're bored.

That is the worst part about grief. I don't care too much, but it does still bug me that I have so many losses. And good idea with the MP maps. That could work, albeit some would be too big for grief for sure. If 3arc followed the idea of separate ranks for each map, rank wouldn't be a problem.

The only real problem with just grief maps would be that it would be expensive to make, and based on grief numbers, not many would play it. 3arc would have the numbers in front of them, but by my ps3 count, last game I tried to play, there was about 100 people in farm. I've seen it as low as 70. But there should be more grief stuff for sure. More maps (even if just cut off parts of other maps), and more stuff to grief people with. The best maps were the smaller ones, keep them small and tight.

Recently, the modern warfare scene has been done to death in every game that tries to be COD. Now the future warfare scene is getting light up by shooters. Logically speaking, past warfare is certainly an option. But remember just a few short years ago, WW was done to death too, so who really knows. In terms of zombies, since it is completely separate from the campaign, and multi, the game can be set in the future, and zombies can be in the past. I'm hoping personally for good maps, regardless of the setting, but if I had to choose, i'd prefer a post Origins map. As in close future to Origins. Please no 4 wonder weapons again though.

Only zombies in name and skin unfortunately. I would love multiple zombies games by different developers under the COD umbrella. Different perks, maps, guns, playstyles, maybe even modes. Zombies is obviously the most popular non mp mode, but they keep trying different stuff. I was really looking forward to Extinction, bought Ghosts, and the dlc for it, but it wasn't zombies. Not falling for it again.

Yeah insta kill works lol It's great if you are playing with a few people you know. It would be much better if the zombie count was higher, but it's good for 20 kills per person, per insta kill. And I take offense to that not thinking of nades on 25. My best solo game was 39 with grenades only ( Warmachine counts right lol).

I use grenades . Kill a zombie, it drops an insta kill, horde em up, insta kills blinking throw that nade, wipe a horde. Not to mention in solo i use claymores a lot. Easy way to end an entire round without using a weapon, at least for the first 16-20. So PAPing nades would be welcomed from me.

That's a bit too detailed to think about it. Sure there's the head guys, think tankers like you said. But then there's the guys who fallow their vision: Animators, Design artists, music developers, coders, and testers. They don't split into groups to design different things like perks and wall weapon chalk outlines. That'd be ridiculous. Their payroll would extend to over 3 hundred people. I don't know how accurate Wikipedia is, but it says 3arc has 285 employees. It certainly sounds about right. Ass Creed has a thousand that work on a game, as an example. It's a big studio, owned by the biggest publisher in gaming, and they also create the biggest game in the world (GTA withstanding). Perk machines was a bad example, but i couldn't think of anything at that moment. A gun team would be the best example for a shooter likely. The whole job is to create the guns that are in the game, once they're done that, they move on to creating the PAP guns.

Well i assume a large studio like 3arc would have guys dedicated to certain aspects of the game. Then have guys who work on a part until they can't anymore, then move on to another part. For example, you wouldn't hire three separate sound teams to work on one game. You would have one team, and when they finish a section, they would move on to another. The separate teams would be such as think tank guys, and guys who are dedicated to one thing (perk machines as an example). Either way, an extra year to bake the game, has got to bode well for the end product. Even if it is hard to wait an extra year..

I might be wrong, so sorry if I am off base, but isn't there separate teams for campaign, mp, and zombies. Like for example, didn't they say MOTD was made by the campaign team?

After the first week it was near impossible to find a game of turned. Very poorly executed game mode.

Learning the maps. The strategies, the weapons, the perks, the traps, everything. I just like knowing everything about the map. Hell I even like getting to know the zombies physics from map to map.

It would be nice to have more maps. Didn't in particular like the survival maps. They felt really cheap to me, as in a cheap way for them to "add content" to the game. Grief should return, in an expanded way. More maps for starters. Imo it was a pretty successful first go at a new mode. Turned was a pretty poor attempt.

Yep this is the reason time/xp based wouldn't work for zombies. Unless it goes to unlocking stuff just like multiplayer. Personally fine with attatchments, camo's and perma perks, but nothing like Extinctions system. I don't know about you, but getting double slapped on round 1-3 happens. And it always pisses me off lol. Personally not concerned about the rank (if it were the way you suggested), because it wouldn't effect me, but many others would be pissed.

I don't have any idea what happened in this thread... But the current system blows, and while a Destiny style bounty system to unlock some things could be fun, it shouldn't really impact the rank. A rolling system could work, but a players rank shouldn't be effected for not playing. So as you said, the average of x amount of games could work alright. The fear with this though, is someone has an early down (or 3), and they bounce to get the bad game behind them quicker. Leads me to say that the average should be taken over a very large sample, not a small one. Like 50 games, or even 100 games. Then a bad game is only a tiny % of your rank, and my theory is that less people would quit. This way we could also have a good gauge of either the persons tendency to quit games, or their internet crapping out.

I was/am, and I got max rank in a week of release. Because everyone cursed me out for being a cheater of some kind. Then if they actually stuck around to play, they would leave the second they would die. Terrible system that promotes me play.