BestOfAllTime32

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..

What would suck is if Trollarch decided to only double MP and Campaign time, and spent the same time as always on Zombies

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?

^ the last time I checked a Turned game, there was one person playing. Just one... XD

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.

I would agree with you on that, But it seems like they would inevitably make that kind of structure affect gameplay. Rolling ranks are like a stat tracker, but with a conventional rank system the whole point is to feel rewarded when you reach a milestone. If there aren't good enough rewards people will be pissed. I don't want gameplay rewards for rank and I don't want people being like "I'm max zombies prestige and all I got was an emblem, wah wah treyarch ruined my life."

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 get the impression you feel hard done by with the current system and nothing will make you happy. I give up.

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.

See but that's the real problem with objectives. I don't want Who's Who. I don't want to do the Easter Egg, and I damn sure don't want to go an entire round without killing any zombies.

That's the reason objectives are a bad idea. Telling me how to play my game, is not good game design.

The actual game is kill zombies, and survive. The EE can be fun for some people, but other than a trophy/achievement, there isn't much benefit to doing it on a lot of the maps, let alone every game trying to get to max rank, instead of just playing the game.

Edit: I'm not all critical. The challenges sound like a fun way to spice things up. Something similar to Destiny's bounty system could work.

FIne, then there are two types of points: Red and blue. 

 

Red points increase the amount of points you need to reach the next rank: Downs before round 10: 100, Downs after round 10: 50 (Bad points) 

 

Blue points attribute to the amount of points you have to reach the next rank: Revive a guy: 10 points. Kill a zombie: 10 points. (Good points)

But it can't be that simple. Once the first glitch was found, everyone would be max rank, much like Tranzit. I don't know the solution, but there has to be some way that a ranking system can account for cooperation, such as reviving, opening doors, turning on the power.

Maybe the best way is to have a rank for every map, and every player count. I don't know, just spitballing. Or we could just have an expanded veraion of lobby leaderboards, that would be fine too.

It'd actually be a LOT better if one could keep track of how much XP they gained from performing different tasks: 

Save one teammate from dying out each round: 100 Points

Save multiple teammates from dying out each round: 200 (no more) 

Kill a zombie: 1 point

Kill a train: 10 point bonus. 

 

Course this way people would farm xp in SO many stupid ways.

If it was based on XP, only those who play a lot would get max rank, and in theory, someone who never passes round 10 could get max rank eventually.

The Multiplayer ranking system only works if we are going to be unlocking weapons/attatchments. At least imo.

A hybrid system, one where you unlock stuff (your number level), and another where you just get an emblem could be much better. So you get something to work for for your time, and for your skill.

The biggest problem with objective based stuff is the objectives themselves. Either they force you to play a certain way, eg the EE example you gave, or they force you to play a ton eg. Get 50000 career kills.

That's why I think skill based is the way to go. K/D ratio is not necessarily indicative of a persons skill, so less emphasis on that, and more on cooperation (it is after all a coop mode...). There has to be something they can come up with that would heavily weigh the amount of round your teammates stay alive.

It would just have to be weighted properly to account for horrid teammates who can't stay alive. A bonus to keep them alive, but not negative if they die I guess.

Map specific for sure. Everyone has maps they aren't good at.

In most cases the light at the end of the tunnel is a good thing… In this case, it means we'll get too hype, too early and it will RUIN our sleep cycles… Or at least mine…

Hey I've been scouring the internet daily for about 6 months now looking for info on zombies, it won't affect me any to do it for another 6 lol.

This is the longest I've gone without zombies, and I'm feeling that itch that only 3arc can scratch. I'm holding onto the slightest hope AW has a legitimate zombies mode, but we'll see about that.

It will be Exo-survival, with zombies instead of exo soldiers, just like the easter-egg demo.

Unfortunately that is exactly what it looks like, which is exactly why I haven't, and won't be buying AW. I will be glad to be wrong if it turns out i am, but it doesn't look like it.

In most cases the light at the end of the tunnel is a good thing… In this case, it means we'll get too hype, too early and it will RUIN our sleep cycles… Or at least mine…

Hey I've been scouring the internet daily for about 6 months now looking for info on zombies, it won't affect me any to do it for another 6 lol.

This is the longest I've gone without zombies, and I'm feeling that itch that only 3arc can scratch. I'm holding onto the slightest hope AW has a legitimate zombies mode, but we'll see about that.

There better be zombies, or COD is completely dead to me. Between all the multiplayer games, I likely have less than 10 days played since COD4. I had almost 40 days played of TRANZIT alone...

So from what I gathered from the video, it looks like survival with a zombies skin...

No thanks. I'm glad they tried something new, maybe this is the first step towards every team having a zombies mode in their game. Three separate zombies stories, and ways to play wouldn't be bad.

This however is not zombies the way we like it. No perks, box, or PAP.

 

 

I think this was just supposed to be a teaser for DLC. You get this after you beat the coop mode. The coop is basically MW3 which means some might find it fun to mess around with, but its really just MP maps with bots. Not much too it. But if you didn't know about zombies, and you actually went through all the maps to unlock the last map, this would have been a big surprise. Its a little reward that teases a new mode. Kind of sucks to know your not your not getting that mode till DLC, but if you bought the Season Pass, it gives you something to look forward to outside of MP maps.

 

From the looks of it, its most likely going to be a lot more then just running zombies. The video shows zombies in exo suits and the nicely done cutscene shows they do care about the mode and think something of it. It'll probably always start players out with nothing like the video shows, and then maybe have perks for the exo-suit to unlock, like Jugg, or double jump which unlocks new areas. I'm still not sold on the game and I'll wait for the DLC to decide if I'm gonna get it, but at least I'm interested in this game which I can't say the same about last year.

I won't pass final judgement, until I see actual gameplay, but for now, not even considering a purchase. A zombies skin isn't enough imo.

So from what I gathered from the video, it looks like survival with a zombies skin...

No thanks. I'm glad they tried something new, maybe this is the first step towards every team having a zombies mode in their game. Three separate zombies stories, and ways to play wouldn't be bad.

This however is not zombies the way we like it. No perks, box, or PAP.

Just stop talking about it. It's depressing me cause it won't happen

Often times when things make too much sense to happen they don't. So you are likely right. Can you imagine grief mode on Moon? Blocking the door to the suits would be hilarious.

Well, no they will NOT be including the maps from 2015 when their main game already has that. No profit in a zombie collection game…

Mocking, it would be very profitable.

Just put it into perspective mate.

They charge 60 dollars for normal COD 2015, a game that has taken three years to make.

They charge 120 for the hardened edition. With the hardened edition you get all previous zombies maps. But if you don't buy the hardened edition, you can still get it as a dlc for 60.

So basically, they could charge the same price as the full game, but for just zombies. Re-making is purely profitable, it would not take 3 years, but they could make the same amount as a full game.

No include of the season pass in this hardened edition.The only problem with that, is the Hardened edition would have to be the price of the zombies dlc+ the price of the season pass. They would have to charge at least 40 bucks per, plus the cost of the game. I don't know if many people would be too willing to slap down 140 bucks or more.

DBZ, I don't know what the general reception was in BO1, with the zombies only dlc, but it could be done as the same kind of thing. A 5th dlc as not part of the season pass makes the most sense if they are going to do it. Throw us a bone 3arc.

Well, no they will NOT be including the maps from 2015 when their main game already has that. No profit in a zombie collection game…

Maybe I wasn't more clear. I meant simply if they released a dlc for the 2015, that we would have 20 maps on one game. I did screw up the last part though

It was like 1am what do you want from me haha. So 15 maps for 50 bucks would be pretty nuts as a deal. The reason they would do it as dlc would be because it's more profitable than releasing it as a disc. It's basically upload it one time, and move on.

It would work just fine as a dlc. Yes it would be a ton of maps on one game, but we are talking about a 2 year wait until the next game, something that has been obviously painful for all of us.

You would have your 5 main maps from 2015, the 4 from WAW, the 6 from BO1, and the 5 from WAW (plus survival maps, and grief modes). Total of 20 plus survival and grief, remastered for the new gen, new perks (like Mule kick in the WAW maps), and of course the 2015 box/wall weapons.

That said, don't care how it happens, I just want it to. It seriously makes too much sense not to happen, just so long as it is priced reasonably, it would be a huge seller. Even a non Zombies fan (as in multi first guys/gals) would have a hard time turning down a 50 dollar 20 map dlc. The only thing is, I would think it would have to he released at the same time as the main new map, because knowing 3arc, they wouldn't want to spoil any of the new weapons, or perks.

it seems great, but am i the only one who doesnt want zombies to get too complicated?

for example i first started playing zombies on bo2 for a year or so and everygame i was always worried about my KD, so i can get the best rank.

Then, a couple months ago, i started playing bo1 zombies and it just felt so great not having to worry about your stats.

 

Am i the only one thinking this?

it seems great, but am i the only one who doesnt want zombies to get too complicated?

for example i first started playing zombies on bo2 for a year or so and everygame i was always worried about my KD, so i can get the best rank.

Then, a couple months ago, i started playing bo1 zombies and it just felt so great not having to worry about your stats.

 

Am i the only one thinking this?

As someone who started with WAW, bit got really heavy into it in BO1, the team player aspect was far more prevalent in earlier games. There were certain maps that basically forced you to be a lone wolf in BO2. There was never really a feeling of if I don't get my teammate up, the game is ruined in BO2, but in WAW there certainly was. Even in BO1, although the maps ballooned in size, you could still get to a down teammate easily. In almost every BO2 map, a down meant a death. You had to heavily coordinate what was going on if yoy didn't want it to be.

Really took a lot away from the coop aspect of the game. People being worried about stats was another BO2 downfall that the earlier games didn't have.

We all want a ranking system, but it should be more weighted on your teamwork, and less on your k/d.

I really enjoy the tasks on Origins. While they aren't objectives, they certainly aid in your survival. And as someone who occasionally hops on with rando's just to have fun, it's nice to see how many things you can accomplish. I dunno, I always enjoyed tasks in zombies. As someone who is more of a fan of moving freely through a map rather than camping or training, I like having stuff to do.

To me, if they had stopped at building the staffs, filling the boxes, and getting the airstrike, it would have been a better experience. Upgrading the staffs, should really have just been about killing zombies. If your map requires me to spend an hour setting up my 3 hour game, it isn't good design imo.

I love this idea, the only few issues I have are:

-This sounds like the same weapons will be available on each map, but that's just what it suggests, not defined.

- Level 10 on perks: NO! NO UPGRADING JUGGERNOG! EVER!

- It's kind of penalizing those whom don't play zombies… I mean if someone who's been playing for 2 years comes in with someone who just bought it, it should be as fair as it always has. Perhaps upgrading a weapon allows more attachments (and PAP camos), and perks don't get upgraded via XP.

The idea of penalizing players for not playing your game, is basically the literal point of a ranking system based on time.

That is the way it is, and a time (XP based) system wouldn't be a system without that penalty.

Truthfully, a time based system is completely fair. That said, they shouldn't be thing that would legitimately alter gameplay. Challenges for bonuses would be better, then it becomes skill based not time based. If you need 500 nade kills for a bonus to explosive damage, in theory, everyone can get that bonus, where as if you need 50 hours played to get the same bonus, the amount of people that get it is going to be less.

The problem of course becomes the best players get advantages, and the worst players don't. In a game like zombies, where it is coop based, that isn't necessarily as big of a deal. But in grief mode, it would have to be a neutral playing field.

I mean say you had 500 headshots for bonus headshot damage, 500 nade kills for bonus explosive damage, bonus non WW damage, and bonus WW damage bonuses equipped in the same game (in a create a class style), then you are going to be pretty over powered.

The rich get richer isn't a situation we should be encouraging, although it would be nice to have something to work towards.

That's why I am more for things tlmore along the lines of starting with max ammo for your starting pistol, maybe at max level unlocking a starting room wall weapon. Just nothing that is going to break the game and make it too easy.

See I don't think that's an issue. In MOTD it spaces things out just right so early rounds you're hitting the box, then later once you've opened up the whole map you can get to PAP, where as maps like tranzit let you hit the PAP after opening 2 doors and is COMPLETELY tedious. Origins it felt like you built up from nothing as the map progressed, now, upgrading the staffs WAS just tedious and kinda pointless, but building the staffs, the shield, and the power situation, I felt like that was nice, maybe not for every map, but to see again.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. The building of the plane as a one off would have been 100% fine, but doing it 3 or 4 times a game was a little much.

Tranzit though absolutely takes the cake, you are certainly right on that. What an absolute waste of time. First off getting a turbine from bus depot (obviously depending on the time you are PAPing), going to power, then going to town, I mean come on. Most games I played, because basically a down in Tranzit meant a death, we had to stop the game completely for someone to PAP. If we didn't, then the person would die, and repeat the cycle.

As for Origins, I hated upgrading the staffs. It was so boring. The one thing I did like about Origins was the Airstrike. That was a legitimately interesting way to get a reward.

However in order to get to my favourite training spot I either had to choose not using a staff, or doing the entire EE. Most of the time I chose no staff on solo, but I dare anyone to try that with a group lol.