MegaAfroMan

The UotM was my idea on Non-staff involvement. I am against full forum voting and participation, just because of the lost efficiency compared to the importance of the award. If there are good ideas on how to set up group of staff and non-staff to decide, I'd be open to it.

Basically, In order to introduce fresh views in the nomination and voting, along with staff, I'd like to see UotM involvement. It's up to you guys to decide how much staff does, and how much UotM does, but I think it'd be a neat thing to try out. Also UotM winners should be asked if they want to be involved too. I don't forsee many people turning it down, but we shouldn't force it.

Thatd be my thought. I support Mod decision in this case. I shouldve said that before, huh?

I think for funsies you should consider allowing uotm to help with the decisions if they desire. Gives the position some neat duties. Besides, who better to locate and evaluate great topics, than the current greatest user?

I'm so glad that didn't happen to me. I just broke 60 on Origins a few days ago. Still imagining how awful that would have been makes me sorry for those unfortunate people who did lose their records. Hopefully it will be fixed quickly.

I think they could benefit yes. But my point is: Staff (or at least Flammenwerfer) thought that activity was so low that Uotm needed to be made less frequent. It does NOT logically follow from that train of thought that we should introduce a new contest that is now 8 times more frequent than the current Uotm. Either Uotm should be reinstated to monthly (I'm sure you've seen my feeble attempts to reach a consensus on that matter) or this idea just shouldn't happen. By the logic used to reduce Uotm, competitions are not a good way to try to encourage activity because it only degrades the award to "best we had in a dead time". One of these two policies cannot exist. You cannot hold that Uotm must be reduced, while saying that introducing a more frequent contest will increase activity.

It comes to the reason UotM was changed. Because of low activity. So if activity is too low to find one good user a month, how is activity good enough to support finding FOUR good topics in the same time frame? I like the idea, but you have to acknowledge the skepticism in people when considering how much more work will need to be put in, especially when there supposedly isn't enough action to support an already existing and less frequent event.

People will find reasons to complain regardless. However I suppose it could be worth a test run for each case. One week of voting and one week of just staff and/or utom and/or prior totw winner doing the voting and nominating.

TotW I am for the idea. It sounds great. I'm just not sure how to go about it democratically to be honest. It's a very short timeframe to operate it. I think it might run better if Staff, and maybe UotM and previous TotW author are the only voters and/or nominators. Just saying. Democracy takes time, and to try and honestly represent CoDz opinion on "the topic of the week" with a vote which opens and closes in less than 24 hours is sketchy at best. That being said, I wouldn't be upset with a vote persay. I just think it because "topic of the week *for those who happen to come online that day*"

I dunno, it seems to show in Binsys' test case that Grief affects rank pretty well, as he had shown with his example account which played nothing but grief, then after one survival match jumped from single bone to shotguns. It's just Grief does NOT update your rank, but it clearly affects it. Doing just one survival match will not rank you up from single bone to shotguns, so clearly the grief matches have some effect.

http://www.callofdutyzombies.com/forum/index.php/topic/155819-emblem-at-grief-mode/ Here's the topic I was talking about. BinSys (who is a real wiz with trends, patterns, and numbers) seems to believe that grief strongly affects rank, or at least on a roughly similar level to survival.

What are the multiple reasons? Sorry Mocking Me, but you seem to be getting too invested into this. I agree with the logic that a DLC would be profitable, but, I don't think it would be profitable enough for Activision to do so. So therefore it is not likely. I honestly recommend you take a breather for a 24 hour period before responding to this. I understand how much you want activity focused towards future zombies, but you've been quite pushy about telling people "NO you don't want to have new BO2 zombies DLC" Whenever someone talks about new DLC 5, or microtransactions. Clearly people want it. In my town of 50K people, I can personally account for at least 50 people who would definitely buy day one any new zombies content for BO2. Imagining 50,000 across the globe buying content is not that far fetched. You have to remember for DLC, fees to the networks, and the cost of paying the employees is the only noticable expenses. They don't need to aquire raw materials for cost. But anywho, you need to accept that people want it, and it is their right to want it. No one here is saying it will happen. So you don't need to argue that. A few people think it should happen, and quite frankly I've seen just as many good reasons from them, as I have from you.

Grief does and doesn't affect your score. BinSys did a little note on that not too long ago I think. You won't rank up until you complete a survival type match, but grief stats still contribute towards whatever factors are calculated.

Jay, Lenne is all that you need.

From what I've seen/heard the Petrifier becomes increasingly useless past round 70 or so, where it takes full or even multiple charges to kill zombies, however having infinite ammo still makes it ideal. Otherwise, Mustang and Sally can still save you if you expend both clips at once. The Raygun Mark 2 and SVU and AN-94 are all excellent choices. The Voice of Justice (executioner) with Double tap 2, and Long Barrel is surprisingly effective. Still not great, but better than most. At 50 anyways. Also I second that thought on the HAMR having too much kick. I'd rather use the LSAT or an AR.

Hello Marcel! I hope you enjoy this website. In our custom zombies section, we have information on many maps. In our teammate finder section, you can find other zombies players. Good luck! (I hope this translates well)

Damn 83457, I've never experiences almost any glitches on this map (or most other ones complained about). I've seen someone die from the tank once (not me though) and I had the game bug out during the EE on the killing the invisible zombie step. (he died while invisible and took Maxis with him permanently). Hearing about how many strange glitches you get, I think I'm starting to understand why at least once every three posts you make some comment about the terrible production of treyarch games.

I can respect that much. We have removed one element of this, but after things were removed and edited on our parts, this still stood public and if that's where it need be, than that's where it shall be.

EDIT: Too much stuff to account for. On a different note. I have already shared my thoughts on the automated message. In short: I think it's dumb. If you need it, just have it in a PM. I can go on if need be, but I'm sure no one wants that.

Chopper, even though the site is non-profit we still need to keep in mind customer service and relations, for we do still have customers in a way, and we do still want more customers.

That doesn't seem very fair to those of us who may have something to say about that who will not be involved in the staff meeting. Rule of thumb: Never hold an opinion you can't defend, and especially never post an opinion on public forum that you don't want to defend.

Mid game quits usually, not always, but usually are followed by me leaving the game right after. I don't expect to break records, but likewise I don't like playing the game knowing that IF it happens, it won't record. If it early in the match yet, I figure I can get into another match yet. If it is late in the game, then I figure I'd rather quit before breaking any records and being heart broken.