BestOfAllTime32

But what about the one finger salute orgins gave to the story? And wouldnt it lead to shi no numa/verruckt instead of the future future Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk That's possible. The time period. The important thing to remember is that going into the past, there are rules they have to follow, where as into the future, there is no rule. Say they go 500 years into the future, Dr./Sam, do not have to be the controlling party. Sometime between Origins, and MOTD someone else took control of the zombies (red eyes), so explaining the roots of that persons reign could be a possible map. Maybe in the future Stulinger can take control, or one of the others. Who knows really. Edit: I should say, I have done the Weasel side of the MOTD EE, but I don't remember it. Was it him that was controlling the zombies? If it was, who was controlling them before the final step?

We kind of have that, Nuketown, Tranzit, Die Rise. I think we should be looking at the final map, Origins. In BO1, Moon was the final map, and the next maps were set after the events of Moon. So my theory is, we will be in a WW1 era, leading to future by the end.

I understand what you mean. So like COTD then? I can get down with that. I misunderstood what you meant originally. The VR11 was an interesting dynamic.

I did forget about Nuketown, but I don't include the ripped out pieces of Tranzit as maps. Same thing with Grief maps, if you want to be absolutely technical then yes they are maps, but not exactly what I bought the game for. You are right we don't know for sure that they will ever make a game again, hopefully IW is the ones that stick to map packs...

I'm sure that the decision was made years ago. It had to have been made at least by BO2's release to give SH the three year cycle, or at least by Ghosts to give them the regular 2 years of development time. So the decision was made before the abomination that is Ghosts was known about (publicaly at least), or before the lack luster showing that was BO2. Hopefully 3Arc can get back to the BO1 level of zombies. This literally just occurred to me, but assuming this is a 5 year gen, there would only be one zombies game on ps4/xb1... Hopefully it's 6. And Activision is the biggest publisher in the video games industry, and COD is one of the biggest games, Treyarch did not go under. Not even close. Just think about it this way, COD, WOW, Skylanders, and Diablo. Activision is beyond fine. This is erroneous to assume Coupled with the fact that as consoles have become more and more advanced, it has also lengthened their lifetime. I mean it could easily be 8-10 years before another "major" release (aside from what im sure will be a "slim" model, a cheaper less memory model, and all sorts of special editions) And as it stands, games are still being developed for only xbox 360 and ps3 (not many but some) so technically that gen isnt even fully over. Although in theory it sounds great to give each studio an extra year to design each game, i just don't have any confidence that it will be better in practice as far as the games being noticeably better. What I see right now, is rather than getting what could have been 5 games w/ zombies by 2016, ill only have 4. And for me personally less isn't more with zombies The only gen that was anywhere near 8 years was last, and that's only the 360 (ps3 was 7). In theory it could make financial sense for everyone involved to have a 10 year gen, but eventually the devs will max out what the systems can do, and it no longer benefits us, other than we don't have to spend 400/500 bucks. And I completely agree about the length. It's fine and dandy for the multi guys, there will be multi every year, but for us we have to wait 3. I can see myself skipping the 2nd release of the three year cycle if the next one is as underwhelming as BO2. Oh an just for the record, it really isn't that ridiculous to assume a short gen. We have two companies that arr getting absolutely trounced in sales, the only reset button for them is the next gen. Both MS, and Nintendo will want a short gen if things continue down this path. Edit: I'm all over the place, but assuming as much content as BO2, we will get 5 maps for the next game, and then in 2018 we will get another 5. So we would have gotten 15 maps by 2018 before. I am completely with you (and I'm sure everyone else here is too) on that one. What a giant kick in the you know what. The only hope I have, left is that they include far more content, and have more zombies map packs in the next ones.

I'm sure that the decision was made years ago. It had to have been made at least by BO2's release to give SH the three year cycle, or at least by Ghosts to give them the regular 2 years of development time. So the decision was made before the abomination that is Ghosts was known about (publicaly at least), or before the lack luster showing that was BO2. Hopefully 3Arc can get back to the BO1 level of zombies. This literally just occurred to me, but assuming this is a 5 year gen, there would only be one zombies game on ps4/xb1... Hopefully it's 6. And Activision is the biggest publisher in the video games industry, and COD is one of the biggest games, Treyarch did not go under. Not even close. Just think about it this way, COD, WOW, Skylanders, and Diablo. Activision is beyond fine.

The way the Xbone's price has been dropping, it will not he shocking if next year you can get one for 249 on Black friday. Not to mention PS4 could very well have a pricecut, and very likely will next year. If you can't save 400 bucks up over a year, than not only do you have the wrong hobby, but you likely aren't able to buy COD yourself anyways...

I really hope it isn't, porting the game back to the inferior consoles will mean we won't get a better running game then BO2. And that SUCKED! It should be 100% for next gens only.not everyone can afford a PS4 or XONE, you should know that and i hope they bring back skins for the boxThis may be true, but let's be real, at the current rate of ps4/xb1 sales, the current gen user base will be pretty close to 40 million by the time 2015's COD rolls out. There is absolutely no reason to build a game for the few stragglers that are left behind on old gen tech, and it will mean a better game for everyone if they do. As for a list of stuff, customization, more perks to choose from, next gen only, expanded leaderboards, and more maps, and modes.

That's unfortunate. Shared wifi is horrid. I suppose it might not be bad at 3am when everyone is asleep, but during the day it is the worst. Re: hacking in early, yep that's the problem. But we all know these companies want an all digital future, so at some point the have to give people some incentives. I just looked at AW last night on the Canada psn store. 69.99 for the base game, 109.99 for the one with all dlc. In theory that's 20 bucks off of the game + dlc separately, not to mention the taxes. So I am buying AW that way, once I find out what the coop mode is, or they have one of those spend x get 10 back events.

Well, hardwiring has it's advantages. When I used wifi, it took 30 mins, stick the cable in there and you cut the time in half. It's fantastic. I know it isn't an option for everyone on a permanent basis, but running the cord just to do the download should be considered. Plus over the past two years, my internet went from 30mbps, to 60, to 120. My router only sends 60 via wifi... I check the internet service website every couple of months to see if they have upgraded my service. The last 2 times the top package was the same price as the one we were already paying. The only thing that sucks about my internet, is the bandwidth cap. 475GB's isn't as much as you think it is.

This needs to happen. I have decent internet, takes me about 10 minutes to download dlc, but the guys I play with have bad internet, the worst takes 1-1.5 hours. This way we could just all play the second the dlc is dropped, instead of me waiting for them at 3am lol.

Bigger can be better, but in BO2 it just led to tedium. Take the Origins EE for example. Today, I played a 5-6 hour game, it took well over an hour to get to 20 doing the EE so we could continue on. For the next 41 rounds, excluding breaks, it took just over 3 hours. A complex EE is good, but Origins isn't complex, just tedious, especially on solo... A map like Tranzit is big just for the sake of being big. There is so much useless space between useful spots, and basically a down meant a death. For all of the things that BO2 did very well, they messed with very simple things that made BO1 such a great game. In any BO1 map the way you were spaced out meant there was a great chance you could revive a downed teammate, even if you were on opposite sides of the map. In BO2, in every map, if you were too spaced out, reviving a mate was impossible. Try and revive someone downed at town from Dinner, or someone at the docks when you're in the cafeteria. How about gen 3 to gen 4, or the Buddha room to the roof top. It just won't work 9/10 times. I agree about the ranking system, that is why I think a hybrid system would be best. Have a time based one (multi) to go along with a skill based one. I don't mind playing with people that aren't good, but they go down 4 times and leave because they don't want to lose rank. It isn't right, so the time based would show that they put a lot of time into zombies. Expand the leaderboards, and make them visible without being friends. It couldn't be that hard to include melee kills, WW kills, and total games played and completed (just a %). You want more WW's? 3 people with RG's, and a fourth with the sliquifier isn't enough? What about 3 people with RG's, and all four with staffs... The two Blundergats, the list goes on. There are far too many as is, they are a part of the game now so taking them out is going to be impossible, but adding more is not a solution. We aren't meant to be super heroes running around with one hit kill weapons.

If we were talking about classes that allowed you to spawn with a Mauser, instead of the M1911, or max ammo for your starting pistol, I wouldn't personally oppose. When we start talking about special abilities, is when you lose me lol.

I've always thought it would be neat to upgrade perks, except for Jugg. Just make it incredibly expensive, like 10x the actual cost of the perk, plus a baseline of something that has to he met before you can do it. Then they added the perma perks, and QR in particular was instant... Not as big of a fan as I thought I would be. Still without the perma perks, and at 10x the cost to upgrade, I could see it as progress. Certain perks would have to he excluded, Mule Kick (because who needs 4 guns), and Jugg at minimum. Then again if you want yo pay 40k for a 4th gun, I guess have at it.

And i thought i was the OP nazi. Unlimited ammo, as in the death machine? Something already in the game? Also you just proved your noobiness a bit. Tank seems the most attractive but it is actually the worst class. For someone who almost exclusively uses bullet weapons, an additional 20% damage is huge... An extra .4 hits (well really an extra full hit since you obviously can't be hit .4x) is also huge. As is, with a shield, you can turn into a corner, wind the monkey and toss well before you die, if you add another hit, it just makes it easier. And maybe you didn't understand what I meant about the claymores. You want to have 3 claymores, at 2x normal power, basically 6 clays. Now mind you I have never bothered, or thought about testing such a thing, but I imagine 6 claymores would take down at least a round 42 zombies, since 2 can easily take out a round 33 hoard with a few crawlers kicking around after. I am an OP nazi btw. Completely against a lot of the things already in the game, wonder weapons included.

It better be. I don't know if I can handle another 3 years on BO2 like maps. Die Rise was horrible, and Buried was boring. At least with the 2 year cycle, I could have played and replayed the same 3 maps I liked over and over, like I currently am, but with a 3 year cycle I'm not sure if I can keep playing these maps. Well If you include the top 3 maps from all 3 games that's 9 maps. Well, in theory. But I doubt that there is any consensus as to what the 9 best maps are. For me, BO1 holds 4 of them, WAW 3, and BO2 2. If you meant as an add on to the ps4/xb1 zombies, then hell yeah. There should be a dozen maps that would be never ending fun if they do that, upgraded mechanics, and weaponry, maybe perks. I'm all for that.

It better be. I don't know if I can handle another 3 years on BO2 like maps. Die Rise was horrible, and Buried was boring. At least with the 2 year cycle, I could have played and replayed the same 3 maps I liked over and over, like I currently am, but with a 3 year cycle I'm not sure if I can keep playing these maps.

I use a lot of explosives (around 20% of my 580k kill), and every insta kill I use nades to wipe out my hoard to conserve ammo. It doesn't just stutter for me, it's everyone, so I have to warn people. It will be nice when that is no longer an issue. Anyways, I know you know that. Another thing that will he interesting is if they can get rid of gspawn errors. I've only had that happen to me 2x in bo2, but it happened a lot in BO1. The new boxes present a huge potential advancement for zombies in particular, compared to the multi. All the headroom can be used to get rid of the little things like that, and I hope they do it.

If BO3 (or whatever name they choose) is in fact next gen only, I expect a lot of things to change. Not just resolution, a better frame rate, and no pop in, that stuff is a given. What I expect to be the biggest change is all the stuttering. By stuttering I mean when you shoot 5 bullets from the executioner, or wipe out an entire hoard on insta kill. Not to mention all the other crazy things the next gen consoles should be able to do over the dino's.

Prince, it's all just too OP. Besides 10% more health, as in 4.4 hits with Jugg? 10% more bullet damage is just too much as well, especially since dt2 gives you double bullet damage, so essentially the tank would have 220% normal damage. 10% quicker healing would be much better. Pulling out a gun with unlimited ammo? Come on. Ninja actually isn't too OP, minus the invisible thing. A double damage claymore? Way too powerful. As is a claymore can easily wipe out an entire hoard of zombies in the mid 20's, 2 can do it well into the 30's, you want to double them up, and give an extra. That would last until 45 lol. Survivor isn't too bad. Just take away all of the extra abilities, they would make the game too easy, and all of the OP bonuses.

I seriously doubt that changing any box weapons would impact the game in the slightest way. Maybe changing the WW's would, but a Galil for an AN isn't going to do anything. I can see your argument for being able to customize said weapons, but let's be real here, nobody is one weapon away from their best round going from 20 to 65. It just isn't going to happen, even if they could get the three most OP WW's all at the same time on the same map, at best for a normal player that would add tops 10 rounds. Change is good, especially to a stale system.

Time based rankings don't tell you much other than how much someone plays. Theoretically you could get max rank never getting past round 1. For an unlocking system time based makes perfect sense, not for a ranking system.

Love the picture lol. And I don't really know how the coding works, but as a basic understanding, changing one thing can change something else. Like during a firesale I hit my box, get the blundergat, and you hit yours and get the paralyzer. Now we both have WWs. Or how the shield for example allowed people to find hundreds of spots to glitch in. Maybe addung that in glitches a wall, or something.

Yup, or exchange it for another weapon like it. Exactly. It wouldn't be game breaking in the slightest to have 15 unlockable weapons that you could swap into the box for another in its class. So a chainsaw for the lsat, etc. The attatchments would also be cool because it gives you something to work for, even with crappy guns. You would always be working towards something, which adds to the replayability. They could even, with an ammo upgrade have detrimental effects. Get incendiary ammo, which has higher damage, but zombies explode, stun rounds, but zombies send out a shockwave when killed that slows you down. It would also be really cool to have a permanent wonder weapon. Say for example you really like the Blundergat, you could get the blundergat out of the box on any map, but you couldn't get the sliquifier on Die Rise, and as usual only 1 person can have a WW. A customizable wall weapon slot would be cool too, Buried was awesome for that, even if I hated the map. Just give us 10 guns to choose from, and let us put them where we want. Maybe even let us take a gun we built and include it as a wall weapon. I truly believe/hope they are working towards that. With the chalk in Buried, and the wall weapons with attatchments in the box in Origins. The next logical step is to give us a little freedom. My only reservation is that it might be a coding nightmare for them. 4 players, all with different loadouts might lead to some pretty bad glitches. If that is the trade off, I wouod rather have nothing.

My personal favourite training spot is in the footprint by gen 5. In solo games I just run the crazy place room, 3 guns, the two wall weapons, and boomhilda/mk2 RG. Any ways cherry saves your life a lot of the time. Short bursts of fire, reload, short burst, reload, with a shield, and cherry you may as well be invincible if you have a staff, mk2, or boomhilda. I don't mind the shield, just wish there was an actual detriment to having it. Keep in mind I also wish there was no wonder weapons though. I'm all for punishing the weaker players. I'm sure just about everyone here could handle no WW's, most others most likely no. The only WW I legitimately like is the Blundergat, and I don't like to use it either.