1 7 8 9 10 11 Previous Next 109 Replies Latest reply: Nov 13, 2013 6:03 PM by DavetheDisturbing Go to original post RSS
      • 80. Re: Accurate Zombies "Ranking System" Post (Kills to Downs Debunked Too)
        Megadog14

        I believe 10k kills is actually the minimum required for shotguns, but its been a while so I don't completely remember.

        • 81. Re: Accurate Zombies "Ranking System" Post (Kills to Downs Debunked Too)
          reluctent

          Just before the Vengeance DLC was released, the system was changed completely. Well, all I can say is that they knew Buried was one of those maps where if you get the petrifier then your set to go for rounds. Then it came to mind of glitching shortly after, I know a heck ton of unpatched glitches on that map and so far I don't blame them for changing the system, I've seen players in some of the glitches and my god do they get to high rounds, and of course get a rank up but only bearly.

          I never glitch on that map unless I'm on local play, because really that map is just too easy, sitting in a glitch would just make it boring, very boring. Running trains in compact areas adds that bit of challenge to it, even though its still easy even then. If they made it so it was a bit more challenging to get all 7 perks. I get a time bomb and grab 2 for 1, so in a matter of 1 round I would have all the perks already. (This includes handing a tip to Lucy Lane after shooting the ballistic knife at the target.)

           

          Buried: EASY

          • 82. Re: Accurate Zombies "Ranking System" Post (Kills to Downs Debunked Too)
            stonehang

            43K kills 139 downs for overall status. I got the doubleshotties with blue eyes

            • 83. Re: Accurate Zombies "Ranking System" Post (Kills to Downs Debunked Too)
              reluctent

              I had the exact same stats as you a one point then, 43K kills and 139 downs, this however was before the update so obviously I don't have shotguns, but have knife and skull.

              Well when I said before the update, more like 1 month after the game's release. But no shotguns, so whatever they did in that update, they surely changed it so hardly anybody can find out what it really is, but I think DavetheDisturbing might have actually found it, it seems something very similiar to what happened to my friend.

              • 84. Re: Accurate Zombies "Ranking System" Post (Kills to Downs Debunked Too)
                sasukeJAuchiha

                What are your stats now? I got my shotties with over 200k kills. Might still be possible for you.

                • 85. Re: Accurate Zombies "Ranking System" Post (Kills to Downs Debunked Too)
                  reluctent

                  well over 400.000 kills and just over 3000 downs( mostly due to fail gamers who I have to keep alive because their too s**t) I could get shotguns at any point, but I have just not got time for hours and hours of zombies, whenever I get the time I'll do a massive game and get past round 100, if I pull it off with shotties then its just prestige master left, which I can do anytime i choose. I'm literally in the top 5000 for kills and nearly in the top 4000 on the leaderboards. My KD by the way, even though it has no importance is 147.56

                  KD is no more than a a theory, well its just classed as a trash theory nowadays, people saying get to 300 or 200 KD and you'll get shotguns, that's out the window. The amount of friends I have that are at 200+ KD don't have shotguns, if not knife, yet their pro at zombies and played ever since the release, they were fooled into the KD scam and came out empty handed. People may just get lucky and pull out with knife or maybe their shotguns but there just ain't enough proof for KD to be that main point of the system. All I'm gonna say is that nearly all the KD belibers glitch, yet as usual don't get anything when they hit 300 or less KD.

                  I have just about finished with zombies, on the odd occassion i'll do a game, but because the game overall is that glitchy and full of issues that treyarch should have fixed ages ago, I die for stupid and utterly annoying reasons, E.G the panzer killing me from over 5 miles away with his flamethrower, or a zombie instant killing me even with juggernog and a shield without even taking any damage before he hits me. If it wern't for all these, misshaps that 3arc or activision failed to fix because they pay to much attention on nerfing guns, I wouldn't have any more than 1000 downs and would certainly have shotgun rank. But obviously like the stupid game it is, nothings fair and the 2 companies don't do anything to help.

                  • 86. Re: Accurate Zombies "Ranking System" Post (Kills to Downs Debunked Too)
                    boybad

                    Nice read but i have to disagree, you didn't debunk anything...

                    Your theory does not explain how one can get a top rank with one game just by getting 20k kills.

                    The such called rank doesn't mean sh!t, it just displays how long and often you play.

                    • 87. Re: Accurate Zombies "Ranking System" Post (Kills to Downs Debunked Too)
                      Tictacn

                      They're, as in "they are". There you go. Their rank doesn't matter.

                      • 88. Re: Accurate Zombies "Ranking System" Post (Kills to Downs Debunked Too)
                        DavetheDisturbing

                        boybad wrote:

                         

                        Nice read but i have to disagree, you didn't debunk anything...

                        Incorrect, and this is why:
                        In my title post, I included a section titled "Afore-mentioned Situation". In it, I relayed an event in which I entered multiple games and gained neither kills nor downs (bar the last one (six kills, no downs), which would increase the kill to death ratio, nullifying a "but your ratio dropped" comment), yet following this, my level dropped from four (knife/machete) to three, the skull. As none of my stats changed except for kills increasing, my level, as dictated by the incorrect kills to downs idea, would not change, if anything, it would only be possible to increase, not drop as it did. This proves that the kills to down system is incorrect and has been debunked. I believe I posted what I will below once before in the comments, however, in case extra reassurance is required:
                        Before the events of the "Afore-mentioned Situation" section:
                        (note: example stats used)
                        Kills: 10,000
                        Downs: 80

                        Level: Four.

                        The result of dividing kills by downs here is 125, which is the way of achieving the kills to downs ratio.

                        Following the "Afore-mentioned Situation" section:
                        Kills: 10,006
                        Downs: 80

                        Level: Three.

                        The result of dividing kills by downs here is 125.075. Note how this number is a higher ratio, yet my level decreases. If it was a kills to downs system, then it would be impossible for the level to decrease.

                         

                        I am aware you are not necessarily stating the kills to downs system is correct, but you did claim that I didn't debunk anything, even though, in the title post, I did.

                         


                        Note to anyone reading the title post: I am aware I used the word "quote" instead of "quota" in the "Update" section. I have been rendered unable to edit the post, however, and thus the accidental misuse of the word will remain there.

                        • 89. Re: Accurate Zombies "Ranking System" Post (Kills to Downs Debunked Too)
                          DavetheDisturbing

                          I would be interested to know as to where you gleamed this "information" (in regards to the level system changing, nothing else) from. It clashes with several things and has no mention of a source.