I really don't see why no skill system is better than a potentially flawed one. Only 1/10 objective games I join have people actually trying to win. People are motivated by rewards. In chess, basketball, or whatever the reward is winning. If you lose at chess you don't make a youtube video of how you captured all 8 of the guys pawns. However in cod everything is centered around kills. The KD is the "best" statistic, killstreaks reward you for kills and in turn boost your KD, calling in those killstreaks unlocks emblems, killing with weapons unlocks weapon emblems, and pretty much everything encourages getting kills. There is no point at all in winning. They could remove the enitre score system for every game mode and replace it with a timer and people would be happy since they'd get more kills. In fact removing a timer would be even better since then you could get unlimited kills.
All very true....but what you could do, is simply say that IF your team loses an objective game, you dont' credit for any of your kills, killstreaks, emblems or anything else.
That would be funny.
Oh god, imagine the tears!
Also, as someone else said, de-ranking wouldn't be a problem if there was just a social playlist to hop into... and realistically, as far as problems go, it's super small potatoes.
One of CoD's main "problems" as a game is the fact that winning has lost value among the casual player base. Having a competitive playlist where even if you won with a 1.0~ ratio after a tough match you'd still feel like you won... these days winning with a measly 2.0~ ratio feels like a mediocre game at best.
Re: Why no elo system in cod? « Reply #31 on Jun 15, 2012, 1:03am »
I'm all for splitting the matchmaking Halo style. I think tracking "competitive" wins separately from "casual" wins, but NOT k/d or any other stat, would solve the boosting problem nicely. If you want to pad your k/d and you have half a brain, you aren't going to do it in a playlist where the other guys are probably as good as you and have a rank on the line. Disallow joining "competitive" games in progress, also. This is critical to the integrity of any win based ranking system. Similarly, disconnects are to be tracked separately from wins and losses.
Scrubs need never enter this playlist if they don't want to, and k/d boosters (who depend on the scrubs for their inflated numbers) will soon learn that their prey is elsewhere. Who is left? People that play to win.
I'm not saying pubstomping is evil and has no place in the world, or that there should be an IQ requirement to logging on xbox live. At the same time, I don't see what harm a little segregation could do. Surely the drooling ten year olds and alcoholics will be happier in lobbies not populated by people like me, and people like me would be even happier still.
The principle problems I see with this system are mechanical. The CoD community isn't known for its patience, and not dropping people into games in progress will mean longer waiting times to find a lobby. The fact that the "competitive" section of the matchmaking community is liable to be considerably smaller would do little to help, and would probably create connectivity issues as well (which would be even less welcome in a competitive environment than elsewhere).
Still, I think it would be a worthwhile endeavor. Hell, maybe it would give the developers some incentive to update their netcode.
Joined: Nov 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 1,642 Location: Europe
Re: Why no elo system in cod? « Reply #32 on Jun 15, 2012, 5:10am »
@ mw2baller > I never understood why they don't have a level system based on player skill rather than playtime. Personally I think it'd solve a lot of problems.
I’d let people play the game the way they want - I would add 1000 SIMPLE stats to the game, no idea what ELITE shows, but stats on PC are so poor … - and let them boost any stats they want. I’d love to see headshots / kills ratio for my MK14 …. Unfortunatelly 1000 hs and 2500 kills is all I can see on PC.
Any sophisticated synthetic number derived form all stats to show „skill level” might be frustrating if it does not move while you perform well in your opinion. IW was right not implementing any „skill ratio”.
@iw5000
Kdr boosters in DOM are fine, they add fun to the game, it is a bloody shooter not golf.
I prefer to see campers than the whole enemy team hiding in the corner of the map, weapons down and playing chess, as chessboard was in equipment slot… And you cannot kill them till they finish.
Kdr boosters in DOM are fine, they add fun to the game, it is a bloody shooter not golf.
Define 'KD boosters'?
I define it as douchebags who go into objective games, under the goal of using them as a means to 1) get easier kills (as they can use the flags as bait) and 2) do so with zero intention of helping the team win. Their goal for the above, is to do one thing.....BOOST THEIR KD.
And yes, sometimes their efforts work, but it's only by accident, when they get grouped up with people who do care about winning, Kind of a "even a blind squirrel finds a nut." type of thing. But for the most part, if the game is even remotely close, these d-bags won't help. They'll lose, not care, then whine into the mics, or go onto message boards...and say 'their teammates don't help", or "The WL ratio is wrecked, who cares". Crap like that.
Why is it an issue?
Well, it's not a huge issue on a personal level for me. I still win almost all the time. And have a KD up around 2.0. I'm doing fine. But fair is fair, I have to call it like i see it. It is a problem.
1. The above guys are ALWAYS the first players to quit. They are fake 'good players'. Phonies. Their entire skill base is measured by a boosted, fake number. You push them into negative territory, 9 out of 10 times, they dashboard so their KD won't count. Stone cold lead pipe lock fact there. This leads to 'dashboard' losses. That's bad.
2. These players wreck the flow of the game. Their actions aren't isolated. They affect others. A big reason a group of randoms break down, is morale. You see a guy not helping, being a d-bag, a person then says ""'f*ck it, I'm not going to keep dying, while this guy boosts". He stops playing, the team then breaks down. People then quit even more. That's bad.
3. You hear people on this board complain about 'spawn trapping'. How it ruins games, not fair,etc..While I don't think so, let's be real here... spawn trapping happens, due to a large part, from KD whores hiding on their own spawn trying to get kills. They sit back, the spawn resets in the back, the spawn trap happens. If you move, hustle, play the game the right way, you'll rarely be spawn trapped. KD whores help make it happen. If you think ST is bad, then there's another example.
4. The clowns who whine about 'pub stomping'. (i've read their comments on this board). 'Pub Stomping' is due to all the above things happening. KD whoring, then quitting, then Spawn trapping, ...leading to good old fashioned beat downs. 'Pub Stomping'. If you want to see less 'pub stomping', then advocate people playing the right way, and it will happen less.
Side note - On a personal level, I find the whole concept of 'pub stomping' to be assnine. It's a pointless term D-bags use to dismiss what someone does as "Oh, he just pubstomps". Ridiculous. What other choices are there? We are given choices to play, by GAME MODE, not by 'competitive mode'. Gets back to the point of this thread. No one voluntarily choose their competition. Well, maybe a little with the Elite comps now, but it's still minor. What else is there? Everyone who plays CoD, plays in public lobbies. There is no real other choice. The term 'pub' is irrelevant.
Re: Why no elo system in cod? « Reply #34 on Jun 15, 2012, 9:50am »
If people want to win they'll go to just generic gaymes types w/ a party, and If they truly wanted competition they'll sign up for GB, nawt some fancy pants "Pros Only" playlist.
There have been "prestige" playlist and "Veteran" playlist before, those playlists where never populated which leads to 50 ppl in the entire playlist with some from Japan leading very bad connections(Like you said). It has been implemented before(though extremely half-asssed) but has never worked due to "who wants to play competitive pub gayme?". That's what the GB and MLG circuit are for.
If people want to win they'll go to just generic gaymes types w/ a party, and If they truly wanted competition they'll sign up for GB, nawt some fancy pants "Pros Only" playlist.
There have been "prestige" playlist and "Veteran" playlist before, those playlists where never populated which leads to 50 ppl in the entire playlist with some from Japan leading very bad connections(Like you said). It has been implemented before(though extremely half-asssed) but has never worked due to "who wants to play competitive pub gayme?". That's what the GB and MLG circuit are for.
I have to somewhat disagree here, you can't say what you did. .......look, a lot of people don't want to bother with the annoying aspects of MLG and GB. I did it before, it's annoying as hell, the whole process. It's not exactly a viable choice. Ease of use is a factor here, as well as costs, etc...While I haven't looked at this recently, but wasn't GB running entries fees in the past? 25 credit fee to entire a typical nightly contest? What is that, $15? F*ck that.
When you say, "If they truly wanted competition they'll sign up for GB," (or something similar), I'm calling bs on that. What you should say with that is...
If they truly want to be dipsh*ts, and lose money with worse house odds than the worst casino, they'll sign up for GB,"
There. That is a more fair assessment of that option. It's not really choice, if one wants a more competitive environment. Yes, some great players go those routes. But A LOT don't, and don't want to bother with their bullsh*t. It's not exactly a great option.
And like you said, doing Pro Playlists isnt' a choice either, as those things are graveyards.
So far, to date, I have to give credit to Activision for the Elite, and the Clan stuff. THAT is a decent alternative for a more competitive environment. I have played in 25 clan contests so far, and for the most part, there is a stepped up compettive environment. With a few more tweaks, adding rankings, etc...there is no reason Elite couldn't simply bypass the whole stupid GB/MLG stuff entirely. And the cost is much better too, as well as ease of use.
Re: Why no elo system in cod? « Reply #36 on Jun 15, 2012, 11:42am »
I agree GB is only going to appeal to a small, select segement of the player base. I also don't see why the average gamer should have to go so far out of his/her way to get closer games when the game itself could easily accommodate.
And like you said, doing Pro Playlists isnt' a choice either, as those things are graveyards.
What a sweeping overgeneralization. First, the only example of a "competitive" playlist in past games was Competition in Black Ops, which was more than populated enough to find games in back when Black Ops was the current CoD game, which is really all that matters. It's not like anyone is crying about the lack of Team Tac players in MW2. Prestige-only playlists and the like don't count.
Again, there is no legitimate objection to having social and ranked playlists. It hurts no one.
As for Elite, I see no reason why players should have to pay more dollars for Elite when the game could easily facilitate the basics of most competitive play. It shouldn't be the only option.
As for Elite, I see no reason why players should have to pay more dollars for Elite when the game could easily facilitate the basics of most competitive play. It shouldn't be the only option.
My point of view. I don't really view Elite's clan stuff as an additional cost. Since MW1, I have had to pay $60 for the game, then another $30 to $60 for map packs. I'm doing the same thing for MW3, $60 for the game, and $50 for Elite (which gives the map packs for free). I basically view CoD as a roughly $100 to $110 cost for the year. When you break down the cost per hour.........it is the cheapest form of entertainment I will probably ever use.
I do see your point though. There is no real need for Gamebattles, or worse yet, their lame credit for-pay tourneys. If the game system can rank 17 million people on XBox, via the in game menus....there is no reason why the game itself can't do the same for the clans. Even the same with Elite. Elite has all the Clan scores. They real-time rank 30,000 plus clans each contest, within minutes of the tournaments ending. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able rank these clans.
Quote:
I agree GB is only going to appeal to a small, select segement of the player base. I also don't see why the average gamer should have to go so far out of his/her way to get closer games when the game itself could easily accommodate.
Agree. All it does it take some minor tweaking in the rewards of the game. For objective games, just tweak the rewards.
Side note - On a personal level, I find the whole concept of 'pub stomping' to be assnine. It's a pointless term D-bags use to dismiss what someone does as "Oh, he just pubstomps". Ridiculous. What other choices are there? We are given choices to play, by GAME MODE, not by 'competitive mode'. Gets back to the point of this thread. No one voluntarily choose their competition. Well, maybe a little with the Elite comps now, but it's still minor. What else is there? Everyone who plays CoD, plays in public lobbies. There is no real other choice. The term 'pub' is irrelevant.
There is an alternative; organized competitive play. At present, GB and MLG are the only major outlets for that as far as CoD goes, which is regrettable. I'm glad that GB exists and I think it fills an important niche, and I'd honestly still be participating except for the logistic clumsiness of it.
That's really the issue. Currently, if you want to play CoD in a ranked environment, you have to do a bunch of legwork through third party channels that are not always run optimally for a variety of reasons. The people that talk doo-doo about "pubstompers" are basically saying that you (and I, and others in similar positions) should have to tolerate the mess in order to play competitively, and that those of us that lack the schedule freedom or patience to deal with sloppy organization are somehow worse players.
I think that having systems native to the game itself would both simplify organizing competition, and foster a competitive community for the game. Say what you want about MLG, but you'll have a hard time arguing that the introduction of the MLG playlist in Halo didn't contribute to the popularity of Halo on the circuit. That translated not only into more money for them, but a bigger, healthier competitive community for the players. Increasingly sophisticated structures developed to address issues of balance and rulesets, and the game that emerged was 345624367 times better than what came out of the box.
Call of Duty has a playerbase that puts Halo to shame in terms of size, and has the advantage of a PC community that would love nothing more than to create custom rules and maps for public use if given the tools. The developers could outsource a sizable fraction of their headaches to the community, get more done with less money and people, and be loved for it. I have a hard time seeing a competitive, ranked playlist doing anything but good for this series.
Re: Why no elo system in cod? « Reply #39 on Jun 17, 2012, 7:23pm »
Quote:
Call of Duty has a playerbase that puts Halo to shame in terms of size, and has the advantage of a PC community that would love nothing more than to create custom rules and maps for public use if given the tools. The developers could outsource a sizable fraction of their headaches to the community, get more done with less money and people, and be loved for it. I have a hard time seeing a competitive, ranked playlist doing anything but good for this series.
Side note - On a personal level, I find the whole concept of 'pub stomping' to be assnine. It's a pointless term D-bags use to dismiss what someone does as "Oh, he just pubstomps". Ridiculous. What other choices are there? We are given choices to play, by GAME MODE, not by 'competitive mode'. Gets back to the point of this thread. No one voluntarily choose their competition. Well, maybe a little with the Elite comps now, but it's still minor. What else is there? Everyone who plays CoD, plays in public lobbies. There is no real other choice. The term 'pub' is irrelevant.
There is an alternative; organized competitive play. At present, GB and MLG are the only major outlets for that as far as CoD goes, which is regrettable. I'm glad that GB exists and I think it fills an important niche, and I'd honestly still be participating except for the logistic clumsiness of it.
That's really the issue. Currently, if you want to play CoD in a ranked environment, you have to do a bunch of legwork through third party channels that are not always run optimally for a variety of reasons. The people that talk doo-doo about "pubstompers" are basically saying that you (and I, and others in similar positions) should have to tolerate the mess in order to play competitively, and that those of us that lack the schedule freedom or patience to deal with sloppy organization are somehow worse players.
Well...yeah, I mentioned that a few posts up. I don't really view GameBattles as a real viable option for a group trying to do more competitive play. Especially the 'for-pay' options GB ran last year, it was a complete rip off imho. I know it costs some money for them, but neither myself and most all of my friends aren't going to be handing over $15 a pop to play one contest on their for-pay money contests. Might as well go flush cash down the toilet. Been there, done it, no thanks.
So that leaves, at least in my opinion, everyone back at square one.....back on the CoD playlists. Playing against the 16 million people on XBox. Yeah, most of them aren't good. In fact, probably about half the above have less than 100 wins...but...the Elite contests have at least sort of opened up the door to some better competition. There's about 35,000 clans competing each contest, probably about 200,000 people in all. That's well above GameBattles.
imho...if they can keep the Elite stuff going, ..keep tweaking it, improving it, CoD Elite will become THE place to go, to compete. It might already be there now.
Re: Why no elo system in cod? « Reply #42 on Jun 17, 2012, 11:42pm »
It's nowhere near that now. Clan Ops now have clans competing indirectly, like a race. What we want is a ladder. There isn't even a mechanic to organize clan matches, let alone record results. This stuff would be easy to implement, and would represent huge progress.
It's nowhere near that now. Clan Ops now have clans competing indirectly, like a race. What we want is a ladder. There isn't even a mechanic to organize clan matches, let alone record results. This stuff would be easy to implement, and would represent huge progress.
I've done GB, and in some respects, i do think Elite is already ahead of GB. But yeah, laddering would be cool. Maybe in it's 2nd year? It would be nice for something like that....as I think we have a top 50 clan right now, would like to see some head to head stuff....but it is problematic. Much like GB, you get into different game modes .
Overall....I also think Elite has more potential right now.
Re: Why no elo system in cod? « Reply #44 on Jun 18, 2012, 2:32am »
In my mind head to head is the threshold at which you can actually call it competition. The way it is now is like handing out points for being good at tennis by seeing how many high school girls you can ace in three hours.
Clan Ops are, to a depressing extent, activity contests. The clans that play the most during the allotted time win. There is nothing stopping clans from lobby shopping until they find terrible randoms to milk, and that is in fact what many of the top clans do. The HCKC Ops now revolve around having a clanmate join session on a party of six and calling his "teammates" out to his clan, to kill them faster. Any ranking based on such an easily abused and indirect system is a joke. At least in GB the idiots you beat are presumably trying to beat you at the same time.
In my mind head to head is the threshold at which you can actually call it competition. The way it is now is like handing out points for being good at tennis by seeing how many high school girls you can ace in three hours.
Clan Ops are, to a depressing extent, activity contests. The clans that play the most during the allotted time win. There is nothing stopping clans from lobby shopping until they find terrible randoms to milk, and that is in fact what many of the top clans do. The HCKC Ops now revolve around having a clanmate join session on a party of six and calling his "teammates" out to his clan, to kill them faster. Any ranking based on such an easily abused and indirect system is a joke. At least in GB the idiots you beat are presumably trying to beat you at the same time.
Part of what you say is right, but part is wrong.
1. Regarding the "Play the most during the allotted time" and "Activity Contests" comments you made. Your partly correct, but your interpretation of it is wrong. Take the KC contest last night. The way to do well, is to play the most. And to play the most.....you need to win fast. There's nothing wrong with that either. That is a measure of skill. A clan that wins every game, and can get 90 confirms (let's use GW) in an average of 4:15, is going to beat a clan that gets their 90 confirms in an average of 4:45. That 30 seconds, over 20 games, allows the first clan to play an extra game. It goes without saying, if you lose, you do even worse. You need to skill, and organization, to win fast.
2. This comment you made, isn't necessarily true..... "seeing how many high school girls you can ace in three hours. "....You should play the HC KC or HC TDM contests. Almost every game you play, will be against other clans. Almost the same with the Dom contests. Clans populate those game modes the day of the contest. You make it out like every game is a cakewalk. Well, i highly doubt if you played, you would win every game, would you? No. So what you say, is a gross exaggeration.
3. Regarding your 'window shopping' comment. Since the above is mostly a 'Win fast' contest, a clan can't window shop much at all. Every time you back out of a lobby, because of the comp, you lose about 30 seconds. Do that to much, you lose an entire game. This comes into play a bit more if a group is running GW.
4. I speak from some experience with the above. Our clan has done about thirty contests now, and we have placed in the top-100 about 15 times now. We've placed like 60th, 45th and 20th in Kill Confirmed. What I talk about up there, is especially important in KC. You really need to move through your opponents fast.
5. Regarding cheating. Yeah, I'm sure it's out there. I'm pretty sure the clan that keeps winning these contests, they are cheating too. It would help if Elite would allow full disclosure of the results, let teams see the entire top 100 clans, rather than hide the results.
6. Head to head would be best....but all in all, this type of procedure tends to work better in small communities. When you have large communities, tens of thousands, head to head gets a bit problematic, for time reasons.
Re: Why no elo system in cod? « Reply #46 on Jun 18, 2012, 11:16am »
Bottom line, ladder/ranked playlist built-into game, included in your original purchase > pay an extra $50 for Clan Ops > pay to participate in GB (although GB still isn't pay-to-play, is it?)
Clan Ops aren't the same as a real ladder or ranked playlist. Being participating member of a larger group than their immediate FL doesn't appeal to a lot players.
I'm no expert, but doesn't cheating occur in GB as well as Elite? I always hear people discussing disputed matches and the like.
Bottom line, ladder/ranked playlist built-into game, included in your original purchase > pay an extra $50 for Clan Ops > pay to participate in GB (although GB still isn't pay-to-play, is it?)
It's not that simple. GameBattles is running it's own for-pay tournaments now too. And it's very pricey. Last I looked, one has to pay about $17 per contest. Come on, that's f*cking ridiculous. I've done thirty contests alone on Elite in the past few months, all built into my $50 Elite fee (which is mostly all for getting maps). The contest stuff in Elite is kind of a thrown in, a freebie. At two GB contests a month, that's another $400 a year. F*ck that. Plus, GB is mostly S&D. A lot of people aren't into that game mode. Now...that said, GB does have some free laddering stuff....but there's no reason Elite can't start that soon enough.
Quote:
Clan Ops aren't the same as a real ladder or ranked playlist. Being participating member of a larger group than their immediate FL doesn't appeal to a lot players.
And trying to squeeze one's azz into a 32 team play-in tourney that fills up before one even notices, in a limited number of game modes, with some of the tournies being heavily overpriced....THAT doesn't really appeal to a lot of players either. It works both ways, you know? And with that, ...while ladders are good, they are TIME CONSUMING. There's something fun about EVERYONE competing, at once, in one afternoon, for three hours and getting a final result.
Quote:
I'm no expert, but doesn't cheating occur in GB as well as Elite? I always hear people discussing disputed matches and the like.
Re: Why no elo system in cod? « Reply #48 on Jun 18, 2012, 1:42pm »
I think the ultimate system will not include implementing separate playlists, which they seem loathe to do because it fractures the playerbase. I'd assume the solution they look for would involve a system where clans can organize games against other clans through Elite.
Re: Why no elo system in cod? « Reply #49 on Jun 18, 2012, 2:36pm »
The beauty of a ranked playlist is that you could play it whenever you want. If it's native to the game, it won't cost extra money or anything like that. Everyone and anyone can compete whenever they want.
CoD doesn't have to worry about fracturing the community. There's already quite a few different playlists... not to mention the Competitive playlist didn't do any fracturing in Blops. Halo has done it forever with fine results. CoD has more than enough players to go around.
They probably just haven't implemented one because competition just isn't the main thrust of CoD as a whole.
Re: Why no elo system in cod? « Reply #50 on Jun 18, 2012, 2:49pm »
The first step Elite should do, is come up with a math formula that ranks the 50,000 plus clans, in some order, a ranking. No different than how people are ranked according to wins. Like with 'Wins'....One can look in the in-game menu, and see your rank, how you stack up from no 1 to no 10 million.
With clans, the system is already in place. Right now, it's kind of informal, based on clan level. But that is scored by no of people in the clan (premium member x 500xp) and the number of winnings from each contest.
I think the easiest way for now....would be to simply take a formula like this. Give each clan an official 'rank'.....simply take their top 15 placements, add them up, and divide by 15. That's their ranking score. Then simply rank all 50,000 clans from 1 to 50,000. Kind of like an Elite version of the BCS system in college football lol.
The first step Elite should do, is come up with a math formula that ranks the 50,000 plus clans, in some order, a ranking. No different than how people are ranked according to wins. Like with 'Wins'....One can look in the in-game menu, and see your rank, how you stack up from no 1 to no 10 million.
With clans, the system is already in place. Right now, it's kind of informal, based on clan level. But that is scored by no of people in the clan (premium member x 500xp) and the number of winnings from each contest.
I think the easiest way for now....would be to simply take a formula like this. Give each clan an official 'rank'.....simply take their top 15 placements, add them up, and divide by 15. That's their ranking score. Then simply rank all 50,000 clans from 1 to 50,000. Kind of like an Elite version of the BCS system in college football lol.
...except the BCS system doesn't allow teams that always lose to be ranked higher than teams that usually win, and any system based on clan ops does. If your placement in ops was related to number/percentage of wins during the op time limit, that would be one thing. Look at the Dom ops, for example. Ranking teams by captures is a terrible measurement; teams that are actually good at Dom capture the two flags they want and spend the rest of the game trapping the other team on the remaining flag. You know who gets a lot of caps? Teams that can't control the map for doo-doo and keep losing their flags, and teams colluding with other teams to "trade" B back and forth.
Until the Ops are based on winning, I don't want a rank based on Ops.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author![[avatar]](http://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/titles/82/e7/00167728.0001.gif "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/iVJ381G.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.donnamoderna.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/attualita/news/foto-francesca/rocco-siffredi/69289943-1-ita-IT/Rocco-Siffredi_o_cgo2.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/nvBbE.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3421/thehawkny.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu101/bethnicole/mustard.gif "[avatar]")