Jump to content

HHAYD

Members
  • Content Count

    10,890
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blog Comments posted by HHAYD


  1. Yet a lot of my classmates are still using Xbox 360s, and frown upon PC-only games.

    Many of the pre-built gaming desktops are priced excessively or have some funky hardware (32 GB of RAM and an i3), and that's not including Alienware.

    Home-built ones require research, and secondarily tinkering with hardware and self-troubleshooting issues. The only issue is that many people in my school aren't that into tinkering with hardware and are easily stumped by fairly simple software problems.


  2. Typically consoles are subsidized by charging game developers for each unit they sell, so they pass the cost onto the customer, aka, higher price tag.

    Based on details I've read about the PS4, it's using AMD's custom APU, which is a combination of an eight-core CPU (most likely clocked at less than 3 GHz) and a GPU that has a performance similar to the Radeon HD 7850/7870.

    Consoles have an advantage over mid-range gaming rigs because they have standardized hardware, which means that it's much easier to squeeze max performance out of them than thousands of different combinations of PC hardware.

    However, usually within 3-6 years, mid-range gaming rigs would be more powerful than the consoles through brute computing power.

    The PS3 and Xbox 360 have long outlasted their lifespan.


  3. Will there be any triple-teaming or backups, or are GOONS raiders are on their own if they hit the wrong victim (such as a nuke-armed one that mentioned "Raid and eat six nukes" in its bio)?

    Also, considering that you mentioned, "No reps", if a raider was to hit a member of a major alliance, such as GPA or VE, I'm assuming the raider is not responsible for rep payment. Correct?


  4. There's a big difference there. If your entry in the war was possible and probable as you just said it was, then the DH/NPO pre-emptive strike made all sense.

    But did TOP not use the same reasoning back during the TOP-C&G war, and got burned, by YOUR ALLIANCE, and YOUR ALLIANCE'S ALLIES?

    Did your fellow members and allies' members not criticize TOP for the usage of the preemptive tactic and accused them of being paranoid?

    Did TOP not have to pay reps for the usage of the preemptive tactic?

    Is there a difference between the TOP-C&G and DH-NPO war other than the combatants?

    Nope, except the amount of numbers on both side, and which side received the reps.


  5. You know what? If long wars are such a bother, then the solution is easy. The loser should surrender (unconditionally) more quickly.-Craig

    The "losers" often don't like to surrender when the "victors" presented them with not-so-reasonable surrender terms.

    Would you rather surrender after one day of fighting and pay $10 billion and 10,000 tech over a crappy CB, or fight longer and show the "victors" that you deserve lighter terms. In fact, didn't your allies also fought for long periods of times instead of surrendering quickly, especially FAN?

    Bend over or fight, seems that you prefer to bend over.

    EDIT: I seriously hope that isn't your alliance's policy. Surrender or run as soon as crap hits the ceiling. It really makes your alliance trustworthy.

    /sarcasm


  6. Party A: If you want to stop fighting, we want you to do Term X.Party B: We want to stop fighting, so we will do Term X.Parties C-Z: THIS IS A TRAVESTY.

    You seem to have forgotten that Party B had to pick a lesser evil, an eternal war or unjust terms.

    I was more commenting on the nature of how terms work, and how it's silly to construe them as punishment in most cases.No alliance is being "punished" in the terms for using Peace Mode. The extent to which Peace Mode was used had influence on the terms, yes, but that doesn't necessarily make it punishment.

    Did the peace terms not require NPO's 1.8 million NS worth of fighters to step out into the meatgrinder where they would be triple-teamed for three weeks straight?


  7. Wait a minute, you're now claiming that we're not really fighting in the 20-60K range?

    Well OK, we're not so much fighting in there as we are taking out the trash. I could go on and list your ZI and near-ZI nations in that range, but that would be introducing yet more facts that conflict with your stunned perception of reality.

    A payment of 200 tech at most 3 months after the war (depending the outcome of the war) if you pull up the ZI'd/near-ZI'd list.

    I am not joking.


  8. Seems like a valid CB to me.

    Indeed. Besides, GPA didn't post a Declaration of Neutrality and they have some members in peace mode, so those would also be additional CBs.

    by your logic, your alliance should be rolled.

    oh wait...

    Encouraging allies to destroy themselves. You would be perfect as a someone who manages NPO's foreign policies.

    I demand you send me a recruitment message because I didn't get one.

    You're not awesome enough to receive one. :smug:

    Nah, J/K, I didn't receive one either.


  9. If you went through all the trouble of removing the head and arm, wouldn't you just want to do it again as soon as it grew back?

    Wouldn't it be easier to place the "Hopeless Coalition" in E-ZI? Oh wait, we are under a slightly nerfed E-ZI sentence.

    DH: You can grow, but we're going to trim you as soon as we get uncomfortable with your growth whenever we damn please. And we'll do it again.

×
×
  • Create New...