Jump to content


Imperium Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Reavern last won the day on November 26 2017

Reavern had the most liked content!

About Reavern

  • Rank
    Warrior Wordsmith
  • Birthday 09/20/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Writing, video games, and watching movies.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,250 profile views
  1. Origin 100 Series

    I like the Origin 100i. Admittedly, it has nothing to do with the ship's style or specs. It's the ship that miraculously got my girlfriend interested in Star Citizen, finally. I was checking it out Thursday night and she saw it on my iPad and commented that it looked "adorable." She asked it if it was from "that star wars game you like" and then I lectured her about the differences between Star Citizen and Star Wars... I ended up buying her a 100i Starter Package as an apology. I think it'll be worth it though. Anyway, it's good that CIG has created a new starter ship. I think the 100i will be far more appealing to new backers than the other three. I understand why the Aurora looks the way it does, and the Mustang and Reliant have distinct styles of their own, but the Origin 100 definitely nails it for mainstream appeal. I think a lot of gamers who were on the fence about Star Citizen will buy 100i game packages now. I think CIG should do a major marketing push because they finally have a ship that can sell people on Star Citizen. I hope CIG doesn't squander this opportunity. Aesthetics aside, the 100 series is what I expected from an Origin starter ship. It has meager weapons compared to the other 3 starters, but it's obviously the luxury starter ship, so that's the trade-off. Also, the 125a is an easy $10 upsell. (I bought a 125a upgrade even though my GF doesn't like the black colour scheme. If the ship came in rose gold it would be all over. ) I like the 135c's blue colour scheme, but the 4 SCU cargo box is inconsequential and the reduced top speed is a major downside. I don't understand CIG's logic in making the most expensive variant the slowest. Also, the combination of luxury and cargo hauling don't mix IMO. I don't think the 135c will sell very well. CIG should consider buffing the engines to compensate for the extra mass so it's the same top speed as the 100i, which would justify the extra $15 price, especially since it doesn't come with the 125a's missiles. Another idea is to give the 135c special countermeasures or jammers or boosters in place of the missile hardpoints to help it defend its cargo from pirates. I agree with others: Now that the Origin 100 series starter ship exists, the Origin 300 series will be bumped up in price by $20 or more. The 300's hardpoints have already been buffed to Size 3 in 3.1 and it's now equipped with Omnisky IXs, which are very powerful sniper cannons. CIG is working on the 300 re-design and when it's released, it will definitely be more expensive. I don't know if it'll be significantly larger or not. Maybe it'll be a 2-seater? Except for the 350r, probably. I'm pleased with my decision to buy the 350r when I did. If the price jumps again it'll be an even greater value. Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing the Origin 100i in the 'verse.
  2. I recently found this video comparing the 4th Gen i7 versus the new 8th Gen i7 CPUs. This was most relevant to me because my CPU is a i7 4790k that I've OC'd to 4.6 GHz. However, I've seen some people on this thread recommending upgrading CPUs that are even newer than 4th Gen Intels, claiming that they provide significant performance gains. Before those people rage-reply and accuse me of relying on ONE random youtube video for my information, I'll preemptively counter that in my previous comments, I've provided quotes, links, and embedded videos to over a dozen credible sources. That hasn't made any difference, because I don't believe those people who disagree bothered to check out the facts. They simply dismissed them automatically because the evidence was contrary to their preconceived beliefs. I realize the futility of trying to convince closed minded "people" that they're wrong. (This is the snowflake generation. No one's ever "wrong". ) My goal is to provide useful and credible information to the people who are open minded and are considering upgrading their gaming PC, whether it's for Star Citizen or general PC gaming. In the video, the games that benefited the most from the new 6-core, 12-thread i7 8700k CPU were DirectX12 games, like Ashes of the Singularity and Deux X: Mankind Divided. It's too bad then that CIG announced that they're dropping support for DX12, because it's restricted to Windows 10 only, and Star Citizen must support Linux (and Mac?) as per the stretch goals. CIG is supporting Vulkan instead. For other games, the 8700k always outperformed the 4770k, but only by 10%, on average. Most of the benchmarks were at 1080p and Med to High settings, and even though the 4770k had lower FPS, they were often 100+ FPS, whereas the 8700k was 120+ FPS, and most gamers wouldn't notice the difference. When the graphics settings were cranked to Ultra and 4K, the benchmarks leveled out because the GPU became the bottleneck. This supports my fact-based opinion that if you have a 2+ year-old gaming PC, investing in a new graphics card is a smarter and more economical choice than upgrading the CPU (which will also necessitate upgrading the mobo and RAM). Also, if you game at 2K or 4K, it's all about the graphics card. The conclusion of the video was that the 8700k provides ~10% better performance compared to the 4770k for gaming. Considering that a 8700k costs $390, a gaming mobo costs $250+, and 16 GB 3200 MHz RAM costs $200+, that adds up to $840 (minimum) for a core upgrade. That's more expensive than most GTX 1080 Ti graphics cards. And if you upgrade the core without upgrading graphics card, the GPU will be the performance bottleneck and render your upgrade completely pointless. Whereas if you have 3+ year-old graphics card, similar to my GTX 780 Ti, you'll obtain far greater performance gains in gaming than just 10%. That's why I'm waiting for the next-gen NVIDIA graphics cards, Volta or Ampere, to be released in 2018. The new ##80 should outperform the 1080 Ti by the usual 30%, and I might see a +100% improvement over my 780 Ti, especially when paired with a 2K ultra-wide monitor.
  3. Sorry, I was mistaken. Volta uses new GDDR6 VRAM that has 60% greater bandwidth compared to current GDDR5X VRAM. I believe that's where that 60% figure came from. However, this source claims that Volta is 132% faster than current Pascal video cards, although that's based on one particular GeekBench benchmark test, not gaming benchmarks. There are also crazy figures pertaining the NVIDIA Volta V100 GPU Accelerators, which were the first commercial application of Volta, and back in September, they only info we had regarding how Volta compared to Pascal. Regardless, it seems like in the last couple of days, the new hot rumour is that NVIDIA might be skipping the Volta generation entirely and moving on to "Ampere". Volta has a lot of expensive tech, like Tensor Cores, that are ideal for AI, but are virtually irrelevant for gaming. Ampere supposedly strips out the non-gaming features, so they should be cheaper and more efficient. That works for me!
  4. The problem with my 780 Ti is that it only has 3 GB of VRAM, which isn't enough for Very High settings at 1080p and an acceptable frame rate. I also plan on buying one of the new HDR monitors when they're released in 2018. I know that Asus and Acer are releasing 27" HDR monitors, but I want a 34". I passed on buying a 34" monitor during holiday sales because I knew HDR was on the horizon. I just hope I won't have to wait a year for 34" HDR monitors. I plan on buying a new graphics card and HDR monitor at the same time. But if I can't get them both, I'll wait.
  5. NVIDIA has no competition at the high-end of the graphics card market, which is why they can hike the prices on the 1080 Ti. That's also why they have the balls to sell the Titan V for $3000. I was thinking about buying a 1070 Ti or 1080 Ti, but I haven't found any holiday sales. I suspect that NVIDIA has become like Apple. It's more than "premium" pricing; it's prestige pricing. NVIDIA cards don't go on sale by $100-200, even during the holidays. $20-30 is common -- although often it's in the form of a mail-in rebate, which they know most people won't bother to claim. NVIDIA might be price gouging customers, but their high-end cards are unmatched by AMD's "best" (which run hotter and are more power hungry). I'll stick with NVIDIA, but I'm waiting until the new Volta cards are released in 2018. I'm hoping it'll be Q1, but some industry experts predict that NVIDIA is in no hurry because they have no real competition. Volta is supposedly 60% faster compared to Pascal, so the GTX Volta ##80 card will crush the 1080 Ti, and will be $100-200 cheaper -- assuming that NVIDIA abides by their usual price points. But experts suspect they won't. The Volta ##80 might be priced the same as the 1080 Ti, and in the future the Volta ##80 Ti will be even higher. That's the problem with monopolies! Regardless, I'm probably going to buy a Volta ##80, as soon as EVGA releases an overclocked version with their ICX cooler. It should extend the lifespan of my gaming rig by 2 years.
  6. IGN Squadron 42 Video

    The Squadron 42 teaser video is awesome. I wonder if Mark Hamill had more dialogue in that 2 minute video than in TLJ. The only issue is the pacing seems too slow for IGN. I appreciated the dramatic pauses and glamour shots of the ships and characters, but the average IGN lamestream viewer has the attention span of a mosquito on Adderall. There were no explosions or pew-pew-pew, so they probably wouldn't make it to the end of the video. Regardless, I suppose IGN covering Squadron 42 is better than nothing. I'm looking forward to the Squadron 42 announcement tomorrow.
  7. Tumbril - Nova "Tonk" Tank

    Am I missing something...? Is there any info about the Tumbril Nova Tank, or more pics that I'm not seeing? No? Just that one wide shot? Okayyyyy... WTF!?! What kind of lame ass tank design is this? It's so angular and simplistic. It reminds of Tron or Battlezone, and NOT in a good way! I understand that it's supposed to be a futuristic tank, so it's not as big and bulky as conventional or historical tanks. But the Nova doesn't look futuristic, it looks retro-lame. In contrast, the Tumbril Cyclone looked awesome. It nailed the look of a futuristic jeep. Whereas the Nova Tank looks like some hack slapped it together yesterday, and now CIG is trying to sell it to make some quick cash. Needless to say, this is a PASS for me. I wasn't interested in owning a tank to begin with, but the Nova Tank is awful. It's also way overpriced. (TBF all the vehicles have been over-priced, which is why the only vehicle I own is a Dragonfly that came with my Carrack-Terrapin Exploration Package.)
  8. It seems that whenever facts, evidence, and experts contradict people’s opinions and preconceived conclusions, those people try to undermine and dismiss those facts rather than actually considering the information (or even bothering to read/watch it — better to remain willfully ignorant than open-minded ). Benchmarks are designed to provide a level playing field. All the same hardware, the same games/software, same settings; the only variable is the PC component being tested and compared: the CPU. You’re obviously trying to refute the validity of all benchmarks because the evidence in those videos and graphs disprove your unsubstantiated opinion. This thread about PC hardware for GAMING, specifically Star Citizen. It doesn’t matter that 6 or 8-core procs have performance increases for video editing, number crunching, and bitcoin mining. The vast majority of gamers don’t use their PCs for those applications, so those attributes are irrelevant. Your argument seems to be that, when building a new gaming PC today, it’s “smarter” to buy a 6 or 8-core CPU for $600+ instead of a 4-core CPU for $300, because you believe that in a few years the former will still be powerful enough to run future games, whereas the 4–core CPU will lag behind and need to be replaced. Firstly, the benchmarks indicate that the 6-8 core CPUs are only 5% faster (at best) for most games. How will that extra 5% make the difference between being happy with the CPU and needing to buy a new CPU? Second, in a few years, the gamer can simply buy a new $300 CPU. The two $300 CPUs will cost the same or less than the 3 year-old 6-8 core CPU, and new $300 CPU will outperform it. In those few years, the new CPU could have 6 or more cores for the same $300 price point. That’s what happened with the i7 line. The 47xxK, 6700K, and 7700K were 4 core, 8 thread procs, and all priced around the $350 price point when they were introduced. Now Intel has released the 8700K, which has 6 cores and 12 threads, for the same price point as the 7700K that was released in early 2017. (Sucks for anyone how bought the 7700K.) There’s also the i5-8400, which is a 6-core, 6-thread proc for only $250 that outperforms the 7700K. That means the same amount of money will buy you better hardware in the future — that’s how it works. So over-spending today on 6-8 cores makes no sense whatsoever. Ultimately, gamers should buy the best PC hardware that they can afford. But they shouldn’t be advised or pressured from ANYONE to buy over-expensive hardware that they don’t need.
  9. Since my role on this thread is apparently to provide a contrarian "opinion" so innocent gamers don't waste their money on $1000+ processors, I have plenty of sources to support my point that 6+ core procs do not provide significant performance improvements for the majority of PC games. Firstly, we know for a fact that Star Citizen is in bed with Intel because of the Optane drive's Sabre Raven exclusive, and CIG has admitted that Intel provided them with Optane drives (and probably CPUs and other hardware) that they're now using in their game dev PCs. I don't think anyone should be surprised that CIG is touting that Star Citizen benefits from Optane drives and high-end Intel procs. Now, on to my sources: PC Word: "Tested: How many CPU cores you really need for DirectX 12 gaming" PC Gamer: THE BEST PC GAMING PROCESSOR - NOVEMBER 2017 PC Gamer chose the i5-8400 as the Best Gaming Processor, which has 6 cores, 6 threads, and NO HYPER-THREADING. It's only 7 fps slower less than the i7-8700K, which has 6 cores, 12 threads, and Hyper-Threading. The extra $200 doesn't buy you much performance gains, does it? But yunno the ol' saying: A fool and his money are soon parted. Legit Reviews: PUBG CPU Core Benchmarks – How Many Cores Do You Need And for those who don't like reading: There's tons of info out there on this subject, because every gamer is asking if they need the over-expensive 6+ core CPUs. Gamers are concerned (paranoid) that their hardware is obsolete and isn't powerful enough to run today's games. We have Intel and AMD's marketing machines, and their accomplices in the PC news media, to thank for that. They play on our doubts and our desires to have the best tech to play the games that we love. They're salespeople and hustlers, doing their very best to convince you that the path to gaming nirvana is a $1000 CPU (and a new $500+ mobo to go with it!). Don't fall for it! Fortunately, if you seek out the objective opinions and benchmarking data provided by real experts, who don't have any monetary incentives to push high-end PC hardware on gullible consumers, the overwhelming consensus is that 6+ core processors are not worth the extra money. Maybe by the time Star Citizen's retail release (2020? ), games will more effectively utilize 6+ core CPUs, but today, the price vs. performance ratio does not justify them for gaming. Save your money by buying a $300 proc today and wait and see what happens in 2-3 years.
  10. Sabre Raven

    The Optane drive includes a piece of paper in the box with a Redeem Code for the Raven.
  11. Hammerhead - Gunboat Anti-fighter

    It's ridiculous to compare pledge prices with in-game UEC prices. As expensive as pledge ships are, they're nothing compared to the UEC prices in-game. Firstly, CIG has stated that low tier ships will triple in price when converted to UECs. For example, a F7C Hornet costs $110, and backers can buy 110,000 UECs for $110. Whereas CIG said that the F7C's UEC price in-game will be 300,000 UECs. Second, the $$ to UECs multiplier will increase exponentially with higher tier ships. For example, the $2500 Javelin Destroyer is rumoured to cost 25,000,000 UECs! That's 10x the $$ price instead of 3X. That would mean the $650 Hammerhead could be 6,500,000 UECs. That's equal to 21.67 F7Cs. I estimate the Fighter Fist will only require 15 fighters. And a Raven + Eclipse + (3 x S9 torpedoes) should be even more effective and cost effective than the Fighter Fist. I estimate the Raven's $$ price would be $250, which equates to 750,000 UECs. The Eclipse's $$ price was $275, so it would be 825,000 UECs. Combined they'd be 1/4 the cost of a Hammerhead.
  12. You can claim whatever subjective observations you want, but in real world game performance, the extra $$$ of a 6 or 8 core processor does not provide proportional improvement in performance -- and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar. For example, the i7 7700K 4-core proc costs around $300 now, and i7 8800K 6-core proc costs around $400. Does 50% more cores provide 50% greater performance??? HELL NO! Does spending 33% more money provide 33% greater performance? Again, NO! It's more like 5%, if you're lucky -- and it depends on the game. But it'll never be +33%. Never. The Intel Xtreme procs range from $800-2000, and they'll only provide an extra 10%, maybe, in real game performance. But most gamers won't notice the difference. Only benchmarking will show a difference. Why don't more CPU cores provide proportional performance improvements? Because games don't take full advantage of multi-core procs. Games are certainly better at utilizing multi-core and multi-thread procs than 5 years ago, but they're still nowhere close to full utilization. That's my point. I'm not saying that 6/8 core procs are pointless. I'm saying their prices are unjustifiable for most games. For Star Citizen, a graphics card and a fast internet connection matter far more than an 8-core proc. Gamers should spend their money wisely, not get into an e-penis contest. People are free to spend their money however they want, but for anyone to recommend to someone less knowledgeable that 6 or 8-core procs are worth the extra money, that is absolutely wrong. You're telling someone to go spend their hard earned money on something they do not need. You can make that decision for yourself, but it's wrong to advise others to do it.
  13. SW Battlefront 2 P2W Fiasco, Lessons for SC?

    CIG has informed backers that when the Alpha transitions to the Beta, our ships will become locked, meaning we'll have to apply any upgrades or CCUs we've been holding, or they'll become useless. At that point, the Pledge Store will disappear and we'll only be able to buy in-game items with UECs. That's the opposite of letting backers redistribute their pledge dollars however they want. I'd be okay with that -- I bought some weapons from the VDS I'd like to refund -- but it would be a 180 from what CIG said will happen. I don't think CIG will allow us to redistribute our pledge dollars or grant LTI to all ships purchased before the Beta Lock. But we will be able to sell our ships in-game for UECs. That's not as good, but at least it's something. We won't be stuck with our pledge ships forever. For example, I predict that a lot of players with Starter packages will sell their Auroras or Mustangs and buy new and better ships. We just might not get the full value of our ships if we choose to sell them, because they'll be used. Also, I doubt that LTI will transfer from the sold ship to the new ship. Players will have to decide between the peace of mind of an LTI ship versus being able to afford to buy a new ship sooner. Personally, I'd keep the LTI ship.
  14. SW Battlefront 2 P2W Fiasco, Lessons for SC?

    I believe that the key difference between Star Citizen's crowd-funding model, which will evolve into a F2P micro-transaction pay model, is that there aren't "elite" variants of ships that can be bought using money. Yes, there are capital ships that cost upwards of $750. However, they can't be solo-ed. If some d-bag with more money than brains buys an Idris and thinks he'll be invincible in the PU, he's going to have his precious cap ship jacked by Pirates. Or players in Retaliators and Eclipses will use his cap ship as target practice. It makes no sense to own a cap ship unless you're a member of an Org and/or have plenty of friends to team up with in the PU. I think the most expensive solo ship in the game is the Esperia Glaive at $350, which was (originally) a limited edition that could only be unlocked if you completed Vanduul Swarm. That's not really P2W because you had to have legit skills in AC to unlock it, then were willing to pay $350 USD. However, anyone who has flown the Glaive knows its NOT a dominant starfighter. If anything it's a major handicap in PvP AC. I think that CIG will re-balance the Glaive -- and probably ALL Vanduul ships -- when Squadron 42 is finally released, and it'll be a more formidable dogfighter. However, paying $350 for a Glaive isn't a ticket to win. Next is the super-rare Captured Vanduul Scythe at $300. After that it's the Aegis Eclipse stealth bomber at $275. The Eclipse has stealth and carries half as many torpedoes as a Retaliator, making it a serious threat. But it's ability to launch surprise torpedo strikes is balanced by its limited torpedo capacity and vulnerability to interceptors, especially after it's revealed its presence by launching its torpedoes. My point is that SC backers can't solo P2W. The most powerful and expensive ships require a crew to properly, so a whale will be helping out numerous players by letting them crew their ships. I think that benefits everyone in the Star Citizen community. Another huge difference is that loot boxes are gambling because there's no certainty about what you'll get from them. It could be an Epic star card, or junk. When a backer buys a pledge package, standalone ship, or UEC chit to buy weapons and components in VDS, they know what they're buying. There's no element of chance. The only uncertainty is with Concept Ships, because we don't know what the ships will be like when they're finally flyable. But we know when we buy a ship like the Hawk or the Hammerhead the type of ship we'll get in the end. And finally, the most important difference is that Cloud Imperium Games is an independent game developer, not a big greedy game publisher like EvilCorp (EA), Activision, Ubisoft, Warner Bros, or Take-Two. None of those publishers would've financed Star Citizen / Squadron 42. That's why Chris Roberts chose crowdfunding to make his dream game into a reality. If Star Citizen was being published by a big evil game publisher, I would never pay more than $60 USD for it. Not $80 "Special Edition" or $100 "Gold Edition" or $40 Season Pass, or any other greedy bullshit. Instead, I've willingly helped fund Star Citizen's development because no other game dev or publisher has the talent, ambition, and guts to attempt a game of this unprecedented scale and fidelity.
  15. Banu Merchantman

    Selling a $250 BMM (I assume with LTI) to buy an Aquila or Carrack seems absolutely crazy to me. The Aquila would be a huge downgrade and cost $25 more. The Carrack is more of a lateral move, but if you don't sell the BMM for $350+ you'll be spending $100 more for the Carrack. I believe the substitute ship for the BMM will be the Hull C, because it will have the most cargo capacity of the flyable mercantile transports in Alpha 3.x. You could use the Hull C to run cargo during the Alpha and probably earn enough UECs to buy an Aquila/Carrack. Whereas it would probably take a lot longer to earn enough UECs to buy a BMM using the Aquila/Carrack.