Jump to content

Boildown

Imperium Member
  • Content count

    936
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Feedback

    0%

Boildown last won the day on April 26 2016

Boildown had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Boildown

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,144 profile views
  1. Seriously? I never claimed you said anything at all. I was writing a disclaimer for my own post where I generically talked about 4C/8T CPUs and I realized at the end some people might misinterpret that as including AMD CPUs, and I wanted to make it crystal clear I am only talking about Intel CPUs and that AMD's have turned out to be inferior for gaming on a core for core basis. My AMD note had nothing to do with what you wrote. Not everything I write is a rebuttal to what people posted before it. Now that that's cleared up, I primarily agree with Reavern. Its not worth buying a massively-cored CPU now based on CIG's intuition that their game, later, will be able to use all the cores and threads. I do agree that a 4C/4T CPU is on the bargain side of the price-performance curve, and that particularly in light of the latest generation of Intel CPUs having more cores for less money, getting a 4C/8T or 6C/6T CPU is more likely the sweet spot. Beyond that I think is a waste of money until proven otherwise. Maybe you'll get 5% more performance, but 1) often you won't, and 2) often you'll get worse performance due to lower clockspeed, and most importantly 3) you'll pay hundreds of dollars more. Instead the better plan is to buy a reasonably priced CPU now and wait and see when Star Citizen is at least in Beta if its worth doing a real upgrade then. Buy 1 share of TSLA with the money you save and in 2 years, sell that sucker and get your real upgrade. If it turns out there's an actual advantage in doing so, of course. Edit: On yeah I almost forgot. What's the deal with those benchmarks? They look GPU bound to me, which invalidates them probably. Ahh nope here's the reason: So their testing has one flaw: It removes the clockspeed penalty for high core counts. Which actually makes it a better test of what they were testing (strictly core count), just less applicable to the real world. In the real world, the 6, 8, and 10 core CPUs would have progressively worse results as clockspeed went down. Assuming of course that the 4 cores are the highest clocked CPUs, that might be the 6C in the latest edition, I don't recall.
  2. I don't mind going a little premium for an extra 5%. But for a game that won't be out for at least another year? Hells to the no. In that situation I'd get an 4C/8T CPU over its more expensive siblings for sure. 1) While CIG has said they want to go highly-threaded, the proof is in tasting the pudding. I'll believe it when SC actually performs better in a release state with more threads. Especially when you're comparing 4C/8T vs. 6C/6T vs. 6C/12T. The latter-most is very likely to be complete overkill, and either of the first two might be the sweet spot of clock-speed vs. threads. Its possible the latter might be the best, but it has to overcome its lesser clockspeed to achieve it. That means CIG has to be running at least 7 threads flat out in Star Citizen, or else the 6C/6T would be best. No game maker has shown the ability to do this yet. I don't believe they can on faith. They have to show me first. 2) Whatever you buy now probably will be obsolete by the time SC is released. So if you need to buy now (because you're a gamer of other games, or you just need a computer) anyways, spend your money wisely, and buy a CPU that runs today's games best. Today, that's a 4C/8T CPU. A 4C/8T will save you money today vs the more-cored alternatives that you can go invest in bitcoin or TSLA or something, and then when Star Citizen is out, use that money go buy whatever is best in actual Star Citizen benchmarks (timedemos hopefully). To sum up, just be smart and consider the fact that Star Citizen isn't out yet. Oh yeah, all this assumes Intel, not AMD. AMD doesn't have the best gaming CPUs, not even their Ryzen 5s. I best the new 4C i3s beat the Ryzen 5 in gaming, measured both when cores are even and when cost is even.
  3. Hammerhead - Gunboat Anti-fighter

    Two things PS2 players deal with that SC players won't, when using turrets: In Planetside 2, bullet drop is a thing, and having to compensate for it is a challenge. Not a thing in space battles (technically it probably should be at low orbits though...). And in Planetside 2, the projectile velocities are really slow. I think Star Citizen's are way higher for the weapons most likely to be found on a Hammerhead, i.e. lasers. But this is more a gut feeling, I haven't looked up the latest numbers. Probably true that prices will go up exponentially in in-game UEC. They really have to or else "everyone will be flying an Idris" in short order. Not really sure that it'll blow up my Hammerhead example though, once we have the final prices. And in your counter, remember that this is a fighter TC, not bomber. No torpedoes. So far CIG has indicated that no (military) ships bigger than the Javelin will be buyable. I assume this to mean in-game or out-of-game. So the stretch-goal Cruiser will have to be found/salvaged/stolen in-game instead of bought. And then defended 24/7, they won't have an "owner" and as such they won't disappear when whoever has possession logs out.
  4. Hammerhead - Gunboat Anti-fighter

    And the Hammerhead costs what, $650, $550 with Warbond? Ok I looked it up, and that's right. How much will your 7 fighters (if they outfit the Hammerhead with 7 crew as suggested) cost? Far more, I'd wager. It could be less, but if you have a lineup of the < $100 fighters and beat the Hammerhead, I'd be even more impressed. Or Reavern's Fighter Fist? So, so much more. The fact is that the Hammerhead does more with less people and fewer resources than just about any other ship. Certainly more at its primary role. Or at least, that's how CIG has presented it to us. They still have a lot of turret balancing to do. Just remember, large and capital ships need to be "worth it" compared to everyone flying a single-seater, or else the game breaks down. They should only not be this effective if crewed by AI crew. So even if the seven most skilled fighter pilots in the 'verse can't take out a Hammerhead crewed by seven average players, without the use of non-fighters, I would not agree that a nerf is appropriate. Just saying this in advance. Oh yeah one more thing. Just from playing Planetside 2, and having gunned that games' Galaxies and Liberators fairly often. The most skilled single seater pilots in the game can't really take one out by themselves with a competent pilot and gunner. Life is many times cheaper there, so the balance concerns are different, but the skill-based task of putting a turret on the best fighter pilot players in the game is not difficult for an average gunner. It remains to be seen if CIG can make the turrets aim as well as they do in PS2 though.
  5. SW Battlefront 2 P2W Fiasco, Lessons for SC?

    And even then, you have the opportunity to "melt" the ship and buy something else with the credits if it turns out you don't like it. Which even furthers how unlike gamble boxes it is. I still think at the end of the crowd funding period, CIG should let people redistribute their dollars however they want, no restrictions, and give everyone LTI on everything. The artificial scarcity is the biggest single part of why Star Citizen and P2W are even mentioned in the same sentence. Its the furthest down the slippery slope they go.
  6. RSI - Polaris - Corvette

    Haha but 401 isn't bad either: https://httpstatuses.com/401 https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/401
  7. RSI - Polaris - Corvette

    LOL those stupid serial numbers pushed me over the edge into impulse buying this. Fortunately I still think it was an all-right buy (considering the alternatives in Star Citizen). Dec 07 2017, 6:19 pm - Standalone Ship - RSI Polaris - LTI War Bond Presale # - Serial Attributed: (S-RSI-POLARIS/401) on item S-RSI-POLARIS I remember the range was in the 200s, but I didn't know what that was exactly, read up on the Polaris, refreshed, and the number was in the 300s. Hit refresh again, and it flipped to 400s. That pushed me over the edge and I just bought it. Interesting that I got 401.
  8. skyrim Skyrim Reboot

    Can you play it without it being linked to Steam?
  9. Which ship to keep? Hammerhead vs Polaris

    I think the Polaris, due to the hangar, will be a better ship for grabbing a group of friends and tooling around the 'verse looking for trouble. The hangar will let you S&R, scout, or simply transport crew and cargo in and out of the ship. It'll be a better ship to fly on its own. The Hammerhead is obviously more one-dimensional. It'll be fairly unsuited for anything but beating up on small and medium ships. Which might be fine if you only take part in space battles, but there's a lot else to do in the verse too. Which one I'd keep would depend on the rest of my fleet. If I didn't have anything else, I'd keep the Polaris, as it more flexible and will be no slouch at the Hmmerhead's main role. We know Torpedoes will be expensive, but lets not go crazy. There's zero chance that they'll be like shooting exploding Auroras out the tubes. Just Zero Chance Of That. Whenever you extrapolate based on placeholder numbers, if the result seems crazy, you should disbelieve it. Basic science.
  10. Which ship to keep? Hammerhead vs Polaris

    The Hammerhead is designed to kill single and dual seaters. Even without seeing it in the 'verse, any theory crafting that gets around that is divorced from the reality of what CIG wants it to do the in game. The Hammerhead will have weaknesses, but its turrets not being able to kill a dodgy small fighter before the fighter can take out the HH's turrets is not one of them.
  11. Armada Pack Optimization: Help!

    I plan to make my Warden into a Harbinger (whatever the one that carries torpedoes is called), because the Warden is kinda bad right now. Need to do something with the Retaliator because I've also got a Polaris, and for just a few more crew its far, far more capable. The stock single seaters are already a good diverse compliment for the hangar bay, and I think I'm gunna keep the Gemini after all, at least until we know more about its role and how costly fuel is. It might be real nice to have a cheap way to refuel the Idris. Anyways, don't apply your CCUs yet if you can still avoid it, things change too much and you can't melt to reverse your decisions without re-buying the Armada Pack. And speaking of the Khartu-Al, as of 2.6.x that ship was super-fast in the 'verse. A great scout ship and with two size 3s it has some moderate punch. Its strange footprint might allow a greater than expected number of them to fit in the Idris hangar bay, depending on how they implement things. I think I'm gunna keep it around for sure.
  12. Rude

    This is weird. As long as you have a bit of fuel you can stay in orbit without having orbital velocity, but as soon as your run out of fuel gravity gets turned on and you crash to the surface?
  13. SW Battlefront 2 P2W Fiasco, Lessons for SC?

    The reassuring part is where they said you'll have plenty of time to earn in-game money to buy claims in the 'verse. That and the planets, moons, etc being so huge that basically the entire planet Earth would have to be playing Star Citizen for them to run out of good locations. I have no plans to buy any claims with RL money. This is one of those things that screams to me that it'll be better to get them with in-game credits. I may have given CIG a nice chunk of my money, but that doesn't mean I don't try to maximize my value.
  14. Aegis Idris Frigate

    I agree with Donut, probably 8-10. Not sure if everyone will bring NPCs or the ship owner will just permanently keep an NPC crew with the ship.
  15. Hammerhead - Gunboat Anti-fighter

    In Star Citizen terms, the Hammerhead is a sub-capital. Maybe it ends up as a Light Frigate (which, in Star Citizen terms, makes it a capital ship), or maybe it doesn't. Doesn't really matter either way though. As a capital or sub-capital, its a beastly ship that will be OP in the 'verse barring something none of us have considered. Just like Reavern suggested, I'd prefer it if CIG eventually changes their naming scheme to include the Hammerhead, Polaris, and Idris among "sub-capital" ships as opposed to capital ships like the Cruiser and up. (Javelin I could see in either group.) Its possible in CIG's mind, the term "capital" refers more to range and size than just size. Meaning, the ships they label "capital" not only have the size for it, they have the range to operate through multiple systems without resupply. This would distinguish between the modern littoral craft and the legit ocean-crossers, where the former are sub-capital and the latter are capital.
×