@Tomasculine@goonerbuckz@fettR6S Cope for what I don’t even support a team? I watch as a mutual it makes no difference for me. The only difference is you’re clearly a child that struggles to grasp the concept of what consistency means
@Tomasculine@goonerbuckz@fettR6S U mean how this is the first time they haven’t made main stage since the last EWC? They’re still a very consistent team. Consistency doesn’t mean winning every event. It means playing well consistently, which they’ve shown time and time again. Do you have a brain in there or??
@Ricci_clipsz So what if you can’t make vert on Oregon basement. Roaming still uses up attacker time. If you give them the whole map you’ll just be stuck stood in a corner and they never have to worry about a flank.
@Laxing@HannibalbR6@R6Mint Ah yeah I forgot “expected improvement” isn’t improvement. By that logic, don’t credit someone for getting fitter after working with a PT. It was expected because they hired a PT.
@CauchemarFF@R6esportsEU@jumeR6S@FalconsEsport@LikEfacR6S@Yuzus_@SolotovR6@BriDR6S Not dumb at all. If your map pool is small and you play fortress 24/7 then can’t win a best of 3 over two play days why should u make a major where best of 3s are prominent? Best of 3 shows consistency whereas best of 1 is hugely luck based and depends on who’s warmer on the day
@Kyvlash@nexindie Every commercial game is made for profit. The question is whether it’s fun. If a cheap co-op game gives a group of friends 10–15 hours of laughs, I’d call that a success. That doesn’t stop other indie devs from making more ambitious games.
@taxoffender_@nexindie I get what ur saying, but I think we’re lumping two different things together. A lazy cash grab chasing trends is one thing. A cheap, simple co op game that gives people a few fun nights with the boys is another. There always option 2, don’t like it then don’t buy it.
@whisperszao@TomHates_ Not only that but they run cooler, faster and draw less power. 7800x3d draws around 70w, the 14900k runs like a furnace and draws 180W while gaming and can go above 250W on heavy workloads. If your focus is on gaming make the switch.
@whisperszao@TomHates_ Not sure about the US but the UK has great resale value on a 14900k. Pretty much pays for a 7800x3d. If you’ve been thinking about the switch already then just go for it. Do some quick research (won’t take you long) and you’ll see why that L3 cache size is so important for siege
@whisperszao@TomHates_ Also to clarify: what Tom is telling you to do isn’t a bad idea. But if you’re looking for that 500+ FPS mark you simply won’t get it with that 14900k. Even in his example he says he has an AMD chip with a 3090ti. He completely missed the point that the game is CPU bound
@whisperszao@TomHates_ In my opinion I wouldn’t. Not because you won’t get more frames, but who wants to spend that much money just to play Siege at higher frames? If you take Siege that seriously, then yeah, you’ll see an instant boost with an AMD processor. Just make sure it’s an “X3D” like a 7800X3D
@TomHates_@whisperszao I like how you added that he needs to buy new ram for no reason other than to sound like you had a better point. Optimisation is not the issue here. He is simply capped on siege by that processor. 14900k will not perform no matter what. He will always be bound by that CPU.
@whisperszao@TomHates_ Also to add onto this I’m not saying the 14900k isn’t powerful. It’s a beast of a cpu but if you really care that much about siege then yeah you’ll have to switch the board and chip to AMD. Newer games you won’t have any issues with the 14900k because theyre GPU bound.
@whisperszao@TomHates_ Don’t listen to this TomHates guy. I’ve had both Intel and AMD. Just Google why L3 cache size is so important. Your CPU has more raw power, but AMD’s X3D chips simply perform better in games. Siege is heavily CPU-bound, and the extra L3 cache is exactly why they outperform.