RevanBITW's forum posts

Avatar image for RevanBITW
RevanBITW

739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By RevanBITW
Member since 2013 • 739 Posts

@nblrmt said:

I'm generally a very paranoid person, and liquid near computer parts is a bit of a stretch to me.

My build is complete sans choosing a cooler: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2sVv4

I'm still willing to try liquid cooling if the part is reliable. I was wondering if the cooler listed is a solid one, or if I could just get a much better air cooler instead?

@ShimmerMan said:

There's no need for watercooling anymore. That's old school when video cards and CPUs couldn't be overclocked without overheating. All this has been eradicated and good overclocks can easily be achieved with decent after market air cooling. Most people who water cool now days are just trying to be extra.

First it's a pre-filled closed loop, so it's completely safe. And secondly, water cooling is still very much relevant, it's not necessary, but it's the best way to get the best overclocks.

Avatar image for RevanBITW
RevanBITW

739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By RevanBITW
Member since 2013 • 739 Posts

@jg4xchamp said:

@RevanBITW said:

@jg4xchamp said:

It's a Peyton Manning led team with an offensive line that has a glaring weak spot, very little commitment to a running game(or at the least lacking a dominant one) with basically no defense, and recently poor special teams coverage.

How does that usually work out for him? I feel like we can all write the blueprint for that plot line. Peyton grinds out some tough points slowly but surely, his defense gives up long drives, that eat up a lot of clock, and without a lead to play with Peyton gets desperate, tries to score too quickly, and throws a bad interception, in a big spot. That defense he's bringing into the playoffs might actually be worse than a lot of the indy defenses he brought into the playoffs.

Yeah, remember when I predicted he would go to the 49ers years ago? That whats he would've done if he was smart. Now he's stuck with the same kind of team and doesn't have a dome anymore. So stupid of him to have chosen the Broncos.

You were one year early on that prediction after that 2010 game. I remember that thread and everyone being lol LIKE INDY WOULD CUT PEYTON MANNING. ...and then his neck situation happened. Kind of crazy how close you got.

I don't necessarily think you were wrong in saying he should have went with the 49ers, but one should also wonder if Peyton Manning's headstrong nature could work with Jim Harbaugh's ego. Plus it worked out better for 49ers assuming Kaep is a longterm answer.

They already had Kaepernick at that point. And Peyton would've won his 2nd ring already.

Avatar image for RevanBITW
RevanBITW

739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By RevanBITW
Member since 2013 • 739 Posts

@jg4xchamp said:

It's a Peyton Manning led team with an offensive line that has a glaring weak spot, very little commitment to a running game(or at the least lacking a dominant one) with basically no defense, and recently poor special teams coverage.

How does that usually work out for him? I feel like we can all write the blueprint for that plot line. Peyton grinds out some tough points slowly but surely, his defense gives up long drives, that eat up a lot of clock, and without a lead to play with Peyton gets desperate, tries to score too quickly, and throws a bad interception, in a big spot. That defense he's bringing into the playoffs might actually be worse than a lot of the indy defenses he brought into the playoffs.

Yeah, remember when I predicted he would go to the 49ers years ago? That whats he would've done if he was smart. Now he's stuck with the same kind of team and doesn't have a dome anymore. So stupid of him to have chosen the Broncos.

Avatar image for RevanBITW
RevanBITW

739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By RevanBITW
Member since 2013 • 739 Posts

@Chutebox said:

@Rayrota said:

@Chutebox said:

@Rayrota: Romo lead Cowboys only scored 17 the first game against the Eagles. Orton actually did better than Romo.

The Cowboys average 28 points a game with Romo under center. Secondly, did you honestly think the Eagles defense was going to be exactly the same as it was in Week 7? C'mon, Chutebox, I know you're smarter than that.

Do you even know what you're saying?

And i'll say it again, Romo lead Cowboys team only put up 17 on Eagles. I don't care what they averaged throughout the year. You can't look at any play in that game and say Romo would have done better. Hell, if it wasn't for Whitten Cowboys might have actually won.

The Cowboys finished 4th in points scored and 26th in points allowed. And idiots everywhere like you are blaming everything on Romo. Get a fucking clue.

Avatar image for RevanBITW
RevanBITW

739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By RevanBITW
Member since 2013 • 739 Posts

@Seabas989 said:
@mems_1224 said:

@RevanBITW said:

@mems_1224 said:

@Rayrota said:

*slow clap* Yep, now what were you Romo bashers saying...?

Romo would have done the same thing. Lets be honest here.

Romo would've scored a lot more points by then and it would've the Eagles trying to come from behind. The Cowboys averaged 28 points a game with Romo and the Eagles have a subpar defense.

Yea, but its December. Ball don't lie.

QFT.

Right, how did that turn out for the Redskins last week?

Avatar image for RevanBITW
RevanBITW

739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By RevanBITW
Member since 2013 • 739 Posts

@mems_1224 said:

@Rayrota said:

*slow clap* Yep, now what were you Romo bashers saying...?

Romo would have done the same thing. Lets be honest here.

Romo would've scored a lot more points by then and it would've the Eagles trying to come from behind. The Cowboys averaged 28 points a game with Romo and the Eagles have a subpar defense.

Avatar image for RevanBITW
RevanBITW

739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By RevanBITW
Member since 2013 • 739 Posts

@MacBoomStick said:

There is a lot of fucking idiots on these forums.

Yup. I never even played Gone Home, but people who argue this game needs to have replay value or actual gameplay needs get a fucking clue, that's clearly not what this game is about.

Avatar image for RevanBITW
RevanBITW

739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 RevanBITW
Member since 2013 • 739 Posts

It will dip below 60 in multiplayer when shit goes crazy for sure, so I'd stick with High.

Avatar image for RevanBITW
RevanBITW

739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 RevanBITW
Member since 2013 • 739 Posts

I don't even believe you have a r9 290. Nice try though.

Avatar image for RevanBITW
RevanBITW

739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 RevanBITW
Member since 2013 • 739 Posts

@robokill said:

@FelipeInside said:

@robokill said:

screw these guys, bf4 is unfinished garbage and they think they can charge $110 for it. Last time I ever play a battlefield game and I'm 100% positive people are quitting in droves, unacceptable and I join the rational group of people that refuse to be swindled by these greedy companies. You'll get the apologists that refuse to take off their fanboy goggles but in reality bf4 is trash, if I went back 2 months I wouldn't take it for free, hell, I wouldn't play it if someone paid me to.

- $110 the game is not

- You're 100% positive people are quitting in droves and you would be 100% wrong. There are heaps of servers full of people.

- Most of the "unfinished" things you mention have been fixed, and they are still fixing other stuff.

Haters will be haters.

lol, what nonsense

So no counter-arguments? If you have nothing to say you could've abstained.