Minus

7Ja3nxXGqn4

Here's a link with some info on your graphics card at least if you wanna check it out. http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-940MX.156033.0.html Just by this it seems you could run Overwatch on medium settings with no trouble

25, thanks.

If you're comparing numbers as Supporter vs Subscriber yeah that's the only difference, but I don't think of it as it being a large or meaningful difference since the idea is only for dead players talking to dead players. I'd be completely against the idea if it was talking to live players like Supporter was. Point I was making was that while dead could talk to live people back then, the issues that people are posting against the dead being able to chat weren't a prominent problem when it came to game play or issues, everything still played the same. Which is honestly what I expect will happen if dead people can talk to dead people, PB will still be very much the same.

That's what I don't get, there's precedent that it did work fine. I know what PB is like but the mindset that it won't work because of the judgement passed on to people who play PB doesn't seem fair. But I'm also fine with the idea of it being a sub perk, it'd at least get peoples attention to the forums in PB when they see people being able to chat with dead players so they'd at least check it out.

I see where you guys are coming from but even when Supporter was around and they could chat with live players while dead, these issues that you guys are saying weren't prominent at all. And this is different completely if it's just dead players talking to dead players. Yeah, people can't complain about getting freekilled while dead on mic to inform an admin, but that seems incredibly minor since people could tell them that they need to type while dead to inform an admin. I get admins have it tough when it comes to PB, but it's a simple convenience for regular players.

Well to sum up opinions from both threads, nobody seems to want to allow people to converse with live players, but there doesn't seem to be any conflict with dead players being able to chat with other dead players. I'ma just tag @Jake and @Delirium for their take.

Not trying to say PB isn't chaotic, but it seems to me that it wouldn't change a thing. Yeah, people can't complain if they thought they got freekilled when they die, but that's never stopped them from bitching at the start of the next round and on. As long as it's just with other dead players, I don't see the harm. Any other way would just get in the way of the game. Also, yeah it has been talked about, but there still wasn't any real resolution on the subject before.

Can I just win this one without a story? You owe me!

38

No. Less rules, less grey areas, less conflict. Not nearly on a level of gameplay importance as compared to no detours or delays. If a CT doesn't say no jumping, at least it's a little more fun than crouch walking everywhere as per PB norm. I mean, there's nothing wrong with T's pushing boundaries, that's what they're supposed to do. Slapping a rule every time something minor shows up just seems tedious.

23. Thanks for doing this, All Ts.

Second one I'm not sure of but the first is like this [.URL=URL HERE]TEXT[./URL] without the .

Delirium seriously going all over with the different colors. Congrats to everyone!

You could also download Gyazo, I think it's easier. It'd at least skip the first three steps for shoopy's so called instruction.

Allow me to toot my own horn for this Let me just go a bit more into this. From what I understand, you want to give Ts the chance to rebel or not. So, like you said, CTs can camp because it's the only way to be able to tell who's rebelling or not, and then in the highly unlikely chance the CTs live, remaining Ts have LRs. However, this is under the assumption that all CTs will want to do that. Some will choose not to camp and go their own way, which is basically saying HEY TS, KILL THIS GUY while you guys are hiding. This is more than changing rules, it's adding something that SG has consistently said it didn't want for many years. No, it'll become just like forced deathgames were in the first iteration. Deathgames were pretty commonly offered, but once FD happened so often and seemed more like a way for people to get as many kills as they want. Even now in the current iteration, I see people falling in map made death games and then CTs just gunning them down. Gotta get them stats up somehow. Completely wrong. It goes entirely against the roleplay of PB. The moment you say Warday there's no control over who's going to rebel and who's not since you'll probably camp somewhere. CTs are not supposed to give Ts a chance, for example like gunplanting. This is just a disadvantageous shootout with no real place in PB. EDIT No offense, but it took 3 pages of posts before you stopped criticizing the criticism you were receiving to answer any of the problems people had with wardays.

Ah, I see. My misunderstanding on that, I retract that part then. So you're saying you can freely express your character but others have to tone theirs down for you? I really haven't seen an argument on how this could work. I have, however, seen many responses on why people think it won't work. If you can give some sort of idea how this could work, it might work to change peoples opinion. You just say it won't be difficult and we should change rules to fit it, but have offered nothing on how it could be done. Those that disagree won't try to see it your way, so if there's something I'm missing that prevents me from seeing how this could work, I'd like some thoughts. You've been responding to people criticizing the idea but not explaining your side of this suggestion.

You realize BW basically said the same thing All Ts said, but your focus is clearly on All Ts. Nothing All Ts said was wrong, you probably just didn't like how he said it. But, how you feel and react to his response is your responsibility. I feel like you could've handled it better. I really don't think you understand enough about his situation and are just lashing out. Fact. However, it's just a place where people voice their suggestions, it's also a place where people discuss why they WOULDN'T want whatever's being suggested. Be prepared for people to voice their opinion, in a way THEY would say it. Just remember that even if you start a discussion, it's not really in your power to just end it when it's disadvantageous or upsetting to you.

You can argue this but I think at the end of the day it's a big no. It's far too disadvantageous to CTs. CTs are already outnumbered, so to make it effective between Ts that are and aren't rebelling the CTs would have to camp otherwise the Ts who aren't rebelling can tell their team where the CTs are. If they choose to split up, even worse odds. Ts can easily take a few peeks to find where you guys are and heal in medic, while CTs just get chipped down. This already happens often enough on freedays, so no need to give out wardays.

This was rejected here, I still have the same opinion on it.

Eh. There are other game modes for things like that.

You could sign up for Origin Access which is $5 a month and play all three Mass Effects, plus Dragon Age games.

Dragon Age, Final Fantasy, Mass Effect, Witcher 3, Elite: Dangerous (can be solo or open play), Tales of Berseria just came out but I haven't played it yet, but I am a fan of the Tales series.