As far as I know “lag” is different than “crash”.
Plus adding to what that IMCisGreedy guy told, it wasn’t working and then was removed because of that. Just like when you remove a broken feature instead of fixing.
As far as I know “lag” is different than “crash”.
Plus adding to what that IMCisGreedy guy told, it wasn’t working and then was removed because of that. Just like when you remove a broken feature instead of fixing.
You still insist?
#LIFETIME ONLY BELOW#
/boostattack [className]
/ba
Activates a consumable item that adds damage to your attacks.
/crashchannel
Crashes your current channel.
Warning: This may be tracable back to your account, consider using on an alternate account.
/crashplayer [familyName]
Crashes a player and sometimes stops them from being able to log back on.
Warning: This may be tracable back to your account, consider using on an alternate account.
Then it was changed to massively lag a player because crash didn’t work anymore, then it was completely removed last week.
Really, you’re wrong, give up.
“Massively lag a player because crash didn’t work anymore”
Maybe you want to use “replaced the feature” instead of removed? It’s fine if you go that route. But doesn’t change the fact that crash doesn’t work and was removed.
Plus you don’t give any date to when it was changed to “lag” a player. It can be way longer of a broken feature to then changed into something that isn’t crash, which leads to what I’m saying that:
You’re free to tell where I’m wrong in this, because I’m not, you are.
Plus, stop throwing strawmans:
I never said that it didn’t exist. Just that it isn’t around for a long time unlike people claims that it still works. If you want to try to win an argument, at least don’t go to the cheap ones.
You know you’re wrong when you start throwing those, rofl.
You are wrong because crash worked until it was patched.
The lag feature was described as “massively lagging to the point of being unplayable”, aka obtained the same results as a crash.
5:06 pm, Sat Oct 15, 2016
/crashplayer has been re-enabled, but will now only lag the player due to it being partially fixed by IMC.
It has been working since last October, removed last week.
You never said that either, at least not on this thread and I’m not going to look after all your previous rants.
You ain’t so good if you aren’t even able to look for these infos by yourself.
Delusional thinking at best.
Sorry rabbit, unless you are a user of Hook64 (which you claim I am) or visit the hook64 website for evidence as @thealleycats suggested, you aren’t making any sense and just making yourself look stupid in this argument. You are using words of IMCISGREEDY to make your argument? Wow, have you ran out of ideas?
Here’s more evidence for you.
Congratulations for using your previous argument against yourself.
Cheers, and don’t forget to reply with another wall of text, it really turns me on.
And how is it different from my initial discussion in this thread? I never said it never worked. I just said it doesn’t work.
Let’s go answering yet another TheAlleyStrawman:
1 - Quote my full sentence to preserve context:
2 - Check the context of the argument: If a feature doesn’t exist right now it was removed. Exist is a present term. I don’t need to keep my arguments compatible with conditions that aren’t met anymore. i.e. for a feature to exist it should be currently included a software, otherwise it doesn’t exist, for example, since when it was removed.
3 - A lag may crash or not someone.
Plus there’s no place in this thread you said that “lagplayer” actually crashes someone and I’m not going to search hack forums for you. As you say it yourself:
From all your posts and lack of descriptions I can assume it’s a form of message spam that may or may not crash someone.
Based on old reports about people trying to crash others in GvG and showing that they received spam of chat messages on some screenshots.
Which goes down to:
Showing that it’s possible fixed. Which also matches with you saying the features was removed.
Thus does not exists anymore.
Any argument saying that other players can crash others with Hook64 are invalid as of when IMC fixed the flaws.
Thus, I am not wrong when I’m saying: the feature does not exists. One cannot claim that other players are being crashed by Hook64 and there’s no argument to support this claim.
You’re the wrong one, started throwing strawmans to make me answer to something that replies to something I didn’t say so you can brag while pretending to be right and have no reading comprehension.
You really don’t know how to say “I was wrong, sorry”.
Have fun with your delusional thinking.
My argument of the feature not existing was made after October as well after last week.
Precisely, you’re answering to something that was written 15 hours ago:
You’re the one who don’t know to assume you’re wrong.
One cannot claim that any player is being crashed by Hook64 because the feature does not exist.
Resort to mirror climbing .
Quote the full thing, please:
I never claimed that it didn’t exist. I affirmed that it does not exists.
And I am right on my argument:
If one is having crash issues the person would probably blame Hook64 because other players saying it works when the feature does not exists.
If one is having crashes the person could be confused by those false claims. Which is the reason I made the argument.
And just as I said 15 hours ago:
Just look at the lot of people claiming that you could crash others with Hook64, including you, the other guy went to ask the creator to confirm and there’s no crash “feature”.
No, you are just delusional. I didn’t even include in the time span the period prior October, when it was directly crashing the players, which would lead to months over months.
If that isn’t long enough, you have a problem with time.
Yet my claim is about currently crashing others. I’m not denying flaws in the past. I’m affirming that the feature does not currently exists.
You’re the one delusional trying to use a condition that isn’t met anymore as support for an argument that thus isn’t valid anymore.
So I am right and you’re bringing all stuff you can to try to prove that I’m not. When I’m simply telling facts that are presently in place and can be validated while yours can not.
Has it been around for a long time unlike you said? Yes or Not?
Just reply with a yes or not.
Depends on point of view. As well time is subjective.
If you consider the crash feature which I was referring to:
It isn’t around for a long time.
If you consider the lag feature:
It was removed last week.
Now that I’m done answering your question, I will ask one back, but first, let’s go back to your initial argument:
If a feature is removed, can it be said that it currently exists?
Just answer: Yes or No.
I don’t believe this exists. Titan series are outside of the numbered series. I personally have a GTX 1080.
Most gamers are using a 60Hz refresh rate monitor. Anything more than 60FPS is useless to most people as their monitor can’t display it. In fact, enabling V-Sync (to lock your FPS to 60) is actually better for most gamers. I highly doubt that a majority of people here have 120 or higher Hz refresh rates.
Other way around. ToS is extremely taxing on the CPU and barely utilizes your GPU up until recently. I’m using an i5 6600K overclocked to 4.2GHz (stable with my current cooling system).
Using the MSI Afterburner for monitoring, ToS now uses up to 49% of my CPU and 40~60% of my GPU.
TL;DR
A lot of wrong information being thrown around and people relying on having more than 60FPS as a “good thing” when it barely matters if you don’t have the monitor to show it.
*In fact, displaying higher than 60FPS on a 60Hz monitor normally causes screen-tearing which looks bad.
I asked you to reply with a yes or no.
You replied like this:
I give up on you, you have something wrong and I don’t want to be trolled further.
Just to add:
It has been around for months before October.
If you put on bait/cheap questions that are subjective and written to make a trap and can be understood in more than one way I cannot give you an answer of Yes and No when both of those are going to support your argument.
Thus I disagree on replying with a simple Yes or No.
For consideration with our discussion I offered answer for the two possible scenarios.
You’re the one trolling. And you didn’t answer my question.
Yes. But it
isn’t around <<
for a long time <<.
October -> Nowadays = long time.
Can you read it this way? Seems you can’t read a normal sentence in a normal paragraph.
Plus if you still fail to understand, I do think that my choice of terms is correct:
Maybe you can find some tips there too. But in you case, for, like, you know, learning how to read.
GTX 750Ti here and the game is fine with 60FPS without any losses on most occasions. The game itself is quite unoptimize
GPU isn’t one of the main factors that affect your overall PC performance when playing. I got a i5-4440 CPU and most games runs well without FPS stutter, tearing and whatknot. It really depends on the owner and how he/she takes care of it.
Oh. I totally agree with you. I said you need a good GPU thinking of around a year ago when I used an Optmius laptop. Running the game on Integrated Graphics was a no go, totally unplayable.
I just noticed I put “god” instead of “good” GPU and that’s my bad. Sorry. I was sleepy and it was a typo >< I kinda meant like, any good GPU.
Edited it to keep clarity! Sorry again :<
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder
Here you can find something to sort your problems.