Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Walking-Decoy

  1. Wasn't their either, but I suggest you not ask OSG members to suck your dick if you want to continue playing here. Please follow server rules when ban is up.
  2. I was in a different pub the other day trying to test my laptop to get the best fps possible (wanted one with lots of people to stress the laptop and it was mid day and ours was dead)... and while playing one of the members of the server that was talkative said something to the effect of why was I in their server when our clan was so much more popular and 4 times the size of theirs... and then someone else chimed in and said they also heard how big OSG was and how fun they were to play with... It was just interesting going into a random pub and having people not only know our name, but reference us in a positive manner. So keep it up everyone, great job, and let's keep bringing in fun people to play with and continue to grow this clan to the biggest and best clan we can be! Has this happened to anyone else yet?
  3. Turns out that my dad's new personal laptop plays CS well enough for my needs until I get back to my apartment in Massachusettes... My next plan when I get back however is to make my gaming desktop highly portable. ColtonO showed me a few custom motherboard that help make your computer very small and portable so I'm just going to go that route instead. It may mean buying another MB, but that way I don't have to worry about constantly upgrading two systems...Besides my tower at home is ungodly big and weighs like 40+pounds... Between selling that and the MB, I should be able to pay for most of the new compact Motherboard. Now I just gotta pick out one of these super small Motherboards. THanks everyone for the help and time you put into this!
  4. btw... Found a complete PC that has a PCI 64bit slot.
  5. Is this a good deal? [url="http://tampa.craigslist.org/hil/sys/3553706491.html"]http://tampa.craigslist.org/hil/sys/3553706491.html[/url]
  6. ^That would be great. Thanks! I'm still looking at other options in the meantime. If anything a Motherboard that can run PCIe stuff is probably not too much... I think the Dual Core P4 3ghz should be enough if I can just get a beefy enough gpu in there. All I want is 70 solid fps!!
  7. Crap crap crap... Went out and got a gfx card to use for a couple days until I figured out what to do...and uh oh doesnt fit into the motherboard. Looks like I have an AGP Motherboard. Do they even make graphics cards for these? lolol It's a AGP V 1.5 AGP Pro slot.
  9. [quote name='areyouholdin' timestamp='1359153458' post='7410'] The idea that "more guns solves the problem" is flawed, in my opinion. Take an example that occurred within my city a couple of days ago: [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/lone-star-college-shooting_n_2527806.html"]http://www.huffingto..._n_2527806.html[/url] Two men got into a verbal altercation that lead to each of them drawing weapons and firing upon one another. If people were allowed to carry guns on campus, then it is feasible to assume that a teacher and a few students would be armed in such a situation. While not everyone would respond by pulling out their weapons, the theory postulating "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" emphasizes the need for responsible gun carrying citizens to utilize their arms to defuse the situation (ie. kill the two gentlemen). As a person who works at a university, I cannot begin to explain the implications of such actions. What if multiple people joined the fire fight in order to mollify the situation? Such a scenario would undoubtedly take a turn for the worse. What if some of the individuals were poor shots, or fired with proper intention and missed and hit an innocent bystander? Who would take responsibility? The proliferation of guns is a serious problem in this country and simply adding more to the mix is not the solution. [/quote] There will be scearios like that eventually. It's silly to say that it would NEVER happen. However what I can say to counter your argument is that if you think that this will become the wild wild west where everyone draw's their gun over every single argument... Then we should *already* be seeing that in areas where concealed or open carry is permitted, correct? However the fact remains that we rarely see situations like that. Gun holders tend to be very careful with their guns, and the fact remains you have more of a chance to be shot and killed by someone illegally carrying and intending to harm you than you do some legal gun owner that got mad at you for giving him a bad grade, or some other various reason. That is 100% a fact. Postulating otherwise is ignoring the statistics and facts of what we have seen in real life. If a kid walked into your classroom with guns blazing. Wouldn't you like a chance to defend yourself in that particular scenario? Or would you just prefer to hide behind your desk waiting for him to shoot you, or *AT BEST* not see you? It's a tough question to ask but the fact still remains you have a higher chance of that happening to you than a legal gun owner putting you in a situation like that.
  10. Alright well my Pops is letting me us his desktop... With all the main components except it's a lil old. Here is what I have to work with... It's a P4 Dual Core 3.0 Ghz, plenty of HD space, 3 GB ram, WinXP... and the mother of all GPU's, a GeForce 7600 GS. Think it will play CS:GO as is? What if I toss in the gifted 9800 GS up above? I'm also thinking about upgrading the cpu as well.. I'm sure there is probably a super cheap cpu I can get as well for 30-40 bucks that will be better.
  11. Agreed. Permanent ban for this jack wagon just for his annoying attitiude alone.
  12. I do want to say that I support the following suggested gun law modification. Crimes comitted with illegal guns need to carry *severe and strict* penalties. Some of our criminals have a mentality of "well if I get caught doing this bad thing with a gun I'll only serve __ maximum". That needs to change and it needs to be harsher. The crime of even being caught with an illegal\stolen weapon needs to be stiffer. Criminals need to fear the repurcussions of being caught using a gun in a crime.
  13. [quote name='Fusion' timestamp='1359045563' post='7296'] i have a 9800 gts graphics card i can mail to you. [/quote] Will that be able to run CS:GO at a good enough fps? That's freaking awesome btw man... Seriously. I think a graphic card may be the *only* part I don't think I can scavange from elsewhere.
  14. Oh... and just for shits and giggles... Lets apply all the newest gun control suggestions Obama is suggesting to the last couple shootings... Would these measures have stopped the shootings? Aaaaaannndddd my point is proven.
  15. [quote name='atari' timestamp='1359090451' post='7359'] Which countries specifically are you talking about WD (in relation to strict-laws and high gun crime)?[/QUOTE]A few examples: Brazil Main article: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Brazil"]Gun politics in Brazil[/url] All firearms in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil"]Brazil[/url] are required to be registered with the state. The minimum age for ownership is 25[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-BBCNews-4"][size="2"][4][/size][/url][/sup] and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-NRA_in_Brazil-5"][size="2"][5][/size][/url][/sup] The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be between 14 million and 17 million[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-NRA_in_Brazil-5"][size="2"][5][/size][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_Facts_and_the_Law-6"][size="2"][6][/size][/url][/sup] with 9 million of those being unregistered.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-BBCNews-4"][size="2"][4][/size][/url][/sup] Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-NRA_in_Brazil-5"][size="2"][5][/size][/url][/sup] In 2004, the number was 36,000.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-BBCNews-4"][size="2"][4][/size][/url][/sup] Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_rights_in_Brazil-7"][size="2"][7][/size][/url][/sup] other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_Happy_Brazil-8"][size="2"][8][/size][/url][/sup] Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_Happy_Brazil-8"][size="2"][8][/size][/url][/sup] Approximately 80 percent of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_Happy_Brazil-8"][size="2"][8][/size][/url][/sup] Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_Happy_Brazil-8"][size="2"][8][/size][/url][/sup] In 2005, a referendum was held in Brazil on the sale of firearms and ammunition to attempt to lower the number of deaths due to guns. Material focused on gun rights in opposition to the gun ban was translated from information from the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association"]National Rifle Association[/url], much of which focused on US Constitutional discussions focused around the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]Second Amendment to the United States Constitution[/url].[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_rights_in_Brazil-7"][size="2"][7][/size][/url][/sup] Although the Brazilian Government, the Catholic Church, and the United Nations, among others, fought for the gun ban, the referendum failed at the polls, with 64% of the voters voting no.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-BBCNews-4"][size="2"][4][/size][/url][/sup] There are also more but I'm having trouble finding the documentary I watched showing both sides of the fence. But here are some additional interesting facts and statistics: *In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh gun control measures and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977. *New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.--The reason they enacted these laws was because the crime rates were increasing rapidly in the first place. *Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-188"][size="2"][188][/size][/url][/sup] *Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit"]Detroit[/url], and Washington, D.C.. Chicago has, and DC had until 2008, effectively complete bans on handgun ownership & use for self-defense. New York does allow handgun ownership, but only with the approval of city officials. Post-2008 DC allows handgun ownership, but has no provision to carry. Detroit had a similar policy until 2001, when the city's law was preempted by a new state law making Michigan a shall-issue state for concealed pistol licenses And, from the same wiki page... This was actually mentioned in the video I'm trying to find, another great statistic that SPECIFICALLY shows that no matter how few of us law abiding citizens own guns for self defense, a crazy maniac CAN and WILL kill a lot of people WITH A GUN, if he wants too. Taking away the citizens guns leaves me with no means of defense. Guns aren't going to magically disappear. That's foolish to think so. Read below: ------------ [u][b]In England, Wales and Scotland, the private ownership of most handguns was banned in 1997 following a gun massacre at a school in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre"]Dunblane[/url] and a 1987 gun massacre in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre"]Hungerford[/url] in which the combined deaths was 35 and injured 30. Gun ownership and gun crime was already at a low level, which made these slaughters particularly concerning. Only an estimated 57,000 people —0.1% of the population owned such weapons prior to the ban.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-190"][size="2"][190][/size][/url][/sup] [/b][/u]In the UK, only 8 per cent of all criminal homicides are committed with a firearm of any kind.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-191"][size="2"][191][/size][/url][/sup] In 2005/6 the number of such deaths in England and Wales (population 53.3 million) was just 50, a reduction of 36 per cent on the year before and lower than at any time since 1998/9. In the years immediately after the ban, there was a temporary increase in gun crime, though this has since fallen back. The reason for the increase has not been investigated thoroughly but it is thought that 3 factors may have raised the number of guns in circulation. These are, the reduction in gun crime in Northern Ireland (which led to guns coming from there to the criminal black market in England); guns (official issue or confiscated) acquired by military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan; and guns coming from Eastern Europe after the fall of the iron curtain.[sup][size="2"][[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/url][/i]][/size][/sup] Firearm injuries in England and Wales also increased in this time.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-192"][size="2"][192][/size][/url][/sup] In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_instrument"]blunt instrument[/url]. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun"]air guns[/url], and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airsoft"]airsoft guns[/url]).[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-193"][size="2"][193][/size][/url][/sup] In 2007 the number of deaths in Britain (population 60.7 million) from firearms was 51, and in 2008 it was 42, a 20-year low, with vast parts of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-The_Independent-67"][size="2"][67][/size][/url][/sup] ------------ Now, read the underlined and also read the whole paragraph. It states that although the country *already* had strict laws, there was still a mass murder to the likes of our recent ones... Why? Because criminals don't give a shit about gun laws. Now when you continue reading it sounds like the gun laws are working... However the gun murder rate was *already dropping significantly* prior to the ban, and the ban initially actually increased the crime rate, before it continued to fall down and decrease in the way it already was prior to the ban. That's not a very effective argument for gun bans in my opinion.... It was obvious that gun crime was already falling and enacting a law to limit something and giving that law credit to a continuation of that fall is rather ridiculous and a horrible attempt to skew statistics. Besides, the fact is, some countries are just flat out different. What works in one country doesn't mean it will work here... In my opinion, countries with strict gun laws and low crime tend to be countries that never really had any kind of major crime issues to begin with prior to the ban... Australia for example.. Heck, let's bring another great example about how a highly armed populace can lead to a lower crime rate.. Switzerland. They *REQUIRE* most households to have a *FULLY AUTOMATIC* weapon if there is an "able bodied male" there in case they are called in for active duty. They also do have some other gun restrictions but the fact remains that an absolute ton of homes have fully auto (Ooohhh soooo dangerous) weapon in them and their crime rate is VERY CLOSE to that of.....*gasp*... Canada... In fact, only the gun caused suicide rate is the only stat that is significantly hire... And we all know that suiciders aren't just going to say "Hmmm man I really wish I could kill myself but gee golly I don't got a gun, so I guess I'll just live a happy life instead". One statistic that I would love to see someone look into, is look at America's murder gun rates *WITHOUT* taking into account all the high gun murder rate cities which typically ARE the cities with the strictest laws. I bet our number would look quite a bit better at that point as, oddly enough, we wouldnt have the strict gun laws "ruining" our statistic and raising up the average significantly. [QUOTE=atari] I can totally understand the position of wanting to protect your child. But to me, what happens when you give everyone the power to so easily and quickly end someones life, you have to rely on that person's psyche and decision making. And that scares me. Because when shit hits the wall, people's ability to make decisions can not always function properly. What if you thought someone was breaking into a school to shoot people up, but it was just a kid with a cap-gun playing with his friends? Or some stupid teenage pulling a prank? To me, the scenario of an "average joe" killing someone by accident because they thought there was a legitimate threat is just as likely as the chances of some psycho shoots up a school. And the argument for banning bats is silly. A psycho will kill people if they want to regardless of gun laws...i agree with that. But the chances of mass murder are much higher with a gun than with a knife or bat. [/QUOTE] See, this is where I don't understand your point. Everyone *already has* the power to easily and quickly end someones life. You rely on people's psyche and decision making everyday. You don't know your kids personal life. You don't know the police officers personal life. You don't know the personal life's of the hundreds of people you interact with in a weeks time. You do not know, period. You drive in the opposite lane of potentially crazy ass people that could swerve right into your path because they had a bad day, which vehicular suicide has actually happened btw. What gets me is that you believe the scenario of an "average joe" killing someone by accident is just as likely... It isn't true and statistics prove that. Sure there are accidental shootings but it IS typically when someone is pulling a dumb-fuck prank and faking a break-in or some other stupid shit.. Is there a chance that these issues can happen? ABSOLUTELY. I will never say that arming everyone means no deaths... But I will alwyas believe that arming as many *legal* citizens as possible will lead to far less *purposeful* mass murders. Why? Just look at the last bunch we had. Where did they take place? Oh look at that...gun-free zones. Seems to be a bit of a commonality in these shootings. These psychos TARGET places like this because they know they will see little to no opposition... And they want to inflict maximum damage before they either kill themselves or the police *finally* show up. They don't want to be known as the psycho who ran into a school to ry and kill 50 people but got shot by the first or second teacher they saw. They want high body counts so they target gun free zones. All the above is supported by the fact that the US "Unintentional Gun Death" rate is 0.2 per 100,000 versus the 3.6 per 100,000 intential gun murders. That alone pretty much nullifies any sort of "average joe is just as dangerous" argument you may have. It just isn't true, statistics show that. And what do you consider mass murder? If a bat is responsible for 1,000 singular deaths over a year but a gun is responsible for 800 deaths spread out in 3-5 people bursts over a year, what is more dangerous? Seems to me bats are still pretty dangerous... Just tossing out #'s up above btw, just to try and show my point that an inanimate object regardless of it's intended purpose can still be just as dangerous and kill just as much people. It's the PEOPLE that are the issue. [QUOTE]I think we just have fundamental differences in the idea and comfort of it all. I've grown up in a society where the idea of guns doesn't even enter everyday thought. I don't know anyone in "real life" (even through several degrees of separation) who owns a gun. I'd have real issues if one of my friends decided to go out and buy one. It just isn't the way of life around here, and the instant it enters the way of life i'd worry about how drastically our society would change. It almost creates a cold-war scenario - where you are you constantly arming yourself and worrying about everyone else, which means everyone else starts arming themselves with even "better" weapons, and the cycle continues.[/QUOTE] This isn't a cold-war. It's life. A lot of people have a bad side to them and can and will do anything in their power to hurt you and your family. That's in every single country in the world. It's human nature that there are bad people in the world. Are the chances of my house being broken into and my family being hurt small? Hell yeah it is, even while living here in America... But I'd never, and I repeat NEVER forgive myself if such a scenario actually occurred and I was sitting there helpless because all I had was a bat or stick and the criminal hurting\raping\killing my family had a gun... and I had chose that because I tried to take the high road and say guns were bad. In fact, please answer the question I stated in an earlier post above... I don't think you have yet. If you had a 5-7 year old kid enrolled in the school of the most recent shooting, would you have perferred to know that at least some of the teachers may have been trained, armed, and had proper psychological\background checks and had a gun for protection of not only them but their students (and your kid)? I'm dead serious here. It's a tough question to think of. Imagine you're on your way to the school you just dropped your defenseless kid off at because you heard some crazy teenager is LITERALLY putting bullet holes through your kids classmates and potentially your own kid. Do you want someone trained and trusted to have a means of possibly defending them until the cops arrive 3-5 minutes at a minimum later? Please answer this. [size=4][u][b]Remember, when seconds count....the police are only minutes away.[/b][/u][/size] [QUOTE] You say that perhaps I don't trust the average joe to protect my children...I'd counter that perhaps you guys trust the average joe too much to properly identify and protect people as well. [/QUOTE] Incidental shootings do happen however again, that statistic is far lower than intentional. On top of that, their are quite literally thousands of incidents where a crime was either prevented and or stopped midway by the use of a firearm holder. Rarely is someone caught in the crossfire.
  16. [quote name='atari' timestamp='1359075490' post='7343'] using that logic, shouldn't the States be one of the safest countries in the world (since they have the most guns in the hands of good guys) instead of having one of the highest gun-deaths per capita in the world (excluding countries with wars going on obviously). I don't know. One of the biggest reasons I believe the laws are broken in the US is because the country seems broken. No where else has the same extreme issues around unnecessary death and violence (first world). At least no where I read about. I could very well just be ignorant, as I'm not claiming to be totally worldly or up to date on politics. [/quote] 1) We have a rather high population compared to most other countries. It is rather unfair to look at other countries with 1/10th the population and look at their murder by gun numbers without taking into account the actual percentages instead. When you do this, the numbers are quite closer.... America is still up there, absolutely, but other factors are largers causes for that increase. 2) In addition to what you stated... You would think we would have lower gun murders based off of how many guns we have... However as I mentioned above, it is quite often the case that the areas with the highest murders are the very same places with the strictest gun controls for law abiding citizens. These areas tend to be ripe with gang warfare and account for a very large percentage of the gun murders...gang on gang crime and etc.... This severely raises the overall "gun murder average" of the US. If our gun murder rate was at the level of some areas that aren't scared to put a gun in a law abiding citizen's hands, we probably wouldn't even be having thid discussion. 3) Countries that have very strict gun laws typically see a very giant leap in violent crime and murders with other weapons go through the roof. Bats are the most common.... Do we ban Bats? Britain is a prime example of the typical rise in other violent crimes and murders with non-guns.
  17. [quote name='atari' timestamp='1359070403' post='7338'] What if the teacher is a bad guy? In my mind, more guns doesn't solve guns (I know that's a simplistic way of looking at it, but I still think it stands true). And you can teach weapon safety and all that, but it's not the inability to understand and use firearms that's the problem. It's the mental stability (or instability) of the individual in question. Unfortunately, some people are just "programmed" wrong. It's the access to help that's the problem. So, couple their mental instability with the ease of access to firearms, or any real means of quick, easy murder options, and that creates problems. I'm well aware that my views on gun ownership might be quite out there, especially for anyone from the States, and I don't think your views are wrong by any means. But if I got to decide things, that's the route I'd go. And I don't really understand your Washington quote. I fully understand what removing rights represents - and in no way do I advocate taking things away from people for no good reason. But, in my mind the world is an evolving place. Just because something was written in history doesn't mean it should be a permanent, fundamental part of society. Rules & rights need to always be challenged, to make sure they still serve a greater good. [/quote] People's mental instability is why I want to own a gun, and why others should too. It's quite rare that a gun owner goes off the deep end like you suggest. Most gun deaths are from illegally obtained weapons. And the gun legislation will only make it harder for me to *legally* protect me and my own. I don't care if a mentally unstable person comes at me with a bat... If I think my life is threatened I want as many bullets and as much force as I can possibly use to safely protect myself\my family. ps: Bats are higher on the FBI's list of dangerous weapons. That's above guns as well. Should we ban bats?
  18. [quote name='atari' timestamp='1359068193' post='7334'] I"m pretty far on the extreme for the gun-debate topic. I don't believe anyone but security personnel should have the right to own firearms (including hunting guns). The idea that teacher's should be armed in schools blows my mind. [/quote] I have a question for you then... If you had a kid in that school when a psycho criminal used illegally obtained firearms walked through the front doors... Would you want your teachers to potentially be armed or would you rather them be unarmed and unable to defend your child's life? Also, it's a pretty well known statistic that the places with the highest gun murder rates are the areas with the strictest gun laws. The safest areas are often the places with a higher number of legal gun owners\carriers.
  19. Sure... Let's set it for next week. I know its a bit out but I'm not there and want to play toooooooo. I'm out of town at the moment so I will bump this and PM you when I get back. Or the other guys can scrim ya without me as well.
  20. [b][u][color=#FF0000]The challenge: [/color][/u][/b] Need a super cheap gaming computer that I can keep in Tampa while visitng here so I can play with you guys while visitng home and keep improving and building up the competition OSG team. [color=#FF0000][u][b]Budget: [/b][/u][/color] 350 bucks MAX. Anything less would be awesome. Budget is *EXTREMELY* important at the moment... As it stands this is still a planning phase and it may take a couple months for me to get the components... but I'd like to have them by end of February so I can play while here during any visit after that. [b][u][color=#FF0000]What I already have[/color][/u][/b]: I have a decent monitor (though on occassion it has issues with randomly changing inputs on me...this can probably be fixed if I dedicated some time to it or found someone that knows how to fix shit like that though) A hard drive probably big enough for XP\Win7 and CS:GO, which is the only thing this pc would really be used for... I think it's around 120gb or something. A case Mouse\Keyboard\Mousepad\Headphones I have All assorted cabling Spare CD\DVD drives for the OS install... [color=#FF0000][b][u]Things I *MIGHT* have available:[/u][/b][/color] I potentially even have a motherboard that might be newish enough to use. If this is worth looking into due to cost savings and keeping me under budget let me know. I might have some DDR2 available as well. Possibly even a chip, though it's probably in the range of 3-4 years old. I'd have to see what kind as it's my parents old PC (though they tend to buy pretty good computers just no video card or gaming stuff with it) The three components above would have to be canabalized from an old parents PC they aren't using. Not sure if they'd be cool with that. lol...So let's see if we can make this work without the 3 things above and if not possible, let me know. I love building PC's but unfortunately with all the business and eviciting my tenant and etc down here, I have no time unfortunately to research this. I'm hoping some of you guys might help. Thanks guys!! GO GO GO!
  21. [quote name='Gallitin' timestamp='1358568984' post='6986'] I can host it, but what do you mean anonymous download access? Could just host it and download it via osgamers.net/mappack.zip or whatever. [/quote] I forgot we could just host it here. Haha... How do you want me to get you the zip? It's 143MB.
  22. They are, they aren't, they are, they aren't.. WHY ARE YOU GUYS PLAYING WITH MY EMOTIONS?!?1 [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwXD0hCvtX4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwXD0hCvtX4[/url]
  23. Anyone got a permanent FTP I can host this map pack at? It's 143MB. Needs anonymous DL access as well.
  24. Hmm, I would suggest possibly shorter map times. Giving it more of a quick rotate should work. I think it's at like 15 minutes now? Maybe chop off 3-5 minutes...and in the map rotation we should rotate the popular maps with some of the less popular ones. We kind of do this with the casual server... Example: Dust2 1st map Train 2nd Aztec 3rd (hurts population sometime) Dust2 (To refill server) This allows some variety while also taking advantage of the server filling maps. I'll try and find some other aim maps...however we could toss in fy_iceworld and a few of those old maps as well, I know those *should* not do too badly. Is there a way to use the gun-game maps as well? Those would do well if we could play them in casual mode.
  • Create New...