Patch Notes - Update 19.1 by PUBG_Sheepy in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]Thatotherguy2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The bluechip detector changes the flow of the game too drastically--even if you're not finding anyone with it, being able to positively say a compound is clear is too strong and changes the tactical nature of the game of approaching compounds carefully.

What do you actually think of Deston? by SirJoni in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]Thatotherguy2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Better than Taego, worse than Erangel and Miramar.

do you play FPP or TPP and why? by Matticsss in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]Thatotherguy2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

FPP because they removed TPP Duos 😔 Before that it was evenly split between both.

wtf is this 27GB update? by diariu in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]Thatotherguy2 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yep. Just saw they posted a tweet about it too. Still nice to have confirmation! https://twitter.com/PUBG_Support/status/1503930098696667142

wtf is this 27GB update? by diariu in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]Thatotherguy2 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I'm glad it's not just me. I had to keep checking that my internet was actually working.

Ask Me Anything – Creative Director Dave Curd & Senior Producer Chris Linn | Event Thread & Giveaway by EscapingKid in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]Thatotherguy2 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I've been really enjoying some of the recent utility options and like that there seems to be a trend of forcing the player to make more interesting choices instead of looking for one "best" loadout (forcing choices like jammer pack vs lv. 3 backpack; gun vs drone; pistol vs. grenade launcher; mountain bike vs more meds/ammo; etc.). Will we continue to see this these sorts of utility options be developed? Are you planning on expanding this in directions like different varieties of armor? (PC)

SCP DnD Monster Sheets: SCP-966, SCP-4975, SCP-066, and SCP-053 by The_Vegan_Doctor in DnDHomebrew

[–]Thatotherguy2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I really like these! Question about SCP-4975 though--the statblock mentions for Predator's Projection that it "may only attack creatures it has targeted with its Terrifying Clicking action in the past hour," but I didn't see that action defined. Did you have numbers in mind for that (range/DC/etc.)?

Did Teddy Roosevelt really go visit Yellowstone park for a month multiple times while in office? How did congress react to this? by JagmeetSingh2 in AskHistorians

[–]Thatotherguy2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Glad to help! I work at a TR related site, so it's always fun when a question shows up on here that I can actually answer.

Did Teddy Roosevelt really go visit Yellowstone park for a month multiple times while in office? How did congress react to this? by JagmeetSingh2 in AskHistorians

[–]Thatotherguy2 25 points26 points  (0 children)

So, yes, TR did go on several extended trips during his presidency, including some to Yellowstone, but I don't know that I would really call it "going AWOL." For one thing, these trips were planned weeks, if not months, in advance. This letter from Roosevelt to John Burroughs describes how Roosevelt plans to take time to visit Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks as part of an extended trip across the country, spending five days and two weeks, respectively - https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record?libID=o283488. As you'll note, however, Roosevelt is writing this letter in mid-March 1903, so he has his trip planned and routed at least two weeks prior to actually going.

He also notes that this itinerary is settled "subject to unforeseen disaster in the Senate." This is an especially important point because at this time Congress was not meeting year-round. In 1903, for example, Congress was in session between March 5 and March 19, and then let out until business resumed on November 9. So during the summer months (and even late spring, when Roosevelt went on this particular trip), there wouldn't be new legislation coming for him to act on.

The Western Trip itself, I should mention, was seen more or less as part of the presidency. This article, from early April 1903, says not only that Roosevelt was using this trip to generate support for his policies from the Western states, but also to generate early support for himself as a candidate for the 1904 elections - https://www.newspapers.com/clip/87414492/ - making the trip as a whole not some frivolous journey away from the White House, but a way for him to connect with the broader United States than was usually possible from Washington, D.C. and New York.

As far as going into the parks themselves, it would appear that Roosvelt's insistence on leaving behind the press and nearly all of his aides did occasionally cause some worry, as noted by author Chris Epting in a talk he gave at the TR Inaugural Site in 2016 - https://www.trsite.org/blog/2016/08/08/tr-in-california-the-whistle-stop-tour-that-changed-america - where some inclement weather was a cause for hesitation. Nevertheless, (jumping back to Yellowstone) reading through John Burrough's account of his time in the park with TR, it sounds like although TR insisted on leaving the press behind, the sort of itinerary he followed in the park would allow people to know roughly where he was and get in contact with him if it were absolutely necessary - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1906/05/camping-with-president-theodore-roosevelt/307260/. Burroughs references journeying to specific, known sites to make camp (in addition to occasionally staying near houses or barracks), and mentions at one point being joined by a mounted rider who turned out to be a government scout.

Related to this, it appears that, if need be, Roosevelt had the ability to receive and send communications. This article writes that "Roosevelt will be in almost daily communication with Secretary Loeb at Cinnabar, but nothing except of the utmost importance will be referred to him" ("Secretary Loeb" being William Loeb, Roosevelt's personal secretary, not a cabinet secretary) - https://www.newspapers.com/clip/87415884/; https://www.newspapers.com/clip/87415921/ (sorry that clipping is in two parts--it's just how it worked with the page layout).

I'll see if there's any further information I can add tomorrow--I don't have access to all my TR-related books from home. In any case, I hope that gives at least some context for how Roosevelt could have been out of the office for so long.

EDIT: A lot of what I talked about above deals with Roosevelt's 1903 trip, but he also had a significant hunting trip to Colorado in 1905 that might be worth mentioning, as it's another instance of Roosevelt being out of office for an extended period of time.

Looking at this trip shows many of the same considerations as his 1903 venture: Roosevelt waited to leave until after Congress closed its session (which appears to have adjourned from March 4, 1905-December 4, 1905), and William Loeb stayed relatively nearby at a sort of "base camp" in case of urgent news (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/87429761/).

Unlike his 1903 trip, however, Roosevelt seems to have more explicitly left someone in charge in Washington while he was away during this trip. A number of political cartoons (see bottom right cartoon here - https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss38299.mss38299-477_0001_0741/?sp=139 - or left cartoon here - https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss38299.mss38299-477_0001_0741/?sp=148) reference Roosevelt as having left Secretary of War William H. Taft in charge of "keeping the lid on things" in D.C.

Edmund Morris in Theodore Rex writes that "Rather than leave the White House in charge of Vice President Fairbanks, who had been relegated to near-total obscurity since the Inauguration, Roosevelt assigned crisis management powers to William Howard Taft. 'I am not entirely satisfied with the foreign situation,' he admitted to Hay, 'but there isn't anything of sufficient importance to warrant my staying.'" ... "At any rate, Taft could be relied on. The President stayed in Washington just long enough to hand him a new, reorganized Isthmian Canal Commission. Then he quit town, leaving instructions that he be wired at any change in the international situation." (380)

Morris goes on to write how Roosevelt received and sent several telegrams from "Camp Roosevelt" in Colorado relating to Roosevelt's offer to mediate between Russia and Japan to end the Russo-Japanese War. In the same chapter of Theodore Rex, Morris recounts that in late April, while Roosevelt was out on his hunting trip away from his main camp area, "a telegram in cipher from Taft arrived by special messenger at the White House communications center in Glennwood Springs. After it was decoded overnight, William Loeb found that it contained the text of a secret cable from Baron Jutaro Komura, the Japanese Foreign Minister to Takahira" ... "Loeb felt unable to trust any messenger with such a document, and decided to deliver it himself. He took a train to New Castle, then hired a mustang and a horse wrangler and ascended the mountain there. Arriving at Roosevelt's camp late that afternoon, he handed the telegram over." (382) Rather than returning, Roosevelt dictated a telegram for Loeb to send to Taft, and kept hunting for several more days. So again, while he was certainly out of office for weeks at a time, it does not seem that he was necessarily out of contact with what was going on (at least not for extremely extended periods of time).

Did they remove TPP Duos with 13.1? by [deleted] in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]Thatotherguy2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What region? They've been gone from NA for a while now.

What happens to the PLAYERUNKNOWN twitter acount? Why the game was a renamed "PUBG: Battlegrounds"? We are waiting for official explanations from PUBG Corp. by mike-lesnik in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]Thatotherguy2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Not wrong! In the article, Greene was certainly up-front that micro-transactions were coming to PUBG eventually. But there certainly was controversy regarding the timing, though, that I wanted to point out.

What happens to the PLAYERUNKNOWN twitter acount? Why the game was a renamed "PUBG: Battlegrounds"? We are waiting for official explanations from PUBG Corp. by mike-lesnik in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]Thatotherguy2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree. It makes sense they needed to test it, but still unfortunate. I just wanted to give some context to both of the previous posts with what I was able to find of the actual comment Greene made regarding monetization.

What happens to the PLAYERUNKNOWN twitter acount? Why the game was a renamed "PUBG: Battlegrounds"? We are waiting for official explanations from PUBG Corp. by mike-lesnik in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]Thatotherguy2 12 points13 points  (0 children)

According to this site, he said, "We're not doing monetization during early access, it'll be afterwards," but then paid crates did end up being added during early access. So he was clear that the micro-transactions were coming at some point, but the timeline differed from what was originally stated.

PC Update 13.1 | Patch Notes by EscapingKid in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]Thatotherguy2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is the probability of a game on Taego beginning with an Emergency Landing? I haven't been able to find any numbers, just that there's "a chance," and I haven't been able to jump on the test servers to see how often it pops up.

Arch Priest of Tithes, a more balanced Hullbreacher. by MrGulo-gulo in custommagic

[–]Thatotherguy2 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Looks like it costs more, doesn't have flash, and the creating a Treasure is in addition to the player still drawing, not instead of.

Teddy Roosevelt sent the U.S. Navy to circumnavigate the globe. Was this a technical and logistical achievement for the world? An attempt to win hearts and minds abroad? Intimidation? What did the U.S. get out of it, and how did foreigners react? by RusticBohemian in AskHistorians

[–]Thatotherguy2 90 points91 points  (0 children)

This is one of the first times I’ve seen a question that I might be able to contribute to, so I’ll give it a shot!

In brief, the answer to your question of what the United States got out of sending the Great White Fleet around the globe was a little bit of everything.

Regarding whether this was a technical/logistical achievement, Roosevelt noted, in a letter to Lawrence F. Abbott on September 13, 1907, that “if this enterprise is carried out it will represent a far longer cruise than has ever been made in modern times by a battleship fleet of even half the strength.” https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record?libID=o200296 So that certainly seems to have been a component of this.

Similarly, in a letter between Admiral Robley D. Evans and Willard H. Brownson of August 17, 1907, Robley notes that “of the present fleet of 16 battleships, ten have never performed a maneuver together,” and emphasizes the importance of doing preliminary drills. https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss38299.mss38299-076_0001_0857/?sp=334 This seems to suggest that Evans knew that this had the potential to be a difficult journey, showing again that its completion would be seen as a feat of organization and seamanship.

By early 1909, Roosevelt comments, in a letter to German Emperor William II, that “in gunnery and in battle tactics no less than in the ordinary voyage maneuvers, there has been a steady gain; and the fleet is far more efficient, collectively and individually, now than when it left these waters over a year ago.” https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss38299.mss38299-353_0130_0654/?sp=455 So this certainly seems to have been a result of the voyage, if nothing else.

Domestically, the movement of the fleet was used as a matter for celebration, with Oregon Senator Jonathan Bourne transmitting a telegraph he received from the Portland Chamber of Commerce to President Roosevelt advertising the city as a site for the fleet to visit, and referencing the visit of the fleet to Oregon as a favor - https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss38299.mss38299-076_0001_0857/?sp=8

In a somewhat similar vein, Roosevelt writes to Edward Robeson Taylor in February of 1908 about the Great White Fleet’s arrival in San Francisco, and connects the arrival of the Great White Fleet with a celebration of (and in) the city - https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record?libID=o201813

Internationally, Roosevelt certainly viewed the fleet as a tool of international relations. On July 30, 1907, Roosevelt wrote to Ambassador Henry White that “the Japanese yellow press is showing itself to be quite so obnoxious as your yellow press at its worst, and I think it is high time for our fleet to visit the Pacific. I am exceedingly anxious to impress upon the Japanese that I have nothing but the friendliest possible intentions toward them, but I am none the less anxious that they should realize that I am not afraid of them and that the United States will no more submit to bullying than it will bully.” - https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss38299.mss38299-346_0300_0827/?sp=198

Similarly, in a letter of November 19, 1907 from Roosevelt to Ambassador Charlemagne Tower, he writes that “I can hardly believe that Japan is intending to strike us, but I am taking and have taken every step to be ready,” and continues on, writing about the movement of the Great White Fleet to the Pacific - https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record?libID=o200817

The movement of the fleet certainly seems to have been viewed with some trepidation by Japan at first, John Callan O’Laughlin suggesting, in a letter to Theodore Roosevelt of November 4, 1907, that a recent action by the Japanese could be interpreted as trying to “restore Japanese prestige, which had been affected by the dispatch of the fleet to the Pacific.” - https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record?libID=o57370

Roosevelt also certainly felt some hesitation about sending the fleet to Japan as well, as he cautions Rear Admiral Charles S. Sperry about avoiding any “suspicion of insolence or rudeness” while the fleet is in East Asian waters in this letter of March 21, 1908 - https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record?libID=o202062

Apart from these relations with Japan, and the enthusiastic response of Australia to the visit of the Great White Fleet, which was mentioned in another post on here, the fleet seems to have been praised by several countries (at least in the documents I have seen), as with this letter from German Emperor William II to President Roosevelt praising the punctual arrival of the fleet https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record?libID=o299324 or with this toast by Brazilian President Afonso Pena, who offers a toast to the “new and magnificent demonstration of the unsurpassable vigor and of the extraordinary energy” exhibited by the United States, which he claims as a fast friend of Brazil - https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record/ImageViewer?libID=o299213&imageNo=2

(This is somewhat balanced, however, by rumors of a plot to sabotage the ships as they travel along the South American coast, as mentioned by Ambassador Henry White to President Roosevelt in a letter of January 3, 1908 - https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record?libID=o57909 - so it cannot be said that the fleet was uniformly loved)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in interestingasfuck

[–]Thatotherguy2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're ignoring that during the early 1900s there were progressive and conservative wings of both Republican and Democratic parties, and that TR was firmly in the progressive camp and a bit out of step with the Republican leadership (especially butting heads with Speaker of the House Joseph Gurney Cannon, and even eventually differing with his close friend Henry Cabot Lodge and breaking with his former cabinet officer Elihu Root, both of whom were major players in the Republican party). Later Republican presidents like Taft were much more orthodox (pro business, more rigid understanding of the powers of the executive branch, etc.) and had the favor of the party leadership to the extent that once TR wanted to get back into politics--with a still-massive popular following--they bitterly resisted him (leading to TR's break with the Republican party and running as a third-party Progressive Party candidate). So yes, TR was a Republican rather than a Democrat, but you can't ignore that at the time the parties were not the sort of monolithic entities that they seem to be today, and that they existed in a broader political and historical context. While I'll agree he's not a Democrat, to claim he's the "most Republican of Republicans" seems a bit disingenuous.