--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

Divisioning up in a minekaze with other people who are in tier 7-8's, is actually NOT a fail division regardless of what people say, granted your guns wont really help (I'm laughing while typing that) not that they are effective anyway except in some situations. Being able to constantly dump waves of torps can make a huge impact, even if you don't hit anything.

I have suckered many a battleship and cruiser into giving their broadside to an ally BB just by dumping torps in their general direction. Also, don't be afraid to actually use your guns, they MAY be crap, but it's hilarious how often a BB will IMMEDIATELY ignore whatever he was shooting at and turn to try and shoot you. Usually resulting in him dying by turning broadside, and you laughing like mad since he had a snowball's chance in lava to actually HIT you. This works with all destroyers, just USN ones actually have good guns.

Just.. for the love of god DO NOT try to gun fight against an American destroyer... unless he has less than 1000 hp or you get a REALLY lucky detonation on him, they will 99% of the time win.

And, I did get to use my guns in the next battle...the story of which will come up, if later.

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

It will have it's upgraded torps removed (the 10km ones) so you will be left with max 7km torp range.

the one buff it will get.. faster turret rotation...

RIP Minekaze, you were a great ship.

Edited for after the patch.

The minekaze can still stealth torp. The detection threshold was increased from 5.9km to 6.4, same with Mutsuki at tier 6.

Still lost the 10km torps. :(

Is that in the patch that's on test this weekend?

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Well, honestly...meh. I'd rather have speedy 7-klick torps than slow-y 10-klick. I never used the 10-klick ones anyway.
Unless you're really unlucky, you're outside of detection-range when you launch anyway, as you noted, and with the torps it has, it isn't unlikely that you'll sink them before they even know you're there, if they find out at all.

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

"This is probably a stupid question, but . . ."

... why would you not just put the old ones back on instead? Seems like about 450% less faff.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

(There is no sarcasm in this post).

Welcome.
I actually think that torpedoes are the only things where that is relevant, as it were. Improved guns usually require higher levels of hull as well, and can't be mounted on lower levels, and there is no reason to down-grade from better engines and gun control, if you have them.

Well, you could mount lower guns on a better hull, I suppose, and might have a reason to...ah, well.

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

I've yet to mess with it seriously, especially since my computer has started being a spaz about being asked to actual play games, but I believe that Werld Uv Boats has a 'go to waypoint' function, which you could probably set and then forget about while you were shooting.

-----

"V, did you do something foolish?"

"Yes, and it was glorious."

I've had a similar sort of thought at points(and I'm sure this is where someone tells me something I missed, but..)
Why in the blazes can't you look off to somewhere else without the turrets turning that way? Seriously? All guns on a ship automatically points off towards where the look-out is looking, rather than the gunnery officer?

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

In WOWS at least, if you hold down the right-side mouse button you can "free look", turning the camera where you like while your guns stay pointed where you left them. When you want to go back to your guns, release RMB and your view snaps back to where your reticle was.

"This is probably a stupid question, but . . ."

Huh. See, what'd I tell you? Something I missed. More than slightly annoying when you're in your battleship, you're lobbing rounds at someone, long-range, and to be certain you're not about to be bum-rushed, or that you ARE actually steering next to that island ahead and not INTO it, you take a look around, look back at your target, and have to wait because your guns decided to follow along, as it were. Usually not a LONG wait to get back, but still.
So, good stuff, thanks!

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

******************************
I'm really here, but I'm not here, really.
******************************

The point, however, is that he's making his money posting videos of what other people are doing, quite often calling them stupid or worse IN those videos, and not one person, I'm fairly sure, has been asked if they're fine with it. If it'd been tv, I'm fairly sure . So..what would the legality be, here?
If it's a random player putting up a video of his game that he had with his buddies yesterday, that's one thing. But this is literally how he makes the bread on his table(with his RN pension, but...), and considering he was planning, and payed for, a trip to Gamescom in Cologne, as well as has talked about going to Japan on holiday, quite a bit of 'bread' it seems, too. Which makes it rather commercial all of a sudden...

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

Well, except for all the bits of the videos that aren't the "look at this windowlicker" shtick, which I suspect make up a greater preponderance of the body of work than you're perceiving at the moment...

>Which makes me wonder...what would the legality be, there?

Unless anyone here is an entertainment lawyer (which I kind of doubt), you're not going to get anything from this but the usual half-assed Internet Guesswork. Such as what's about to happen below! One questions its usefulness. :)

>If it's just a general video, you can't say much, I would have to
>think, but he 'makes his living' that way. There is nothing in the
>game EULA that says I have to do that.

I tend to doubt there is a significant expectation of privacy in playing a multiplayer online game, even a not-truly-massively-multiplayer one like World of $WEAPON_PLURAL. If anything, doing so is a kind of performance. It's like appearing in Shakespeare in the Park and then being annoyed that people are allowed to give you bad reviews.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Well, I dunno. The videos themselves aren't that bad, though there ARE points when he's just being an ass, rather than, "'you know, if you didn't stick your hand in the fire, it wouldn't hurt, moron", something I would have to say I don't have a problem with, as such.
But in his comment-replies, he's just being an asshat, as far as I have seen. The few replies I've seen are all of them rude and insulting.

But, as I've noted, I do watch his videos. Since I travel to the UK regularly, I'm interested in any museums he visits. The general 'collection of fun' videos are great, they're games, after all, they're meant to be enjoyed.

>Unless anyone here is an entertainment lawyer (which I kind of doubt),
>you're not going to get anything from this but the usual half-assed
>Internet Guesswork. Such as what's about to happen below! One
>questions its usefulness. :)

Well, I didn't think anyone was. :) And this was mostly just a throw-out, among people I know DO play these games. It didn't really seem the place to do it on the official Wargaming forums. And so, I asked the question. If I get a definitive answer, great. If not, nothing lost.

>I tend to doubt there is a significant expectation of privacy in
>playing a multiplayer online game, even a
>not-truly-massively-multiplayer one like World of
>$WEAPON_PLURAL. If anything, doing so is a kind of performance.
>It's like appearing in Shakespeare in the Park and then being
>annoyed that people are allowed to give you bad reviews.

Well, in a game, no. In the videos/replays that are recorded, and then put up on the internet with the intent to make money on it...
To me, it has more of a taste that you're setting up a private, VERY amateur play...and find out someone sold tickets.

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

It's the inevitable outcome of actually being daft enough to read YouTube comments.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

I haven't fooled around with the mission system - they aren't optional like the ones in World of Tanks? That seems like an odd oversight. Then again, nobody bothered to include mission dropping in City of Heroes for like four years, so...

Well, worst comes to worst and they don't fix that, I suppose you can park them until you work your way up to a Cleveland. Or fork out for an Atlanta. That's probably what they want you to do, he said, adjusting his tinfoil tricorne. ;)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

They ARE optional, in that you can choose not to do them. They are NOT optional in that, "I don't wanna do THAT one, because <REASON>. Gimme another."

>Well, worst comes to worst and they don't fix that, I suppose you can
>park them until you work your way up to a Cleveland. Or fork
>out for an Atlanta. That's probably what they want you
>to do, he said, adjusting his tinfoil tricorne. ;)

And a LOVELY piece of headgear it is, too! And yeah, I'm hoping for a Cleveland, soon. But 'soon' might end up being 2-3 weeks away, for various reasons.

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

And then a certain player decided killing both the carriers on his own team would be clever and fun. Haven't come across that before. Not amused.

Ah, Internet multiplayer. "Welcome to the Douchebaggerie. Just follow the happy feet."*

I can't decide which annoys me more: blatant teamkilling for no purpose other than to be a cock, or blatant teamkilling that results from a combination of asinine petulance and a lack of understanding of how the game works, e.g., those guys that kill the light tanks on their own teams in World of Tanks because they don't understand how passive spotting works and are all, "no camp bushes if u dont fight i kill u myself".

Actually, yes I can decide. The latter annoys me more, because it has just enough of a thought process behind it to make me suspect that the person doing it could suck less, if only he bothered to.

--G.
*won't be overwhelmingly surprised if nobody gets that
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

>*won't be overwhelmingly surprised if nobody gets
>that

*hesitant* Twice Upon a Time?

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

And it's Wargaming.net with the accidental realism! That's exactly why navies promote experienced commanders to newer and more powerful ships. :)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

It was the fact that I got a set of 127mm guns to fire at ranges 203mm guns on my USN cruisers fired, granted it takes the shells nearly 3 times longer to GET there.

Given the investment to reach carriers (Cruisers Tier 1-3, Battleships Tier 3-4) if that's what you're after, decide between IJN and USN early. IJN carriers are faster and tend to have smaller but more airgroups to use. This lets them hit more targets, but the USN air groups tend to punch harder when they engage.

My first and only look at the ice map was in a Cleveland in a Tier IX game. Granted, the Cleveland is one of those ships that doesn't need to worry too much about tiers...

------
Fearless creatures, we all learn to fight the Reaper
Can't defeat Her, so instead I'll have to be Her

Hm, guess I'm wrong about that. Or Wargaming are still fiddling with the matchmaker; the game's still ostensibly in beta, after all. Either is perfectly plausible. :) I think it at least used to work like the one in World of Tanks, with a three-tier spread (i.e., no more than two steps from lowest- to highest-tier participant).

Then again, the tier differences don't seem to matter as much in World of Warships. Heck, World of Tanks used to have a five-tier spread, which I am given to understand was a bit apocalyptic.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

And if you think MM is bad for most of the ships, you should see some of the Carrier MM... Carriers have HUGE issues fighting against 1 tier higher carriers, let alone the potential THREE tier spread I've seen before.

and As for the Cleveland, literally the ONLY reason it's not a tier 7, 8 or even 9, is due to the fact it doesn't have 203mm guns, you don't actually get an increase in overall HP till upgraded hull on the tier 9.

Also as a side note, some idiot at the supply yard mixed up a load of AP shells with pillows for my Baltimore, last couple of days 80% of my AP hits did their minimum damage (10% of their max, 460 of 4600) instead of their average of about 1500-2000.

Not all was lost though, since some of the pillows were apparently filled with thermite bunker buster shells, since a full salvo of 9 shots into an iowa (tier 9 USN Battleship) ended up hitting 8 citadels and killed him.

Sadly they supply yard won't give me any more of those.

That said, the only correct chat response to that is, "It's a trap!" XD

(Really, with the cruiser's native cooldown, the line -should- be, "Intensify forward firepower!" but since it's their AA, and this assumes there's no carriers...bleah.)

------
Fearless creatures, we all learn to fight the Reaper
Can't defeat Her, so instead I'll have to be Her

People say "It's a trap!" on chat in World of Warships all the time and with little or no provocation, though, anyway. :)

--G.
also "poi!", which riles up the haters enough that I'll give it a pass even though the Shiratsuyu-class destroyer is not in the game
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

------
Fearless creatures, we all learn to fight the Reaper
Can't defeat Her, so instead I'll have to be Her

If I got that right...carry on!

...!
Gott's Leetle Feesh in Trousers!

Yes. It pleases me, rather like when Jingles (as he sometimes does) mercilessly trolls similar persons among his subscribers with the music from Girls und Panzer.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

There was a preview of the first German ship on the EU server a bit back; probably also going to be a premium at first, as - like e.g. the premium Atago - she's not the lead ship of her class (she's specifically Tirpitz, not Bismarck).

Also, now that I'm not posting from my phone, I'm struck by the meaninglessness of the "release" date in this case. In an online free-to-play game, there is a vanishingly small distinction between open beta and release. In either case, anybody can sign up and play for free, or pay money for the extra stuff that costs money, and in both cases there is an understanding that the game is subject to revision and improvement and sheer bloody-minded developers-fucking-around at any time. In fact, the only thing that's likely to change on the 17th, apart from maybe another patch and some new ships appearing in the tech trees, is that they'll take that "BETA WORK IN PROGRESS" watermark off.

I think Wargaming understands this on some level - World of Tanks has been "in release" for years and the patch that just went live is still version zero (0.9.10). It's just... not a thing like it was when you had to freeze the code so that someone could manufacture the disks.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.