Nearly 2019, and we still have detonations in the game

[Ydoum]

I'll open with a question: Does any player think this mechanic is something that is needed in the game. Especially now, nearing 2019, when there are numerous tournaments, clan wars, organized team battle events etc.?

 

After all those years, I haven't seen anyone enjoy this. I tried to find a reasonable explanation for it, but I just can't.

 

1. Business

Since you cannot directly purchase anti-detonation signals for money, or coal for arsenal purchases, this means that WG isn't getting any incentive to keep the mechanic in the game when it comes to company income. No, I am not giving you WG an idea. Forget about it.

2. Gameplay

100% RNG, no skill involved. Pretty sure we have enough RNG in the game as it is.

3. Realism

I believe it's been long established WoWS isn't even aiming for realism.

 

So, what are your opinions on this everlasting subject? Should WG finally do something about this?

 

 

[Arakus]

edit*

"Nearly 2029, and we still have detonations in the game!"

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

I had great fun in Ranked when I lost 2 teammates due detonations. It is indescribable how much fun I had. 

 

Spoiler

So either some decent effects or just remove them....
Remove them either way from the more competitive battles like CB and Ranked.

 

[pra3y]

 

If we remove it, how am i going to one shot underage ships with stonk british he shells? 

 

I don't really mind it though since it adds abit of spice to the game. Not that i detonate often in the first place. If i detonate or my teammate detonate then its just our bad luck. Off to the next game.

[Srle_Vigilante]

I see nothing wrong with them.

 

Change my mind.

[Egoleter]

I am predicting the same result for this poll as all the previous ones about detonation removal had.

 

Hint: It was never in favor of the option the OP prefered.

[Hedgehog1963]

I'll bet that OP doesn't run the flags or module.

[159Hunter]

Honestly, after the rework of detonations they are less annoying. Plus, I think there are far more important things to abolish.

[Prospect_b]

I've been detonated quite a lot lately. I think 6 times in the last few weeks, but I might had it "coming", cause it didn't happen regularly for a while.

 

Anyway, I was and always will be against the mechanic, for 2 reasons:

 

- To get antidetonation flags, you first have to be detonated. Which is stupid beyond belief.

(or buy them? is that possible?)

 

- I was talking with @El2aZeR about this a few days ago. The thing is, the vast majority of detonations in this games is on DDs. The other thing is, people (and WG) defend it out of some semblance to "historicity".

Well, we found that for the period the game takes place in, in reality about the same amount of BBs detonated as DDs.

 

 

So, I vote for either they get removed, or WG gets real historical and spreads that detonation love equally.

 

(which, in the end would be the same. See advanced Star Wars philosophy: a few weeks of BBs exploding, leads to BB fear. BB fear leads to the very dark place of BB anger. BB anger on forums and in WGs mailbox leads to potential financial suffering; and mechanic removed faster then lightspeed)

[Lord0]

I like them. It's even kinda fun/amusing being on the receiving end, like "WTF?"

[aboomination]

Yes, remove this crap - all this mechanic is doing, is preventing me from playing DDs when I run out of flags.

[pra3y]

6 minutes ago, Saiyko said:

- I was talking with @El2aZeR about this a few days ago. The thing is, the vast majority of detonations in this games is on DDs. The other thing is, people (and WG) defend it out of some semblance to "historicity".

Well, we found that for the period the game takes place in, in reality about the same amount of BBs detonated as DDs.

I almost always detonate in my BBs whenever i turn to avoid torps but catch one fish in my magazine. I remembered consecutively detonating in 2/3 bbs during 1 play session cause of that.

[Ydoum]

I am running flags whenever I have them - what did you want to bet? And indeed I've noticed that it's usually the DDs that get detonated. I've never seen someone in game just having a laugh about it - the receiver gets frustrated, and the executioner even apologizes for it (because he knows, at some point, he will get detonated himself and get frustrated as well).

[Raziel_Walker]

I voted in favor of elimination because it doesn't add anything to gameplay besides a random 'EDIT you' to one player and 'Congratulations' for the other player.

But what about the flags? These will be the real victim of any change. Flags have feelings too.

[thiextar]

What is wrong with people voting no? Detonations is practically 100% rng and theres nothing you can do about it, no counterplay, other than mounting a stupid flag to get the game to be the way it was supposed to be in the first place.

 

This mechanic servers no intelligent meaning to gameplay, it has zero counterplay, and doesnt require any particular thinking on behalf of the person shooting.

 

its dumb.

[Egoleter]

12 minutes ago, thiextar said:

What is wrong with people voting no? Detonations is practically 100% rng and theres nothing you can do about it, no counterplay, other than mounting a stupid flag to get the game to be the way it was supposed to be in the first place.

 

This mechanic servers no intelligent meaning to gameplay, it has zero counterplay, and doesnt require any particular thinking on behalf of the person shooting.

 

its dumb.

 

You mean like the RNG for shell dispersion, which is oscillating between complete misses and devestating multi-citadel strikes?

Or the RNG for fire and flooding chances?

Or the random matchmaker placing you into matches you consider unbalanced?

 

There is at least a way to completly eliminate detonations for yourself if you can't deal with them every once in a while. For the other examples I just provided no such thing exists.

 

It's also an incentive to purchase anti-detonation flags (yes, I know: not available all by themself in the premium store). As this is a free to play game it isn't the worst move to provide such an incentive for people like you who can't stand detonations.

[Ydoum]

3 minutes ago, Egoleter said:

 

You mean like the RNG for shell dispersion, which is oscillating between complete misses and devestating multi-citadel strikes?

Or the RNG for fire and flooding chances?

Or the random matchmaker placing you into matches you consider unbalanced?

 

There is at least a way to completly eliminate detonations for yourself if you can't deal with them every once in a while. For the other examples I just provided no such thing exists.

 

It's also an incentive to purchase anti-detonation flags (yes, I know: not available all by themself in the premium store). As this is a free to play game it isn't the worst move to provide such an incentive for people like you who can't stand detonations.

Didn't I initially point out that you CAN'T purchase those signals? You cannot spend money directly on those and neither can you spend it on coal to use it in the arsenal.

 

Besides, are you actually in favor of keeping more RNG in the game than there already is? We might as well add random turret malfunctions or jams (you know, like the unreliable british quad turrets during WW2) and base it on some random numbers.

[Allied_Winter]

I voted no. Mostly because I don't mind having them in game. They add some spice to it, and the hope that the next shell could be indeed the game winning shell if a detonation would occur. If I get detonated I indeed LOL and either quit Warships for the day (bad omen) or jump into my next ship.

 

Only thing I'm missing is HMS Barnham like explosions when a detonation occurs. 

 

Also: I usually don't run Anti Deto Signals UNLESS: Clan Battles, Ranked and some randoms when I equip the very expensive signals/camos. 

 

 

And last time I detonated? Iirc in the Des Moines 4 mins into the battle or in the Jervis at 300 HP. Don't know what was last.

[Egoleter]

20 minutes ago, Ydoum said:

Didn't I initially point out that you CAN'T purchase those signals? You cannot spend money directly on those and neither can you spend it on coal to use it in the arsenal.

 

Besides, are you actually in favor of keeping more RNG in the game than there already is? We might as well add random turret malfunctions or jams (you know, like the unreliable british quad turrets during WW2) and base it on some random numbers.

And if you read carefully, you'll notice that I acknowledged that you can't purchase them as a standalone item. You can still purchase them. You'll just have to accept that you'll get other signals as well and pay for those too.

 

I am for keeping the elements in the game that we currently have. Usually removing features is a bad move. I never said that we need more RNG events but neither do we need less. If we removed RNG completly this would very soon become a very boring game as everything will become perfectly predictable.

 

Also, please don't try to put meaning behind what I wrote that I never said in such a way. All you will ever find if you try to read between the lines of what I wrote is your own imagination. If I want to promote more RNG I would say so. I wouldn't bother with hiding such intent.

[Verblonde]

I'm another no:

• It provides a remnant of historical accuracy(ish); I like having those around.
• They're vanishingly rare: at time of writing, I have 38 Detonations, against 2,641 random battles - that's an incidence of 1.44% i.e. around 1 in 75(ish) games (66.4% of my battles are in DDs FWIW) - hardly game-breaking.
• If you really hate them, you can run the magazine mod, but you have to ditch something else - more viable choice in ship configuration is a good thing; I suggest we want to reduce incidences of one 'right' build for every ship.

It's not like they're exclusively a curse on DD drivers either - the last one I scored on someone else was a hapless BB last night, who got unlucky with one of my torps...

[Major_Damage225]

Concidering how many times you get the detonation, personally neither likem nor hatem, for every time you blow up, you get a game where you blow someone up.

Tbh i havent been detonated in over a year...... , i just jinxed myself now 

[thiextar]

46 minutes ago, Egoleter said:

 

You mean like the RNG for shell dispersion, which is oscillating between complete misses and devestating multi-citadel strikes?

Or the RNG for fire and flooding chances?

Or the random matchmaker placing you into matches you consider unbalanced?

 

There is at least a way to completly eliminate detonations for yourself if you can't deal with them every once in a while. For the other examples I just provided no such thing exists.

 

It's also an incentive to purchase anti-detonation flags (yes, I know: not available all by themself in the premium store). As this is a free to play game it isn't the worst move to provide such an incentive for people like you who can't stand detonations.

All of those random mechanics adds something meaningful to the gameplay tho, and all of those things also has counterplay.

 

Detonation is practically completely random, and therefore wont change anything in anyones playstyle, its just this random thing that happens once in a while for no reason.

 

Its pointless.

13 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

 

• It provides a remnant of historical accuracy(ish); I like having those around.
• They're vanishingly rare: at time of writing, I have 38 Detonations, against 2,641 random battles - that's an incidence of 1.44% i.e. around 1 in 75(ish) games (66.4% of my battles are in DDs FWIW) - hardly game-breaking.
• If you really hate them, you can run the magazine mod, but you have to ditch something else - more viable choice in ship configuration is a good thing; I suggest we want to reduce incidences of one 'right' build for every ship.

It's not like they're exclusively a curse on DD drivers either - the last one I scored on someone else was a hapless BB last night, who got unlucky with one of my torps...

1. Historical accuracy is irrelevant in the face of gameplay.

 

2. This actually makes it worse tho... if they happened all the time, then the ships prone to them would be balanced around it, and you would have to play them differently than you currently do, aka it actually has a meaningful impact on gameplay(for better or worse) Currently its just a pointless random thing that happens that has no impact whatsoever on your playstyle overall.

 

3. So we cant improve something that is bad because there is currently a pseudo solution in place?

[kfa]

Voted "not to be removed" because of the passive-agressive tone of the thread

[Exocet6951]

They would be ok if all classes had the same chance of it happening, but as it stands....really?

 

One class has to be within secondary and radar range in order to use its main weapons, has the least HP, takes damage from every HE hit regardless of caliber, and they have to deal with even non damaging splashes being able to instantly destroy them while other classes need battleship AP or direct torpedo hits to the magazine in order for a chance to detonate?

Really?

[Verblonde]

25 minutes ago, thiextar said:

1. Historical accuracy is irrelevant in the face of gameplay.

Not entirely - if I wanted to play a plain old shoot 'em up, it's not like there's any shortage.

 

The 'historical' angle is what makes WOWS semi-unique.

 

26 minutes ago, thiextar said:

2. This actually makes it worse tho... if they happened all the time, then the ships prone to them would be balanced around it, and you would have to play them differently than you currently do, aka it actually has a meaningful impact on gameplay(for better or worse) Currently its just a pointless random thing that happens that has no impact whatsoever on your playstyle overall.

 

In your opinion; my opinion is different.

 

26 minutes ago, thiextar said:

3. So we cant improve something that is bad because there is currently a pseudo solution in place?

Again, in your opinion; in my opinion, it isn't bad. In my opinion, there are too many d**n BBs in the game, but I'm aware I'm in a minority, so I just play (and enjoy myself) around that facet of the game.

 

 

 

FWIW at time of writing, north of 70% voted no too...