Rocketpacman

Members
  • Content count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1843

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About Rocketpacman

  1. This is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. That this was even proposed and tested is a very bad sign.
  2. The concealment buff was badly needed. It's a perfectly good ship now with a fun and different playstyle from the HE spam of the other T7 cruisers.
  3. Once again I never said it was always the best possible scenario to try and take it on the belt. But sometimes it is. Then the player who took the best solution gets [edited] over by a ridiculous mechanic (or doesn't based on how the percentages go) that has no business being in this game. I guess for some people if intelligent play couldn't be [edited] over by a random mechanic the game would be easy mode. Seems pretty dumb to me.
  4. I never claimed it was, As you might have noticed those magazines are pretty close to the bow/stern. So a guy is faced with incoming torpedoes, recognizes that he can't dodge them all and maneuvers his ship so that the one he does have to take is on the belt instead of the bow/stern where he will take max damage and guaranteed flooding. Then he detonates because [edited] him for playing intelligently to try and mitigate damage and maybe not have to burn a damage con. I guess he should've maneuvered perfectly so that he either completely dodged or only took hits on the safe parts of the torpedo belts. That's reasonable. Detonations are such a great mechanic.
  5. Torpedo hits to the bow guarantee flooding and do not benefit from torpedo belt damage reduction. Why should a player be punished for trying to take a torpedo on the torpedo belt?
  6. For all the people saying "there's a flag for that" you're tacitly admitting that the mechanic should have no place in ranked because you expect people to take action to remove it. Action they may not be able to take if they've run out of flags. Which I guarantee more than a few players will if they're running anti-detonation flags on every single ship they bring to ranked as you expect them to. Why on earth would you defend this in ranked? If you want people to remove it why shouldn't WG remove it? Is having an 8th signal spot open in Ranked really such a terrifying prospect?
  7. This is a terrible grindfest though. I really doubt this will bring players to the game the way the Graf Spee did for instance. It's very grindy, only runs for two weeks, is limited to French tech-tree cruisers (who wouldn't want to play the same line over and over again for two weeks straight?) and the reward at the end is random.
  8. I grant it's confusing the way they worded it but look in-game yourself. The "equip your ship" missions also require use of French cruisers.
  9. No? They're all French cruisers only.
  10. It's a pretty bad event. The container reward is a fun idea but the grind is horribly excessive.
  11. No it is not. You know what else isn't acceptable? Death. So often I hear people talk about something will be the death of this game or how a mechanic is killing the game and that's just not acceptable either. As a person who has seen many loved ones and friends die how dare you use such a word! Are you comparing the pain and trauma their deaths have caused me to your ridiculous little computer game that can't actually be killed? You're not? You're just using a word that makes perfect sense in context and are in no way trying to diminish the pain and trauma real death can cause people? Well I don't care it's still horribly insensitive and I am in no way overreacting to a completely innocuous phrasing.
  12. I would say that theoretically if you're never hit of course you can't be detonated but that isn't true because ships can completely dodge enemy fire and be detonated by splash damage. It really has no bearing on whether there should be a mechanic that randomly decides whether each hit you take is instantly fatal or not. RNG already plays a heavy role in this game and that is fine. That particular mechanic is absurd and has no business being in this game. Because IRL all the superstructure pens in the world wouldn't cause a warship to explode or sink. In this game they can because superstructure pens will still drain your hitpoints. What a realistic model of naval warfare! And, yet again, lots of things happened IRL to ships that don't happen in this game. Please explain why magazine detonations are the key mechanic that keeps this game sufficiently realistic or stop being inconsistent and admit you want a really realistic model of naval warfare. That's fine to want that but that's not the game we have and that's certainly not the game WG set out to develop based on everything I can see. I do not believe for an instant that any player does this.
  13. In thirty minutes, forty minutes, or two years there is zero way of shooting ourselves dry because magazines aren't accurately modeled in this game. This is a game in which the shells do come from "la-la land" as you put it. That was my point. There is no reason magazines need to be able to detonated in this game. You mean for the sake of making a good game a realistic aspect of naval warfare was discarded in favor of an unrealistic one? I'm shocked. Obviously we can't do this for detonations. I mean if we remove magazine detonations that's just too far gone from reality. Torpedoes not being able to be detonated by damage to the torpedo tubes on the other hand is fine. I mean that certainly never happened in reality. These ships have whatever flaws WG wants them to have. WG decided that torpedoes can't detonate so they don't. WG decided that magazines can be detonated so they can be. If WG decided tomorrow that magazines shouldn't be detonated the game's emulation of basic ship design would be just as close to reality as it is now and the game would be improved. Yet another post has come and gone and still there is no defense of detonations on offer other than "realism" in a thoroughly unrealistic game. I doubt my griping on a forum will do anything. I just find it odd that people will actually defend such a terrible mechanic on such a ridiculous basis. Ships could take hundreds of overpenetrations in the magazine and not detonate because the shells didn't detonate. That's the whole point of an overpenetration. However as I said there is no RNG involved if a shell detonates in your magazine. The magazine blew up because that's what ammunition does when faced with a big explosion. I don't know how or if overpens vs pens are calculated in this game in terms of detonating the magazine and it doesn't really matter. The whole mechanic has no place in this game. They don't get very close since based on what we know pens to the magazine do not immediately result in a detonation. RNG decides, based on your magazine's health pool (realism strikes again!) whether or not your magazine explodes. It is not the player's fault if they detonate a lot it is overwhelmingly based on luck and a flag that runs out. The mechanic is incredibly stupid and still no one has been able to offer a defense for it beyond "realism" even though the mechanic itself is unrealistic and the game is unrealistic in countless ways. Yet I'm supposed to believe that the presence or absence of this mechanic is the point at which the game becomes unacceptably unrealistic? The game does not try the best to be real. The first time you loaded the game and saw the ships had hitpoints should've been a big hint.
  14. Maybe just don't put radar on British BBs? The super-heal and wonky HE wasn't enough to check the "gimmick" box that every new line is apparently required to have?
  15. Yes you're making it very clear that you can't grasp the difference between reality and a computer game in this one area while being perfectly willing to accept it in countless other areas. To kiddies like me that seems arbitrary and deeply stupid. Actually they do. They are virtual warships in a computer game. That's why you might have noticed you have unlimited ammunition. But again, for some baffling reason, detonations are the only aspect of realism that matter. Limited ammunition? Don't be stupid that never played a role in real naval warfare! Actually in this game they only explode violently if RNG decides that they will. You can score a hundred hits on the magazine and possibly do nothing. Conversely you can score one hit on a magazine and destroy a ship immediately. In reality explosions in a magazine were not a "try your luck" kind of thing. Such realism! Such a great mechanic! You're right physics don't work that way. Do you know that physics aren't negated in reality when two allied ships ram each other? Do you know that in physics a shell passing through the superstructure is not going to sink a ship? But again reality in this one aspect is key and reality in every other way is unimportant. That's the insightful logic kiddies like me can't grasp. Again we don't. We have virtual boats in a computer game. I don't think that detonations should be modeled for the same reason countless other aspects of real warfare are not modeled. It is bad for the game. But its very telling that as usual the only defense on offer for detonations is "realism" in an incredibly unrealistic computer game. Or we could just eliminate a stupid mechanic rather than pander to the crowd who seems to think this game will cross the line between realism and fantasy if detonations are removed. God knows that's a mature and sensible position to take.