Rocketpacman

Members
  • Content count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2343

Community Reputation

81 Good

About Rocketpacman

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile Rocketpacman
  1. This is badly needed. I believe on some servers the Khaba has only the second or even third highest win rate of all Tier 10 ships.
  2. See if you had the game in hand why was the rest of the team engaged in heated gun fights where they were at a numbers disadvantage instead of playing safe to secure the win? I don't see how an easy win could've turned into such a lopsided loss without the other guys on your team also contributing very little.
  3. I don't think the guy who got High Caliber in a 1000-100 loss is the person on your team who should be blamed for the loss.
  4. This was such a weird change. DDs with Defensive AA were already fine against carriers and DDs without defensive fire are still just as vulnerable. I honestly have no idea what this was meant to accomplish.
  5. If a BB manages to land 1/3 of his shells on a DD there was probably more involved than RNG. I can't say I've ever missed a volley and had four of my shells guided onto target anyway but I suppose it could happen. This is the trap people fall into with the devastating strikes=detonation concept. Focusing simply on the people shooting and not the ships being shot at. Or saying that since RNG could've robbed the Montana of those four pens even if he aimed correctly or predicted the Gearing's dodge that it was all RNG and the Montana's aiming and predictions had nothing to do with it. Of course it did. If his aim was off or he'd made an incorrect prediction the chance of four of his shells being scattered on target by RNG is insignificant. That Gearing was either too close, not dodging well or perhaps he was simply phenomenally unlucky. And while suffering a devastating strike simply through bad luck is something that ideally would never happen when it comes to normal damage like this example it is basically unavoidable. When it comes to detonations on the other hand it is very avoidable and easily fixable. Just turn them off. The really funny part is this devastating strike is a result of how powerful BB AP can be against DDs and even though monkeying with ballistics is a vastly more complex and demanding task than removing or changing detonations (and avoiding full BB pens in your DD is actually far easier and easy to understand than the completely quixotic task of protecting your magazine in a DD) would be WG is working on that.
  6. Neither of which has anything to do with how you play. Given that you're just as capable of mounting the signal flag and the module on BBs and cruisers as you are on DDs it still comes down to what ships you play rather than how you play them. I just want this "you can avoid detonations by proper gameplay" myth to go die in a fire. It isn't remotely true for the single most detonation prone class of ships in the entire game.
  7. Tends to be the case. The unfortunate fact is that faced with a lot of opponents (particularly in this era of RN BBs) there is nothing you can realistically do as a DD to protect your magazines from incoming fire other than dodge as best you can and hope. The overwhelming factor in how often you detonate isn't how you play (like it is with suffering devastating strikes) but which class of ships you play.
  8. And yet no amount of dispersion will ever make that one GK shell devastate any DD it will face unless it gets a detonation. It's almost like there's no real similarity between these two occurrences except that that the ship you're shooting at dies to both.
  9. Lucky you but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Okay but that isn't what you said. I'm going to guess you don't play a lot of DDs then.
  10. Anytime a detonation is linked to bad play the bad play would've been also punished, and is punished, with far more consistency by normal gameplay than detonation mechanics provide. Any mechanic that can be negated by flying a signal flag cannot be said to be playing a meaningful role in punishing bad play. I don't believe that detonations must be here to stay in their current form. I see no reason why WG will zealously stick to their guns on this one minor issue when they have altered their game in so many more significant and complex ways than removing or changing detonations.
  11. I just told you how I died. This is a theoretical example. We cannot say that that DD driver made any mistakes (unless we want to call being spotted or not dodging 100% of incoming fire all the time a mistake worthy of being destroyed) simply because he was detonated. Detonations and bad play are not linked like this.
  12. It's theoretically possible. I just doubt it. Regardless what mistake can we say this player made besides not flying the flag? I did evasive maneuvers. I dodged almost all the shells fired at me except for a few that caused my detonations and a couple that didn't even hit me but hit close enough to detonate me because of splash damage. What mistake did I make?
  13. I've detonated eight times in a row in a DD due to enemy shells (honestly I doubt that anything close to this has ever happened) what am I doing wrong?
  14. Already incorrect. Ships can be detonated by splash damage from shells that miss. Incorrect again. Any amount of damage to a magazine module can cause a detonation and no amount of damage will guarantee one. Damage simply increases the chance. Can we please stop making stuff up about how detonations work to defend this terrible mechanic?
  15. Yes but the players don't spend nearly as much. You want to save real and (relatively) famous ships like the Alaska for the NA whales rather than lock them behind clan wars.