What are the actual Detonation rates of Players?

[Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi]

We know there are many people on the forums who feel that detonations happen too often, however people like @LittleWhiteMouse have shown that the chance is actually less than 1%. Yet people would (somewhat rightfully) argue that is not in a gameplay setting and the threads quickly descend into angry rants and shouts by both sides, So I'm asking the community as a whole both supporters and haters of detonations to post what their detonation percentage actual is and what class of ship you play the most so we can end this argument with pure and simple science and statistics.

 

Submit your results like so:

Player Name

Battles played

Battles survived

Survival rate (( battles survived/ battles played) x 100)

Detonations (the number of times you have received the 'Detonation' achievement)

Detonation % ((Detonation achievements / Battles played) x 100)

Ship class play (the ship class followed by number battle in the class and %)

 

Here is mine:

 

Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi

5 227 battles played

1 153 battles survived

22.058% survival rate (I'm an aggressive player...also a bit of a fool)

36 detonations

0.688% detonation rate

BB: 2 139 battles 10.92% CA/CL: 1 982 battles 37.92% DD: 792 battles 15.93% CV: 310 battles 5.93%

 

If you wish to be more through in your analysis you can do it as LittleWhiteMouse did below;

LittleWhiteMouse

• Total Games Played / Survived:  4,679 / 2,036
• Battleship Games Played / Survived:  1,851 / 981
• Cruiser Games Played / Survived:  1,297 / 446
• Destroyer Games Played / Survived:  1,504 / 592
• Aircraft Carrier Games Played / Survived:  27 / 17

Total Ships Lost:  2,643
Destroyers / Cruisers / Battleships Lost:  912 / 851 / 870
Detonations: 43
Detonations as a Cause of Destruction:  1.63%
Detonations per Games Played:  0.92%

[LittleWhiteMouse]

Raw detonation rates aren't as important as detonation as a cause of destruction.  A better metric would be:

• Number of battles played in Battleships
• Number of battles played in Cruisers
• Number of battles played in Destroyers
• Number of battles played in Aircraft Carriers
• Number of battles survived (from which we can infer number of battles sunk)
• Number of detonations

You'll find that players that play destroyers most often have a larger percentage of deaths by detonation than someone who leans more heavily on battleships, for example.

[Kerrec]

Either side of the argument can't agree on what is acceptable, so what will this thread accomplish?

1% per player is OK for the pro-detonation crowd.

Any detonation is NOT OK for the anti-detonation crowd.

[SireneRacker]

Mouse has a point, yet here my numbers. Do whatever you wish with them:

SireneRacker

3763 battles

1509 battles survived

40.1% Survival Rate

31 Detonations

0.824% Detonation Rate

I 'main' (49%) Cruisers, and have yet to use a Detonation flag in a Random Battle. Detonation modules in my port can be counted on one hand.

[Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi]

7 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Raw detonation rates aren't as important as detonation as a cause of destruction.  A better metric would be:

• Number of battles played in Battleships
• Number of battles played in Cruisers
• Number of battles played in Destroyers
• Number of battles played in Aircraft Carriers
• Number of battles survived (from which we can infer number of battles sunk)
• Number of detonations

You'll find that players that play destroyers most often have a larger percentage of deaths by detonation than someone who leans more heavily on battleships, for example.

A fair point Mouse I will adjust it a little accordingly.

[CrazyHorse_Denver]

A quick question for the OP? Did you subtract the 360 anti detonation flags from the battle total or are they sitting unused.

It will make for a small difference in percentages.

[Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi]

7 minutes ago, CrazyHorse_Denver said:

A quick question for the OP? Did you subtract the 360 anti detonation flags from the battle total or are they sitting unused.

It will make for a small difference in percentages.

No, since some people don't remember to put them on it makes it more realistic too assume that you forgot to put on your anti-det flag and base it off from there besides the difference is minuscule when it comes to the detonation rate..

[Ajax_the_Great1]

I've been detonated exactly 1 out of........... too many times. Cuz it's dumb.

[LittleWhiteMouse]

3 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

A fair point Mouse I will adjust it a little accordingly.

It would be even better if people would be willing to do the math and go through their survival rate of individual ships to give a survival rate per ship type.  For example:

LittleWhiteMouse

• Total Games Played / Survived:  4,679 / 2,036
• Battleship Games Played / Survived:  1,851 / 981
• Cruiser Games Played / Survived:  1,297 / 446
• Destroyer Games Played / Survived:  1,504 / 592
• Aircraft Carrier Games Played / Survived:  27 / 17

Total Ships Lost:  2,643
Destroyers / Cruisers / Battleships Lost:  912 / 851 / 870
Detonations: 43
Detonations as a Cause of Destruction:  1.63%
Detonations per Games Played:  0.92%

[Kerrec]

4 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

It would be even better if people would be willing to do the math and go through their survival rate of individual ships to give a survival rate per ship type.  For example:

LittleWhiteMouse

• Total Games Played / Survived:  4,679 / 2,036
• Battleship Games Played / Survived:  1,851 / 981
• Cruiser Games Played / Survived:  1,297 / 446
• Destroyer Games Played / Survived:  1,504 / 592
• Aircraft Carrier Games Played / Survived:  27 / 17

Total Ships Lost:  2,643
Destroyers / Cruisers / Battleships Lost:  912 / 851 / 870
Detonations: 43
Detonations as a Cause of Destruction:  1.63%
Detonations per Games Played:  0.92%

What is the point?  Draw your line NOW for what is and is not acceptable.  If people do all this and you get a large enough sample to generate a decent statistical average, all the pro-detonation crowd will do is move the goalposts to be "just" above what has been obtained and conclude "it's OK as is".

[_Luna]

Here is what you asked for specifically:

Player Name: _Luna

Battles played: 2064

Detonations: 13

Detonation %: 0.63% Overall

Main ship class: Fairly even between DD's and CA's. (792 CA, 771 DD, 501 BB)

 

Now for some additional information:

As DD's are the most susceptible to being Detonated, if you just take into account my 771 DD battles, Detonation percentage is still only 1.69%.

As was mentioned above, just looking at battles where I was sunk (1147), Detonation was only 1.13% of those.

I usually only use Juliet Charlie flags when Im loaded up on + Detonation chance flags or for x3 first win bonuses, so there might be some detonations that they prevented, but I cant imagine it was many. I've been running RUDD's lately with 1 +5% detonation flag and no Juliet Charlie, and I have yet to be detonated.

And as food for thought to further complicate the issue. Its not like all you detonations happen when you are 100% health. Many happen when ships are already severely damaged, so they have team affecting effects even less a percentage of the time than they happen.

[Montana_Prussian]

Overall about .76% too lazy to do individual rates. Not a big deal anyhow.

[LittleWhiteMouse]

1 minute ago, Kerrec said:

What is the point?  Draw your line NOW for what is and is not acceptable.  If people do all this and you get a large enough sample to generate a decent statistical average, all the pro-detonation crowd will do is move the goalposts to be "just" above what has been obtained and conclude "it's OK as is".

Why would the pro-detonation crowd need to move any goalposts?  Detonations will always be okay for them and, probably more importantly: Wargaming isn't planning to remove detonations. There's no need for them to prove anything.

What this information would provide is a better understanding of why the anti-detonation crowd may be so up in arms about it.  What if we were to discover a disproportionate amount of detonations as a cause of destruction among unicum players?  Wouldn't that be interesting?

[Kerrec]

1 minute ago, _Luna said:

And as food for thought to further complicate the issue. Its not like all you detonations happen when you are 100% health. Many happen when ships are already severely damaged, so they have team affecting effects even less a percentage of the time than they happen.

No one, not even the anti-detonation crowd, care if detonations are the result of damage that is actually LOWER than the listed damage for the shell.  

In fact, I would like it to be changed so that detonations are still in the game, BUT they only trigger when a shell does equal to or less than full shell listed damage AND hits the magazine.  IE, it would have been a kill anyway, but because you hit the magazine as the kill shot, you get a nice big BOOM.

No one is going to complain about that.  People are complaining about a shell/torpedo/bomb that has a listed damage of 1000 doing more than 1000 damage because a dice rolled a critical roll.  That's just bad game mechanics.

[Montana_Prussian]

1 minute ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Why would the pro-detonation crowd need to move any goalposts?  Detonations will always be okay for them and, probably more importantly: Wargaming isn't planning to remove detonations. There's no need for them to prove anything.

What this information would provide is a better understanding of why the anti-detonation crowd may be so up in arms about it.  What if we were to discover a disproportionate amount of detonations as a cause of destruction among unicum players?  Wouldn't that be interesting?

That last bit is the issue in my view.

[Kerrec]

1 minute ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Why would the pro-detonation crowd need to move any goalposts?  Detonations will always be okay for them and, probably more importantly: Wargaming isn't planning to remove detonations. There's no need for them to prove anything.

What this information would provide is a better understanding of why the anti-detonation crowd may be so up in arms about it.  What if we were to discover a disproportionate amount of detonations as a cause of destruction among unicum players?  Wouldn't that be interesting?

Yes, they are not planning to remove detonations - now.  

Need I remind you, they also didn't plan on lowering the Iowa/Montana citadels either.  Want me to go dig up threads of WG staff stating "Iowa and Montana are fine and need no adjustments"?

[LittleWhiteMouse]

3 minutes ago, Kerrec said:

Yes, they are not planning to remove detonations - now.  

Need I remind you, they also didn't plan on lowering the Iowa/Montana citadels either.  Want me to go dig up threads of WG staff stating "Iowa and Montana are fine and need no adjustments"?

Please do.  Make sure you don't omit the part where Sub_Octavian states they will be a lot more cautious about implementing player-petitioned changes in the future due to the negative backlash from said citadel lowerings. 

-edit-  While you're at it, make sure you include all of the arguments from the people that were calling for the citadel lowering and cross-reference those with how they're now among the camp of those players who are saying it was a mistake.

[Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi]

2 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Please do.  Make sure you don't omit the part where Sub_Octavian states they will be a lot more cautious about implementing player-petitioned changes in the future due to the negative backlash from said citadel lowerings. 

I though that there was also the reason that blueprints had been found that showed Wargaming had modeled them wrong?

[AJTP89]

AJTP89

 I've been detonated 9 times.

1046 Random Battles  (don't play much PVE)

301 Battles Survived

745 ships lost

28.8% survival

0.86% detonation rate

1.21% of the time, detonation was the cause of destruction (# detonations/# deaths)

513 in BBs (49%)

526 in CA/Ls (50%)

 

I usually don't run the det flag, only in Ranked. Mostly a BB, but it does happen.

My most recent detonation weren't by chance. On was by a torpedo on the nose when I had previously taken a torp right under the forward turret.

The other was on a Khab, after I had pumped several 16" HE salvoes into his stern. In both cases, the magazine was already damage, so the detonation chance was already high.

 

 

[Jnobsir]

Jnobsir

Total Games Played / Survived - 8,627 / 1,741

Destroyer Games / Survived  - 2,860 / 429

Cruiser Games / Survived - 2,328 / 349

Battleship Games / Survived - 2,375 / 451

Aircraft Carrier Games / Survived - 1,064 /  521                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Total Detonations: 98                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Detonations per games played : 1.1359%                                                                                                                                                                                        Detonation as a cause of destruction: 1.423%                                                                                                                                                                               Total Ships Lost: 6,886 

Roughly a 20% Overall Survival rate. 

 

Percentage played in each class below.

Spoiler

 

 

 

[AJTP89]

1 minute ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

I though that there was also the reason that blueprints had been found that showed Wargaming had modeled them wrong?

I think there's debate on what is considered citadel space. I believe the area in question was 5" handling rooms, and some said it should be citadel, and some said it shouldn't. I will say, it is much harder to citadel a USN BB now. But with the Germans and Brits also nigh on impossible to citadel, probably wasn't overkill.

[Kerrec]

4 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Please do.  Make sure you don't omit the part where Sub_Octavian states they will be a lot more cautious about implementing player-petitioned changes in the future due to the negative backlash from said citadel lowerings. 

-edit-  While you're at it, make sure you include all of the arguments from the people that were calling for the citadel lowering and cross-reference those with how they're now among the camp of those players who are saying it was a mistake.

There will be backlash for ANY changes made to the game.  Heck, there's always backlash when content is ADDED to the game.  So while I go and compile that ridiculous request you made, I will counter:

Please go compile a list of every single change made to the client, and cross reference that with every single person that complained about the changes.  Please make a list of changes that have not ever, not even a single time, caused a player to complain about it.

[MaliceA4Thought]

MaliceA4Thought  (random battles only)

• Total Games Played / Survived:  3018 / 1163
• Battleship Games Played / Survived:  1469 / 590
• Cruiser Games Played / Survived:  1059 / 420
• Destroyer Games Played / Survived:  461 / 135
• Aircraft Carrier Games Played / Survived:  29 / 9

Total Ships Lost:  1855
Destroyers / Cruisers / Battleships Lost:  20 / 639 / 879
Detonations: 28
Detonations as a Cause of Destruction:  1.82%
Detonations per Games Played:  0.93%

 

OK think thats right :)

M

[LittleWhiteMouse]

Just now, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

I though that there was also the reason that blueprints had been found that showed Wargaming had modeled them wrong?

Citadel spaces have been inconsistent from day one.  For example, Warspite's cold-storage freezer is included in the citadel in game for some reason (ice cream must be important for the survival of the ship).  In short, they have been modeled for "balance reasons".  Remember, a shell penetrating the citadel doesn't in-of-itself cause a ship any issues.  It's if the shell damages something vital within the citadel that a ship would really have problems (it's certainly more likely to happen if a shell goes off in that area, but it's not guaranteed as there are all sorts of bits of decking, machinery and the like that could conceivably help absorb the blast).  To this end, there's already a lot of abstraction in place so they're free to move the citadel up or down a deck with some leeway.  Take a look at this cross section of King George V's machinery spaces, for example.  Where would you have placed the citadel?  The actual physical "armoured citadel" (meaning the thickest armour designed to protect the ship's vitals) extends well over the waterline.  In game, however, the hit box is well beneath the waterline.

[CrazyHorse_Denver]

CrazyHorse_Denver

total games in Random...8553...detonation rate 0.009%

total games without anti det flag...7703...detonation rate 0.011%

total detonations...85

I don't consider myself a "main" anything. I have more battles in CAs with BBs a close second. I enjoy playing all classes and the reason I play a class more than others could simply be that there are more CAs and BBs to play with than the other classes.