Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

581 Excellent

1 Follower

About Merc85

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Merc85

    Question About Flak

    What I read and what Elazer's video above shows that it's not about dodging, it's about boosting speed right through the flak because the WG coding is such that if your fast enough the flak won't get you.
  2. Merc85

    Question About Flak

    Hmm....that could be it. The planes wouldn't be "outrunning" the flak, they'd be going so fast towards it that that flak always bursts behind the planes.
  3. @Hapa_Fodder Could you or someone briefly discuss how flak actually works? I've read that planes from certain CVs that are quite fast (like the MvR and Haku) can just fly in a straight line directly through flak and not risk taking any flak damage whatsoever as long as their speed boost is on because the speed "outruns" how the programming determines where the flak is. If so, this is ridiculous game design. And if not, how does it actually work? Thanks all.
  4. Wait....where did I say CVs couldn't do damage. They can continue to do damage anywhere/everywhere on the map EXCEPT for where an enemy player decided to go with an AA cruiser that is full AA spec'd.
  5. As I said I never said ban CVs.......what Warrior's does is irrelevant to what I said.
  6. I didn't say ban the CVs, I said if a captain chooses to pick an AA support cruiser and then fully spec'd it for AA it should be a no fly zone. And the CV shouldn't be doing any damage in that area if he's stupid enough to go near a no fly zone AS IT USED TO BE.
  7. This. An AA spec'd cruiser should be a no fly zone for planes if you want to build it that way....but the AA was soooo nerfed even good AA cruisers aren't that way anymore. For instance in the good old days an AA spec'd Atlanta or DM would protect all ships near it when a CV tried to attack, which is how it should be if you choose that type of ship and build. Now it's a waste of time just to coddle poor CV players.
  8. Merc85

    2 CV's per team needs to stop.

    OP, very well said. Two CVs per team (or god forbid 3) is just ludicrous and makes that battle very very unfun!! I was in a mid tier match with my Warspite and there were 2 CVs per team. At the beginning of the battle I stayed with the cruiser and DD that were near me but their two CVs came and attacked me immediately. In spite of "dodging" and using my sector AA I lost 40% of my health in their first attack AND I HAD NEVER EVEN FIRED ONE SALVO. @Hapa_Fodder, doesn't WG understand that 2 CVs per team is brutally unfun for the other 20 players?? Give us a break and limit CVs to one per team. As others have said, playing tier IV is unbearable given how many CVs are there and mid tiers with 2 CVs per side are just as bad.
  9. Merc85


  10. In game mine now shows 16:30 to 20:30 Pacific time, which would make it 7:30 to 11:30pm Eastern time (or like it was before the DST change). Your point still might be valid, but it looks like Wednesday goes back to "normal" and only this past Sunday was different.
  11. Merc85

    CV's at tier 4

    I agree with you OP.....limit CVs to one per team WG to make these low tier battles a lot more fun. I used to play my Arkansas Beta as well as my Clemson but don't at all anymore. The Arkansas has no AA and two or three CVs attacking it all game isn't any fun at all. And any DD at low tier isn't worth trying to play with CV planes everywhere spotting you endlessly. It's just not fun!!!
  12. Winning gives you a 50% higher amount of xp, but winning does NOT give you higher credits.....credits are not impacted by winning or losing. The greatest base earnings come from damage done to enemy ships. The rewards for damage is determined by the percentage of the target ship's hit points removed, not the amount of raw damage done. Removing 90% of a destroyer's HP will generate the same base earnings as removing 90% of a battleship's HP at the same tier. The rewards from damage scale depending on the tier disparity between ships. More is earned for damaging a higher tiered than a lower tiered ship. Damage to ships and aircraft, kills, and captures make up about 85% of total earnings. [hide] Action Credits Frags (enemy kills) award credits the equivalent of 25% of the target's hit points in damage. Total damage to aircraft is tracked and contributes to earnings.[5] The tier of the aircraft carrier that launched the planes is considered for tier disparity. Captured rewards credits "equivalent to 1/3 of a completely destroyed ship".[6] If several ships contribute to a capture, the rewards are divided by each ship's contribution to the capture. The reward for blocking capture is the same as a capture assist dividing by the duration of the enemy's capture.
  13. Your point 3 is so so true. Credits earned in any battle is determined mainly by damage done, not whether you win or lose. Maybe if WG changed credits earned to be highly impacted by whether you won or not it would make it much harder for poorer players to move up the tiers just because they won't earn enough credits to do so because they don't win as much. That could make it such that poorer win rate players have to do your item 1 since they will be at lower tiers in the same ships longer than they are today. It's amazing how many players you run into at the higher tiers that still don't know about such things like angling, how concealment works, what ammo type to use, etc.
  14. Really?? If the odds of losing a battle is 50% (and yours is a bit lower than that given your win rate), then the odds of losing 20 battles in a row is 1 in 1,000,000!!!! Therefore I doubt that it would happen.