Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

109 Valued poster

1 Follower

About Nikoolix

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday 12/10/1993
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Full-time weeb

Recent Profile Visitors

810 profile views
  1. Nikoolix

    [ALL] Nagato Kantai Collection Voiceover

    You know, maybe the title can give you a hint...
  2. Nikoolix

    NA server connectivity

    As annoying as this issue obviously is, you have absolutely no right and reason to blame Hapa. Show some common sense please.
  3. Nikoolix

    Dry Dock: Which Ship Is the Most Powerful?

    Are you asking about in-game? You can use https://wowsft.com/ to check their damage per minute.
  4. Nikoolix

    Dry Dock: Which Ship Is the Most Powerful?

    This is just plain hilarious. As already pointed out, Montana's design was finalized far more than most of these Russian ships, so it makes absolutely zero sense to leave her out. But to make matters worse: Kremlin was never even planned to have 457mm guns in the final design IRL, they chose 406mm guns eventually, so it's really a double fail to put Kremlin in the end. It's really hilarious when WG feels offended by the "russian bias" memes, which I can understand and want to respect, but then they should consider avoiding throwing fuel on the fire with this sort of [edited].
  5. Right it's not perfect, but it's much more than the pro-CV crowd can provide. You're free to create a poll in an environment that you see as being less biased, but I've yet to see that happen. 1. How do you define OP? Damage? Maybe not, but their influence on the battle is in fact OP. If you're losing one normal surface ship in the start of a battle, how much of a problem is that? Not much. But if you lose the CV right away due to CV sniping, your team is completely screwed 90% of the time. How is NOT proof of CVs being OP? The biggest irony here is that the pro-CV crowd even AGREES with this: They often say that Kidd+Aki or Musashi+CV divisions should not be allowed because "it's a big problem when the CV dies early". They AGREE that CVs are the most important ship on the team, but then completely fail to see how that contradicts their claim that CVs are balanced. The fact is that CVs are only balanced because they always have perfectly mirrored matchmaking. 2. Yes but the counterplay against an RTS was more consistent. They could lose all their planes, AA builds were strong (particularly that AFT extended AA range = better fleet protection). 3. Seriously, this is a kindergarten level of excuse, like "you only complain because you're jealous!". Uhm no, people complain because since the CV spots both teams literally 1 minute from the battle start, there's no way to use any kind of surprise tactics. It leads to stale games that is only a competition of long range sniping between Stalingrad and Venezia. How is that fun for anyone, really??? Ironic that people think DDs with long range torps (like old 20km Shimakaze) lead to campy games, while CVs cause the exact same problem much earlier and more consistently. 4. First of all, unicums have said that CVs are problematic all the way from back then too. But then there are a few more things: RTS carriers were quite rare, they were present in maybe 10-20% of matches. Also the expectations of the CV rework were let down, WG had the chance to finally balance them properly but failed to do so. We got less counterplay like shorter AA range and no panic effect of DFAA. When something fails the second time it tends to be more frustrating than when it fails the first time. Then there's also as mentioned above, while CVs had stronger strike potential the counterplay in terms of AA was also more consistent. RIP Atlanta. 5. This argument can be used to discredit any poll, ever. This sounds a lot like the "voter fraud!" cries from certain people without any proof. It's not a viable excuse without proof.
  6. This is the second time you're nitpicking on my spelling or wording rather than actually arguing the point. I wonder why you're so fixated on ignoring the actual argument. It baffles me how someone like you think you're actually making a point by just saying "you're talking nonsense" without any proof to back it up. FYI, something doesn't become nonsense just because you say it is.
  7. 1. Sure, but until we see that data, all we have are: The community polls, both here on the forum and on other platforms. The community initiatives, e.g clan battles boycott due to carriers, which many top clans are in support of. The community held tournaments like KoTS where carriers are not allowed. I wonder why? The top players in the world, including carrier players like Gaishu (who still holds the 550k damage world record) who agrees that carriers are still problematic. New players who quit the game because tier 4 is a horrible experience because surface ships there almost don't have any AA. All of these things show that the community thinks that carriers still have problems. Saying that these things don't matter, is like saying that 1 million people protesting on the street "don't matter because they're technically a minority of the whole country population". Sure, but if there's so much resistance against something, maybe it needs fixing. I'd love to see the results of in-game polls, but we know WG will never share them. 2. Well CCs can still provide feedback on ship balance etc. But we've seen more and more often that feedback being totally ignored by WG. Then there's internal testing of new game modes and such, but I don't know how much CCs are involved there. 3. Understood, and agree. 4. True.
  8. So you don't know what "nonsense" is. If you think what I'm saying is nonsense, then you're implying that the pro-CV crowd can provide any evidence, which they can't. So what I say is factually not nonsense because I have the better amount of evidence on my side, doesn't matter if you don't think it's valuable. Nonsense= something that is false. Just because the facts I provide aren't important in your opinion, that doesn't make them false.
  9. And that even includes the forum? Lol. So what kind of community CAN we poll then where you'll get a result that you deem as unbiased? This is starting to sound like a certain other group of people who scream "fake news!" as soon as there's something they don't like, despite NO proof that said information is wrong. You have NO proof that these polls are biased, only your feeling. WG doesn't listen to CCs either, if they did the rework would never have been released in that state. So you're actually saying that many of the world's best players, including clans like [07] that are very against CVs in clan battles, don't have a grasp of game mechanics. Lol I'm out of words. So can you enlighten us on what mechanics that the world's top clans don't have understanding of? Ah there came exactly what we expected, when evidence is finally provided you have no other choice than to completely discredit it, even without providing ANY basis to why. And regardless of how little importance you think that proof has, I'm repeating this for the 4TH TIME: It's still more than any pro-CV can provide, especially with regards to the argument that the anti-cv playerbase is only a minority. Repeating this for the 5th time because you don't seem to get it: There's more proof for the anti-CV opinion than there is for the pro-CV opinion, until you have proved the opposite.
  10. @KilljoyCutter @motleytanker @HeadSplit120 First of all, I'm giving you some proof. Poll with almost 9000 votes: https://www.strawpoll.me/17702395/r Poll about CVs in clan battles, IIRC before they were introduced into CB: https://www.strawpoll.me/18755104/r Poll on the very forum (inbefore blaming "reddit echo chamber") about CV participation in clan battles, 1400 answers, 80% against CVs in CB: https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/136535-clan-battles-season-9/ Forum poll about the CV rework right after it launched. While the poll is old, many problems with CVs such as their spotting ability remain completely unchanged so it's safe to say these opinions largely remain: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/180829-cv-rework-first-impressions-poll/ Massively popular initiative to boycott CB with carriers, with detailed explanation of why: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/hmed5e/clan_battle_cv_boycott/ Another general poll about CV impact on game enjoyment: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/gqf1be/are_games_more_or_less_fun_with_carriers_a_basic/ Now will you show me proof of the contrary? And secondly, you keep missing the point. Even if this proof isn't perfect, the main point is still that people who claim that the anti-CV opinion is only a minority has NO proof of that claim at all to begin with, so their statement weighs even less. But here we are, there is significantly more proof to support that the majority of players who care about the situation, are unhappy with it. And even if you don't think this proof is perfect, it's still SIGNIFICANTLY better than anything that the pro-CV crowd can present.
  11. Nikoolix

    Weekly Combat Missions: Summer Sale Tokens

    So the maximum amount of tokens possible to earn for free is 15, which is barely enough to buy anything. Lol.
  12. Yes I do: The fact that almost all discussion about CVs lean heavily toward anti-CV. And even if that wasn't the case, people who claim that anti-CV are just a minority has zero proof of that either way, so my point still stands. My lack of counterproof doesn't make the opposing statement true, basic logic.
  13. A DD can't spot the entire enemy team a half minute from start. CVs however can, which completely removes surprise tactics. 1 minute from start you will know where all radar ships, battleship etc are. A DD can not do this. A DD that is nearby you to spot you can be intercepted by your friendly DDs or radar. The fact that you completely fail to consider both of these major factors makes your argument pretty invalid.
  14. Your argument works the other way around as well. Without knowing exactly what percentage of the playerbase cares, @motleytanker (who I replied to) can't say that the anti-CV people are just a minority either. But so far all various situations have shown that the majority dislike CVs. Every poll about CV balance leans heavily to anti-CV opinions. In every discussion where someone says that CVs are balanced, they are heavily downvoted or criticised by most replies. On videos of 899 or AKK divisions that kill the CV early, the majority of viewers are positive to that tactic. Case in point, the video we are discussing right now. By far the majority of the competitive scene is against CVs, especially in clan battles. Every truly skilled player will agree that CVs are problematic, including the world's best CV players like Gaishu. Lets make a though experiment: Imagine we introduce a copy of Yamato at tier 7, without any nerfs, so straight up the same as T10. This would be completely broken, right? But would the majority of all players say that this is a problem? Probably no, because the majority of the whole playerbase seemingly has no opinion about balance at all. Is this proof that a Yamato copy at T7 is fine? Of course not! Because among those who DO care, they majority will of course agree that it's problematic, and it would be easy to see why. Either way I think you get my point. So no, I can't provide exact statistics since I don't have access to WG's surveys, but on the contrary, there is not a SINGLE piece of evidence that supports saying that the anti-CV community is a minority among the players who care. And I think that the opinions of players who care matter more than those who don't have an opinion at all.
  15. The majority OF THOSE WHO CARE dislikes CVs. You don't count those who don't care, just like you don't count non-voters in an election. Absolutely baffling that this even needs to be explained. So among everyone who cares about the CV balance, by far the majority thinks CVs are toxic to the gameplay. You're ignorance doesn't change this.