Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Maintenance'.
Found 5 results
I know I will start here an unpopular suggestion. Many guys just love the feeling of sitting in fat ducks blowing up everything up in range of their multiple max cannon decks. Nothing wrong with the feel of invincibility and power. But how often and how easy? And at the expense of what other game content? -- Let's face it: the enormous costs of building and maintaining a first rate ship-of-the-line is not portrayed in the game properly. Anyone with a dockyard large enough and sufficient warehouse stock can build one or several SOL a day, especially when he has the support of his clan. We see in the hand of some major clans more First Rates than whole nations had in 18th century, and this is just one theater of operations (the Caribbean), while those nations had to distribute their naval power over several theaters, mainly Europe. So what we get in the game is inflation of First Rates - determining always the same maxed out composition of battle fleets in port battles. And as the SOL are so cheap, we even see ganking groups consisting of SOLs, which is absolutely ridiculous nonsense in naval authenticity. Why? Because SOL are for navy battles only and they were extremely expensive. Their lacking speed did not make them suitable for economy war. The inflation of this overuse of fat ducks has undesirable side effects: other ship ranks become less significant. Almost nobody cares to build 2nd, 3rd rates - not to speak of 4th rate and lower, because fat ducks are so cheap and give the maximum fire power. So versatility suffers from the overuse. Tactics melt down to just brute force and nothing else matters. Who brings in more First Rates will win, who produces more a day keeps the upper hand. Short glimpse back into history: First Rates were so expensive that just for being able to add one to the royal fleet, all merchants and businesses of a city would collect their money and sponsor a single ship, which would then gratefully bear the name of that city, for example "Ville de Paris". Navy reformer Duke de Choiseul went around France to encourage cities and regions to follow the example so the King would have enough ships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Ville_de_Paris_(1764) If historically correct, a reduction of number of SOLs in Naval Action would altogether prove to be profitable for gameplay. We would see more options for setting up fleets for various purposes and other rates than the First would see a renaissance. How could this be implemented? An idea would be to give each nation a maximum number of First Rates, distributed as slots between all clans of that nation. So, if there would be a max number of 25 First Rates for one nation and six clans with, say, more than ten active members in the last month, each clan would get the Royal allowance to contribute four First Rates and the rest (1) by one of the smaller clans. Maybe this would lead to less port battles or just another composition of battle fleets participating there. A single port battle would gain importance. That's fine, because so often they really did not take place in real life. Another idea, could be parallel with the first idea mentioned, has been touched already in this forum and I am all for it: having to pay maintenance for the largest ships, no matter if they are moored in docks or 'parked' in ship market. So you think twice before building them en masse. First Rates must cost daily money, and Second and Third Rates also, but to a lesser degree. Third idea in that context is to introduce a cost inflicting each time to the owning clan when their First Rate gets sunk. They were highly prestigious symbols of power. A loss of a First Rate ship-of-the-line was felt as national tragedy. Not like in this game, where you shrug your shoulders and simply build another one. This 'prestige loss' could be expressed by deduction of marks, victory or PvP, to all clan members whose clan had that national slot for a First Rate which got sunk. A malus for the clan comparison ladder. Effect: eagerness to keep the First Rate alive at all costs. Smaller ships would be commissioned to protect the valuable First Rate - that's absolutely historic. Second Effect: enemy is even more keen on sinking First Rates, because then it would have consequences for the losing side beyond just another ship gone.
server reset times
Iggybug posted a topic in Current Feature Improvement SuggestionsHello: I am a reasonably new player, and I have talked to a few people about joining a clan. One of the people I talked to I asked some questons about the game play, one been about port attacks. I asked why our nation was not trying to take back two ports that had been captured by another nation. the answer I got was very strange. It seems the clan that captured the ports had set the time that they could be attacked right at the same time the server restarts every day. the time they set for the attack was 05:00 to 08:00 and the sever restart is at 06:00, I may be off on those times by an hour one way or the other, however, you can see the point I am making here. Now I am sure this is nothing more then an over sight by the devs, how ever it is in my opinion a use of a glitch in the game by the clan that has captured the ports and set those times they can be attacked, I myself also consider using such a glitch as nothing less then a loser cheat. however, a simple way to fix this, is to set up the server restart on a 9 day circle. pick 9 different restart times and run a circle of 9 days, or how ever many days you like as long as it is not 7, 14, 21, and so on, that way the restart times will change on the different days of the week. Now as I said, I am a new player, so maybe the restart time was set up as it is for the loser clans that need a glitch to hold the ports they capture, and yes, I will call those clans losers and a lot more because that is what they are to use a glitch in the game like a cheat. and I hope the devs are smart enough to see this and fix it. thanks for your time. Player call sign Cyberjoe
Due to network related issues we need to execute short maintenance on PvP Two USA server. Expected down time 30 minutes, it may be extended in case if issue wouldn't be fixed in that period. Sorry for inconvenience.
Im a fairly new player to the game , I am living in England & I appreciate the developers are from Ukraine area but the EU time for maintenance is slap bang in the morning for EU players , it is fairly frustrating on a weekend to wake up get coffee turn on the game to find its shutting down for an hour , it must be even worse for players on GMT+1 as this would sit around 11 a.m. The Americans have already gone to bed at this time so it just leaves us EU players suffering the maintenance time daily , Can I suggest we roll back the time by two hours and maybe have maintenance at 7 am or even 6 am?
Is there ever a good time to carry out server maintenance ? Particularly at the weekends I know this is testing and the server can go down at any time, but will the current cycle continue into go live ? Its 9.30 am on a Saturday morning in the UK, 10.30am in most of Europe, players are at home, no work (For the lucky) no school, perhaps their Partners and siblings have left the house to do other activities, I settle with a coffee and server down for maintenance. I realise the server is global but I am absolutely certain that there must be a quieter timezone slot for such maintenance. Grumble over, Turns to World of Warships for an hour