Again, it would require you to track that entire fleet through the entire course of the battle. Do you fleet command? have you lead larger engagements, involving more then say 5 or 10 fleets?
It may be possible to micromanage 2-3 fleets if you are really good at fcing, or you appoint someone to keep an eye on it, but after the battle starts, and targets get calling, you will get problems, get mentally exhausted for tracking multiple ship types across multiple fleets, and their locations.
Now lets do something interesting, lets say the enemy catch onto this tactic and learns to copy the other fleets builds? How will you distinguish who is friend and go when everyone runs the same ship types (which btw is highly likely since we call use the same crap (4-5 doctrines) in null anyways Ie meta).
You wont be able to micromanage it, and even if you can find ways it will not be worth the effort and you will kill friendly neuts.
I already knew that was the point you were making before mentioning this and the truth is we fc’d dont have time to do that for 10-15 people. You will whelp your fleet, no doubt about it.these changes will definitely have a significant impact on blue donut fleet sizes
Again, work arounds are always possible to an extent, but usually in a reduced capacity. my objective is to reduce the sizes of engagements by breaking up donuts, and by breaking them up, increase the frequency of pvp
It means “your personal desire or position” actually. It is your claim, or position that the values do not matter, but they do when you reduce them.
Expanding corporation sizes causes less of them
retracting them causes more corporations to exist.
More corporations breed more alliances
and more alliances bring more interaction.
Thus, being large has no effect, but being small does.
Sigh, childish remarks, really? Can we keep this logical, and civil.
Yes, They do want the large battles, and they think that having 64 bit wll some how allow for the game to get “fixed” its delusional, beyond reason. Hilmar is running this game into the ground because he thinks its “good publicity” and his intention is to make this game more of a “Spectacle” then actually fix it. Ironically, if he did the latter he would get what he wanted, and more.
Its illogical, and equates to “lets see how big of numbers we can get before the game caps out”. Its a nice article on a blog but it does nothing significant for the players out side of driving profit nonsense which perpetuates the cycle. If the investors had any brains they’d see through it and fire him.
Are you actually Suggesting that the game would live if a region could be mined into the voidness of space? the game would end, or you’d create an extremely abusive atmosphere. Endless mining and so on is important to the majority of the game, the pvers.
By the way, I am saying that yes, they would still exist, because one thing i have learnt as game designer is players are efficient little ants, and they will always suprise you, when you think you made something impossible for them to do, they do it in no time, even while you expected them to do it in a month, they will do it in a week or a day. Do not underestimate the players ability to find an efficient work around.
This single mechanic in us as humans, drives players to excel in ways you can only dream about.
Humans are fascinating creatures, I am pleased to have visited your planet to study you. You inspire such great hope, and such horrible nightmares. What is interesting about that is that it seems you can never be only one or the other.
In games, if populations condense to much the result is the population becomes all what i can describe as “industrialized”. this forces specific styles of play on the players (changing the game from a game, to a job) forcing people to adhere to specific laws, forced game play (mandatory pvp as pvers etc). most importantly, the value of corporations, and their social interaction go’s out of it. think of this as a family unity, and the larger you are the more likely your birthday is to be missed, or at the least, reduced in value (ie less gifts or less valued gifts).
When population is broken into smaller groups the reverse is true. Thus i advocate for the games population to be broke up, so social interaction, content, and all around creativity expands again.
what evidence do you have to offer for this? I offer 18 years of experience, and 7 years of intensive study of game theory to suggest other wise. Can you at face value provide any similar level of evidence (if not at least by claim)?