While the ship models in EVE are static (though gun turrets aboard do rotate), the effects they have to generate are considerably more intensive. Just about any activity you do in your ship will have some external visible effect. Repairing armor or shields will result in a visual animation over your hull or shields. Each gun that fires means a single effect just for that. Any remote support, ditto. A logistics ship can be remotely repairing 4-5 ships at once, with a visible effect for each seperate repair signal.
http://www.youtube.com/user/CCPGAMES#p/c/10838E1219A2EC16/5/JNFh1rgJ958
That's a link to one of the tournament fights that CCP put on between player groups. The client HAS been modified, but only to show the health of 20 ships at a time, broken into teams, and to remove the commentator's own ship UI. Other than that, it's legit. That's a small 10v10 battle.
But would you expect ANY sort of technological improvement like this to boost output by 50%?
Yes, why not?
Because pulling percentage growth numbers out of thin air is PHB at its finest. Set the bar at an unrealistic level and you won't get any motivation or progress. Goals have to be at least somewhat realistic and attainable in some manner for them to be actually useful. Otherwise you get something out of a dilbert cartoon.
Such infrastructure improvements can take years to properly pay off dividends, so we may be waiting for some time before we get real results.
I'm not even asking for the improvements to pay off — this is separate from an actual output increase. I just want an appreciable increase — regardless of whether it has (yet) paid for the software — before I get excited.
Fair enough on that.
Does anyone know if WotC has done a big buyback? It almost seems like someone has been scouring the bookstores methodically, snatching up everything that would suggest an older edition ever existed.
I can't speak for other places, but I ended up talking with several local game store owners in my neck of the woods. From what I've been able to piece together, a fairly self-reinforcing cycle kicked in about the same time they announced 4e:
1) 4e announced, fanbase is split as some embrace the expansion, others see possible writing on wall and begin buying 3.5e stuff where they can. Some hobby stores begin discounting 3.5e in order to clear out "old inventory".
2) As more people begin to grab 3.5 stuff, sales in local stores of said increase, outpacing 4e sales noticeably. Stores put in restock orders to local distributors. Lower margin per item is compensated by higher volume sales, so local stores wish to keep items in stock as much as possible.
3) WoTC notices that 3.5 demand is higher than 4e. They then conduct a buyback at the distributor level (this is what happened in my neghborhood. WoTC bought back, at almost retail IIRC, all of their own 3.5e product). Distributors inform local stores that they have no more WoTC stock in inventory and will not be receiving more.
4) Locals discover 3.5 isn't getting restocked, many core books are cleaned out and several secondary markets are also cleaned.
End result: 3.5e stuff is virtually gone except for several niche stores that only stocked it as a secondary product (I've found myself hitting Chapters stores, Goth clothing and miscellaneous stores, and other out of the way locations to pick up various 3.5 stuff).
I don't think the Japanese were completely over matched. Especially at the beginning of the war. A lot of the reason the US did as well as it did was due to nothing more than luck. Certainly not all allied victories were, but there were some very decisive battles that were mostly luck. I don't think the US wanted to have to deal with such a industrious and determined enemy again in the foreseeable future. I certainly agree that surrender on Japans terms would keep them from looking like "spineless weenies". However not allowing Japan to do so, was much more disgraceful to such an admirable people and was a way to avoid allowing them to dress their wounds and try again.
Actually, the Japanese were completely outmatched. Yamamoto stated that he could "run wild for one year, eighteen months at most" but after that, he would not be able to garuntee anything. Just comparing industrial output, the disparity was sickening. By 1944, the US had 41.7% of TOTAL military output, worldwide. The US army and navy did as well as it did by weight of their numbers and the tenacity of forces.
Take a look at this site: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm I haven't had the time to verify the numbers (Pacific theatre was not my major) but they do overall jive with what I know, and I've seen the two authors that are quoted in more scholarly works, so I take what is presented here at face value.
The Japanese were quite headstrong, but by the time they were losing Iwo Jima, they knew that there was only really one end; their loss. You can see it in their strategic and tactical responses. One-way fleet sorties, utterly defense-oriented combat operations. Add to that the fact that their own cities were being bombed and burnt to the ground, even the people themselves were beginning to bend and crack.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.