OP you dont get it.

The massive amount of RMT going on because of rentals is generating a few dozen dudes thousands of dollars in cash.

Alliance heads, CCP, they are all farming dollars out of it on the side. DEVs maybe not directly, but they probably get a cut in envelopes on the side, to keep situation stable, almost certainly.

There is a saying in russian for this: -é-â-+-+ -¦-¦-¦-+-+ -ü-é-Ç-+-ç-î. And they arent going to give up this cash cow. Not the alliance leaders, not others.

Simple as that.

Malcanis pretty much nailed it in one.

Yes, he put into two paragraphs what would actually need to entail a number of smaller issues to be addressed at the same time to be fully successful.

My point of view is basically we need to:

1: SHARPLY reduce the ability to easily move capitol fleets, either through time, logistics cost/complexity, range reduction, or likely a combination of all of these things.

2: SHARPLY reduce the ability to easily move large fleets of sub caps via the same methods.

3: Change SOV and/or game mechanics to render caps inferior to sub caps when it comes to taking Sov, making hard hitting and fast moving sub caps fleets more of a danger to SOV than Cap fleets.
Further changes to SOV mechanics (specifically timers) to allow timezone participation yes, but remove the ability to use it as a long term delaying tactic.

4: Holding large area's of space should get more profitable the larger those area's are, however they should also become far more difficult to effectively hold... with a distinct emphasis on the later.

5; It should be far easier for a small entity defending a single system than for a large entity to defend countless systems.

The end goal should be for it to be actually very easy to take a system or two (and perhaps easier to hold them) from a large entity. Bigger does not have to mean better.

Even if you lose that system you can easily go take another one until eventually the larger entity tires of retaking space they really don't need (and possibly can no longer afford the time to defend).

Multiple smaller area's of control, and multiple smaller scale engagements, are far far better than what we have now.

I find it hilarious how some people think the only way to take down a huge alliance is through firepower. Does no one remember how BoB was finally taken down?

answer - no.

renting suits a lot of player's game styles

not everyone has time to play to constant timers and some players like to just rat / plex exploration sites or do industry stuff.


if the big super blocs want to make easy isk for doing feck all except defend a timer every now and again fair play to them as it makes sense.

renter pays for use of system and gets infrastructure defense from it's landlord.

it is upto the renter to defend his or her assets against roaming gangs but if their pos/sov structures are attacked it means a timer which the super bloc's will fight to defend cos they sometimes get gudfites or super kills from it.

it is a fair deal. safer from invasion but still risky vs roaming gangs. keeps the renter on it's toes

Screw that. Just go there and ninja rat without paying rent.

Anyone remember a time before technetium, when -A- rented 90% of the south, nothing new here, move along, CCP will make some new way of alliances funding themselves and renting will stop, then CCP will nerf that, and we'll go back to renters.