These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Going over the proposed wardec changes...

Author
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#1 - 2012-04-16 14:26:43 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
All quotes are from this post.

Quote:
Change the war dec cost formula so that the cost is no longer increased by the number of wars target corp is in. Instead, the cost is modified by the number of players in target corp.

This is just terrible. Now not only is it stupidly expensive to wardec larger targets, it becomes cheaper for multiple corporations to wardec smaller targets. Yes, this will make Eve much better for new players and "the little guy" who will be much more likely to ragequit.

Allow me to provide some insight from what most people would call a "griefer": we are looking for fights. Most of the highsec war corps and alliances I know aren't wanting to sit behind Jita in Tornados with neutral RR on standby. They're actively out there trying to provoke fleet engagements. That's easiest when you're up against hundreds of players instead of dozens.

Quote:
A defender corp in a war can call an ally to their aid. The ally then joins the war on the side of the defender. To facilitate this we’ll add a ‘mercenary marketplace’ to the contract UI, where corps can find each other (defending corps can advertise they’re looking for an ally; mercenary corps can advertise their availability). Joining as an ally is a formal contract and can involve transfer of ISK. Once you’re an ally, you’re committed to the war until it ends.

...

There is no limitation to how many allies he can call.

That last sentence is going to make this rather stupid. Really? You can just call everyone in for free wars? I understand that warfare previously grossly favored the aggressor, but this is a swing so far in the other direction that, combined with the cost changes, will represent a huge reduction in the number of wars. When the dev blog starts out by calling the war system "underused" it makes me wonder what exactly they thought would happen with these changes.

Here's an alternative: limit the number of allies that can be called in, let's stay the defender can get 2. At that point, the aggressor can call in an ally, allowing the defender to call in 2 more. This will create a sense of escalation to the war rather than defenders being able to call in everyone in highsec looking for a fight so they can all pummel the aggressor.

What makes it even more stupid is that nothing is done about the ability to evade wars entirely through the use of NPC corps. I've always had the impression that CCP intended for alliances who are fighting for sov to extend their wars into highsec. That's a moot point when they can just protect all their trit miners, freighters, suicide gankers, et cetera by putting them in NPC corps with absolutely no penalties at all.

This paints a rather interesting picture of how things can go. Let's say Goonswarm runs another round of industrial ganks after this new dec system goes live. The victims can't retaliate with wardecs because it is cost-prohibitive. This (plus the use of NPC alts) prevents any efforts at preemptive attacks. When they do finally scrape up enough cash to hire mercs who can wardec the goons and mount some sort of defense, the goons can just let anyone who wants join the war as allies so they can mob the mercenaries into submission.



I like most of the proposal, but these three things could make for a game world where superalliances are completely protected from wardecs. Aggressors will be so vulnerable to blobs of allies that even today's typical wars would become unlikely, and the end result would be an overall chilling effect on warfare. And of course NPC corp alts will continue hauling and mining and running missions with no fear of anything bad happening besides being ganked...by someone else's NPC corp alt.

So what should CCP do?

1) Make wardec costs based on more than the size of the defender. If a 15-man corp wants to wardec a 1,000+ member alliance, it shouldn't cost them absurd amounts of money. The big alliances should be able to swat them like flies...and if they can't or won't defend themselves against those 15 guys, then they should reconsider their approach to Eve. HTFU, as they say.

2) Change the ally system so that it doesn't wholly favor the defender. Allow an escalation of war where the defender calls in allies, the aggressor responds with their own, and they go back and forth until one side or the other runs out of backup and/or money.

3) Make NPC corps have real drawbacks besides a marginal tax.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
#2 - 2012-04-17 12:00:29 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

So what should CCP do?

1) Make wardec costs based on more than the size of the defender. If a 15-man corp wants to wardec a 1,000+ member alliance, it shouldn't cost them absurd amounts of money. The big alliances should be able to swat them like flies...and if they can't or won't defend themselves against those 15 guys, then they should reconsider their approach to Eve. HTFU, as they say.


Can't agree with you more in this case Floppie. Its insane that it costs more to dec a larger corp than it does a small corp.

If you ask me the charge should be based on the size difference of the corps.

Small attacker - Large deffender = small cost
Even sized corps = meduim cost
Large attacker - small defender = large cost.

If it was possible I would also factor in the corps total SPs, so a group of vets would have to pay more to dec a bunch of noobs.

Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#3 - 2012-04-17 13:27:51 UTC
Jint Hikaru wrote:
If it was possible I would also factor in the corps total SPs, so a group of vets would have to pay more to dec a bunch of noobs.

This is probably the single biggest problem with the current wardec system and a major barrier to long-term subscriptions...and CCP is apparently planning to do nothing about it.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Reppyk
The Black Shell
#4 - 2012-05-03 14:40:53 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
So what should CCP do?

1) Make wardec costs based on more than the size of the defender.
2) Allow an escalation of war where the defender calls in allies, the aggressor responds with their own, and they go back and forth until one side or the other runs out of backup and/or money.
3) Make NPC corps have real drawbacks besides a marginal tax.
Support x3.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#5 - 2012-05-03 15:12:31 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
The big alliances should be able to swat them like flies.
How about this.

Whenever you declare a war you have to put up some sort of POS module in empire space. As long as this POS module is up the war is on. But as soon as it explodes or gets taken down the war is over.

Small corps can still wardeck massive alliances but they'd be one POS bash away from losing the war.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-05-03 15:53:23 UTC
Wolodymyr wrote:
How about this.

Whenever you declare a war you have to put up some sort of POS module in empire space. As long as this POS module is up the war is on. But as soon as it explodes or gets taken down the war is over.

Small corps can still wardeck massive alliances but they'd be one POS bash away from losing the war.


This would make each and every war a war of attrition. Understanding that fighting a mobile force that melts into the surrounding area is frustrating, it's a strategy that's as old as the hills both in eve and in real life and is basically the only way for a smaller force to bring pressure on a bigger force.

Do you really want even highsec to become strictly blob warfare?
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-05-03 16:11:03 UTC
The one factor I cant budge on when it comes to these arguments is the fact ISK is easily earned and gathered....and yet I see all the major grefing corps throwing a fit over cost.

Hell the last Merc's I spoke to for grins and giggles where chargeing a bill a pop for what I was curious about...course that was way back in the day but even then.

How is this such a big problem?

Now keep In mind I'm all in favor of your viewpoints and stances floppie...so I'm not saying this is outragously stupid like hte other half dozen idiot ideas I see every bloody day....so this is a sincere inqury...is it really that bad?

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#8 - 2012-05-03 16:27:31 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
The one factor I cant budge on when it comes to these arguments is the fact ISK is easily earned and gathered....and yet I see all the major grefing corps throwing a fit over cost.

Hell the last Merc's I spoke to for grins and giggles where chargeing a bill a pop for what I was curious about...course that was way back in the day but even then.

How is this such a big problem?

Now keep In mind I'm all in favor of your viewpoints and stances floppie...so I'm not saying this is outragously stupid like hte other half dozen idiot ideas I see every bloody day....so this is a sincere inqury...is it really that bad?


It's not about the cost at all. The distribution of the cost is part of a larger problem which leads to an environment where small, noob-ish corps are brutally punished for not being in the know, while the big alliances are virtually invulnerable.

I'm all for raising the cost of a wardec. It should be substantial enough that griefers aren't content to spend $x to sit at a station for a week, waiting until their wartarget finally undocks in a T1 cruiser. 50-100 million would be a good starting point.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2012-05-03 16:33:09 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
The one factor I cant budge on when it comes to these arguments is the fact ISK is easily earned and gathered....and yet I see all the major grefing corps throwing a fit over cost.

Hell the last Merc's I spoke to for grins and giggles where chargeing a bill a pop for what I was curious about...course that was way back in the day but even then.

How is this such a big problem?

Now keep In mind I'm all in favor of your viewpoints and stances floppie...so I'm not saying this is outragously stupid like hte other half dozen idiot ideas I see every bloody day....so this is a sincere inqury...is it really that bad?


It's not about the cost at all. The distribution of the cost is part of a larger problem which leads to an environment where small, noob-ish corps are brutally punished for not being in the know, while the big alliances are virtually invulnerable.

I'm all for raising the cost of a wardec. It should be substantial enough that griefers aren't content to spend $x to sit at a station for a week, waiting until their wartarget finally undocks in a T1 cruiser. 50-100 million would be a good starting point.


Ok....lets say for the moment I'm a dense brick....give me an example of distrubution of cost...break it down.

Because everyone else is implying what it is when they don't just "state it".

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#10 - 2012-05-03 18:27:56 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Drake Draconis wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
The one factor I cant budge on when it comes to these arguments is the fact ISK is easily earned and gathered....and yet I see all the major grefing corps throwing a fit over cost.

Hell the last Merc's I spoke to for grins and giggles where chargeing a bill a pop for what I was curious about...course that was way back in the day but even then.

How is this such a big problem?

Now keep In mind I'm all in favor of your viewpoints and stances floppie...so I'm not saying this is outragously stupid like hte other half dozen idiot ideas I see every bloody day....so this is a sincere inqury...is it really that bad?


It's not about the cost at all. The distribution of the cost is part of a larger problem which leads to an environment where small, noob-ish corps are brutally punished for not being in the know, while the big alliances are virtually invulnerable.

I'm all for raising the cost of a wardec. It should be substantial enough that griefers aren't content to spend $x to sit at a station for a week, waiting until their wartarget finally undocks in a T1 cruiser. 50-100 million would be a good starting point.


Ok....lets say for the moment I'm a dense brick....give me an example of distrubution of cost...break it down.

Because everyone else is implying what it is when they don't just "state it".

I think the current figures being tossed around is 50m base plus 500k per member. So it costs 60m to wardec a 20-member corp, 300m to wardec a 500-member corp, and 5 billion to wardec a 10,000-member alliance.

Conversely, that 10,000-member alliance can wardec the 20-member corp for....60 million isk.

Do you see where the disparity is? The proposed system completely favors large organizations, while making smaller ones even more vulnerable than they are today. Nearly all of the increased cost of wardecs is going into protecting alliances at the expense of small corps. That's what I mean by the distribution of wardec costs.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2012-05-03 18:48:00 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
The one factor I cant budge on when it comes to these arguments is the fact ISK is easily earned and gathered....and yet I see all the major grefing corps throwing a fit over cost.

Hell the last Merc's I spoke to for grins and giggles where chargeing a bill a pop for what I was curious about...course that was way back in the day but even then.

How is this such a big problem?

Now keep In mind I'm all in favor of your viewpoints and stances floppie...so I'm not saying this is outragously stupid like hte other half dozen idiot ideas I see every bloody day....so this is a sincere inqury...is it really that bad?


It's not about the cost at all. The distribution of the cost is part of a larger problem which leads to an environment where small, noob-ish corps are brutally punished for not being in the know, while the big alliances are virtually invulnerable.

I'm all for raising the cost of a wardec. It should be substantial enough that griefers aren't content to spend $x to sit at a station for a week, waiting until their wartarget finally undocks in a T1 cruiser. 50-100 million would be a good starting point.


Ok....lets say for the moment I'm a dense brick....give me an example of distrubution of cost...break it down.

Because everyone else is implying what it is when they don't just "state it".

I think the current figures being tossed around is 50m base plus 500k per member. So it costs 60m to wardec a 20-member corp, 300m to wardec a 500-member corp, and 5 billion to wardec a 10,000-member alliance.

Conversely, that 10,000-member alliance can wardec the 20-member corp for....60 million isk.

Do you see where the disparity is? The proposed system completely favors large organizations, while making smaller ones even more vulnerable than they are today. Nearly all of the increased cost of wardecs is going into protecting alliances at the expense of small corps. That's what I mean by the distribution of wardec costs.



Ok I GET that.....and I have no real problems with the logic behind your statement.

But economicaly speaking...its too easy to make a quick billion these days...thats where I'm coming from. Most war-decs are station games and only last a week or so as it is.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#12 - 2012-05-03 18:56:39 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
But economicaly speaking...its too easy to make a quick billion these days...thats where I'm coming from. Most war-decs are station games and only last a week or so as it is.


I agree that cash is very available, though I can't say that I consider a billion to be "easy money". There are some people out there who could permadec goonswarm forever, and there are some for whom a billion isk still seems like an outrageous sum of money.

And yes, wardecs do devolve into station game stupidity all too often. I'd love to see that fixed.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#13 - 2012-05-03 18:58:34 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
The one factor I cant budge on when it comes to these arguments is the fact ISK is easily earned and gathered....and yet I see all the major grefing corps throwing a fit over cost.

Hell the last Merc's I spoke to for grins and giggles where chargeing a bill a pop for what I was curious about...course that was way back in the day but even then.

How is this such a big problem?

Now keep In mind I'm all in favor of your viewpoints and stances floppie...so I'm not saying this is outragously stupid like hte other half dozen idiot ideas I see every bloody day....so this is a sincere inqury...is it really that bad?


It's not about the cost at all. The distribution of the cost is part of a larger problem which leads to an environment where small, noob-ish corps are brutally punished for not being in the know, while the big alliances are virtually invulnerable.

I'm all for raising the cost of a wardec. It should be substantial enough that griefers aren't content to spend $x to sit at a station for a week, waiting until their wartarget finally undocks in a T1 cruiser. 50-100 million would be a good starting point.


Ok....lets say for the moment I'm a dense brick....give me an example of distrubution of cost...break it down.

Because everyone else is implying what it is when they don't just "state it".

I think the current figures being tossed around is 50m base plus 500k per member. So it costs 60m to wardec a 20-member corp, 300m to wardec a 500-member corp, and 5 billion to wardec a 10,000-member alliance.

Conversely, that 10,000-member alliance can wardec the 20-member corp for....60 million isk.

Do you see where the disparity is? The proposed system completely favors large organizations, while making smaller ones even more vulnerable than they are today. Nearly all of the increased cost of wardecs is going into protecting alliances at the expense of small corps. That's what I mean by the distribution of wardec costs.


I think you're not looking at both sides of the coin...

Imagine a flat 100m fee for a wardec... Then, you could use that money to wardec a noobish 10 man corp, and get ten targets for that one fee, or you could wardec a 1000 man corp, and get 1000 targets for that fee.

IMO, ALL targetted players are equally inconvenienced by the wardec... so if you're a griefer, you get to grief more people for less money when it is cheaper to declare war on large alliances. You might claim that larger alliances can rally more people and hence defend themselves easier, but that's only true when defending a POS structure or big op...
Iri'yana
Corvus Technologies
#14 - 2012-05-03 19:16:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Iri'yana
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I think the current figures being tossed around is 50m base plus 500k per member. So it costs 60m to wardec a 20-member corp, 300m to wardec a 500-member corp, and 5 billion to wardec a 10,000-member alliance.

Conversely, that 10,000-member alliance can wardec the 20-member corp for....60 million isk.

Do you see where the disparity is? The proposed system completely favors large organizations, while making smaller ones even more vulnerable than they are today. Nearly all of the increased cost of wardecs is going into protecting alliances at the expense of small corps. That's what I mean by the distribution of wardec costs.


So you are saying that the are considering a linear cost formula along the line of ...

War-Dec Cost = 50m + 0.5m * members ?

Why not something more non-linear with decreasing additional cost per next member? Lets say e.g. to pick a more or less random number ...

War-Dec Cost = 50m + 0.5m * (members) squared 0.9

That would give about

  • 55m for 20 members
  • 195m for 500 members
  • 2,040m for 10.000 members

So the increase isn't that steep. Of course you can play around with the "number" (unsure about the English term for such a root expression) ... the lower the less impact an additional member has and with one being the linear case of Gizznitts example.

EDIT: Something like this even makes sense from an economic utility perspective. If I go from five targets I can shot at to six, I get way more fun out of this one "Mr.6" guy as if I can already shot half the galaxy and in that case am presented with one more target.

EDIT times 2: Thinking about it for a bit, I'm of the opinion that their should be another part in the formula that adjusts the costs also based on the number of members in the corporation declaring the war. The more members you got that more costly it should be. It just sounds wrong, if 20 guys wanting to declare war on a company of e.g. another 20 guys should have to pay the same as 2,000 guys. For the twenty guys its (maybe) a though decision with regard to their resources, for the 2,000 guys it's - to quote some bankers facing billions in losses - "peanuts". So you would have something like:

War-Dec Cost = fixed amount + a * (members aggressor) squared (something smaller 1) + b * (members defendent) squared (something smaller 1)
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#15 - 2012-05-03 21:49:59 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Understanding that fighting a mobile force that melts into the surrounding area is frustrating, it's a strategy that's as old as the hills both in eve and in real life

That's just a long winded way of saying that you'll dock up whenever more than one hostile comes into local.

Or that you'll get a 1 man alt corp to wardeck random incursion runners who won't get reps in fleet because the logi is skittish about getting aggression to whoever wardecked them.

You wanna go around in a 1 man cop wardecking as many people as you can then fine. But there has to be a win / lose state for both sides of a war.

Every wardeck now is basically a battle of attrition. Can the defenders stay out of highsec longer than the attackers can keep paying the bills.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2012-05-03 22:26:05 UTC
Wolodymyr wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Understanding that fighting a mobile force that melts into the surrounding area is frustrating, it's a strategy that's as old as the hills both in eve and in real life

That's just a long winded way of saying that you'll dock up whenever more than one hostile comes into local.

Or that you'll get a 1 man alt corp to wardeck random incursion runners who won't get reps in fleet because the logi is skittish about getting aggression to whoever wardecked them.

You wanna go around in a 1 man cop wardecking as many people as you can then fine. But there has to be a win / lose state for both sides of a war.

Every wardeck now is basically a battle of attrition. Can the defenders stay out of highsec longer than the attackers can keep paying the bills.


That would be one of the things that keeps me on the fence.

Right now pretty much anyone no matter how big or how small can war dec anyone.

The change now requires you to be serious about it...and not #### around.

Which most war decs are just stupid ####ing around for lol's.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Hans Zwaardhandler
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#17 - 2012-05-04 00:27:51 UTC
While I agree with most of your points, what you think would happen would cause a lot of the nullsec corps/alliances to become rather upset and rail on unfair tactics and gameplay.

Wardec changes have been wanted for awhile, and now that they are coming out, a general s***storm is taking place. Isn't this what people wanted?
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#18 - 2012-05-04 02:06:59 UTC
Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:
While I agree with most of your points, what you think would happen would cause a lot of the nullsec corps/alliances to become rather upset and rail on unfair tactics and gameplay.

Wardec changes have been wanted for awhile, and now that they are coming out, a general s***storm is taking place. Isn't this what people wanted?


Not anyone I know. Almost everyone sees something wrong with the proposed changes. This thread was dedicated to a discussion of what would constitute GOOD changes. I'd suggest looking through that and browsing C&P, W&T, and GD forums for more current discussions to get an idea of what people want.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#19 - 2012-05-04 14:17:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
I agree with the OP that the wardec price change just encourages people to wardec small corps and makes huge ones almost immune. It's ridiculous.

Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:

Wardec changes have been wanted for awhile, and now that they are coming out, a general s***storm is taking place. Isn't this what people wanted?

I certainly didn't want most of the changes. All I wanted was for people not to be able to get rid of wardecs whenever they want.
Teycha
Not going Away
#20 - 2012-05-05 08:27:56 UTC
I agree the war dec system has been abused far too much in recent years.
Too many corps and alliance easily able to doge them by joining or leaving an alliance or character avoiding them by joining or leaving a corp.

EvE University being a primary example for some, others being the 1 man corp who war decs a bunch of guys from the same corp mining in a belt and wont let the guy salvage. So he sits nearby and waits till he sees them all log on and positions his guys in the system on an off grid from the belt and has them all apply to his corp and accepts them all and they warp in and kill the guys.

Usage of the system in this manner is what needs to be stopped.

I have many ideas on how this type of thing can be stopped but it is not the main issue atm.

The main issue is how CCP is going to lose alot of money in this change. CCP has always been a bottom line kind of business when it comes to Eve.

CCP ask yourself these very important questions.
When a new player joins eve and finally decides to join a corporation is he going to still be able to join a small group of friends to play the game he wants to play?
Or is he going to have to spend a whole lot of money on GTC's to hire mercs, who are probably working in conjunction with the griefers to extort the money, who may even betray his corp?
Or is he and his friends corp going to have to goto 0.0 space and join an alliance that will grind him and his friends until they no longer have a use for him?
How long do you think it will be before this fresh new player finds out he cannot play the kind of game he wants to play and stops paying for his sub?

Now onto the meat and potatoes of this proposed change.
It has already been said multiple times that this new system favors the strong and ignores the weak.
The community of Eve is not really paying close attention to this war dec system proposal because if they were I would be replying on the 300th page or so of this thread already.

So people stand up and take notice of what CCP proposes:
To allow the largest entities in this game to freely move about with no fear or risk in empire and ruin you!
Some say the The Great Mutton Head engineered this while he was in the CSM.
To be able to freely move the necc war goods and his Cartels tech to and from empire with no risk.
The largest entities in this game will also take the markets away from you.
How? Simple really when a large alliance is able to move massive amounts of goods they chose into a system such as Jita, you will not be able to undercut them from the sheer volume they will be able to drop on the markets.
So when you see the train of freighters coming into Jita from goon, razor, and other tech farmers, you wont be able to war dec them because it will cost you and your handful of guys 4+ bil to war dec them to keep them from harming your bottom line.

For people to sit here and reply to this thread with the idea that "It should cost them more because we offer them more targets" is absolutely idiotic. A war dec regardless of cost means nothing to them, but what means everything to them is they are part of such a large alliance that the avg corp cant harm them in empire and they can move freely without any danger.

I am a nullsec player and I will say this to the empire dwellers. Don't let this change happen because if you do you will regret it more than any change CCP has ever made.

Large alliances have already shown they can control Jita by force, what happens when they can do it legally?

If I were a major nullsec alliance leader i would war dec the largest industrial empire people and put a 20 man camp on the undock of Jita 4-4 and crush your bottom line and make the rest of eve buy my product instead o
12Next page