EVE General Discussion

That obviously solves the problem of having to pay ten trillion for allies, but at the same time it has a bunch of negatives too:

Firstly, it kind of undermines the ally system if people instead just form mega-alliances instead of using the ally mechanic.

Secondly, it promotes mega-alliances and discourages smaller, individual entities with relatively loose relationships to one another who occasionally do something together (which I personally think is a bit of a shame, others may not I guess...)

And thirdly, it ramps up the price of war deccing anyone if they've all joined blob alliances because it's the only viable option, which is going to result in less wars, less of a mercenary market, less everything fun

1 and 3 go against what CCP have stated they're trying for.

I've yet to see a single hisec alliance break the 1k users mark, and that's still less than 177m/month to wardec. It's not going to break anyone's bank if they want to grief you. I'd be surprised if all that many people actually went down this route, given that it does cost 1b just to increase the other guy's costs from 50m to 177m/week, and he gets a lot of extra wartargets which are hopeless at PVP to boot.


I think your definition of "mega" is a bit off.


The "price of war" isn't going to "ramp up", it's going to increase slightly, and they'll get more squishy targets in return. I'm pretty certain most corps/alliances which do this for a living will look at this equation and go "squee".

Does this still sound enticing to you?

Currently no there aren't any with huge numbers like that, but it was in response to the suggestion that people all form bigger alliances rather than using the costly ally system. Which defeats the point imo. Your point about the cost of forming the alliance is a good point though, it's another reason why simply saying "well make a big alliance yourself!" isn't reasonable.



Well the suggestion was all those dogpiled allies should instead join a single alliance, fair enough it'd probably still not end up unreasonably huge - but it does mean it's a big singular entity rather than smaller mostly individual entities. Some allies may simply be a case of "the enemy of my enemy...", i.e. corps that aren't friendly in general, which puts the form-an-alliance thing out of the question.



I disagree. Not all wars are "i want as many people to kill as possible, and I dont care if it costs 500m". Plenty of wars are fought for specific reasons or grudges. Suggesting smaller corps to join an alliance solely to avoid the ally cost mechanic is detrimental towards that.

Overall, if the best people can come up with is "well avoid the ally mechanic by forming an alliance" then that clearly suggests the ally mechanic needs reconsidering, as I doubt CCPs intent was to make a mechanic that people wouldn't want to use.

well let's see, if someone is war-deccing large alliances to shoot at them in trade hubs, I would argue that right there is reason enough. And it does have it's impacts. If you cannot see that then maybe it is just you who is silly.

What I find odd is that in all the threads I've read (a lot) the only people I've seen calling for changes to NPC corp hauling etc. are null sec players.

Then I see the high sec war dec crowd standing around complaining about ally costs, as though that's the reason no one cares about their silly wars.

But then the carebears will whine.

The dec cost got raised because of terms like "Faildec" and "Griefdec" coming from the huddled masses in HS.

What i find funny is that even with a decimal point missed, 10-100 billion is working as intended.

Sounds like a trade off to me. You don't want the headaches of an actual alliance while still having the body count that an alliance gives you? Then you had better be prepared to pay through the nose for it. Don't have that kind of cash? Well then I guess you'll just have to put up with the headaches like all us *normies*.

using alts = easymode gameplay