Shadow of Cerberus EVE Community Forum

Rent to own

This is going to be one of those posts I write sometimes that someone out there might be able to blow out of the water.  And if you can, fantastic!  I'm going to make a statement and maybe someone out there can disprove it.  And after you do, I'll be more than happy to say that I was wrong and you were right.  Ready?

I think renting is bad for EVE.

Matter of fact, I can't think of a single alliance that has enjoyed long-term success in New Eden that started out renting some null-sec systems.  If you can, please tell their story in comments because I'd love to hear it.  In the meantime though, after long thought on the matter, I have become completely hostile to the idea of renters.  How we remove them from game, I have no idea, but I think they need to be removed.  More than that, I'll take it a step farther: I think the very idea of renters hurts the game.

I came up with a list of reasons I think this:

1. Renters fill null-sec fleets with bloat, engorging fleet sizes and adding little value by their presence except the requirement that the other side have a lot of meat shields, too.
2. In so doing, they make null-sec fights less likely and less frequent.
3. When the fight starts, renters die in larger numbers than non-renters both impacting your fleet's likelihood of winning the fight and the morale of the rest of your fleet.
4. Renters directly contribute to CCP making structure shoots more boring by giving them such high HP... because with fewer HP they'd be too easy to kill with a renter-engorged structure shoot fleet.
5. Joining a null-sec coalition as a renter has a chilling effect on your potential PvPers by making them worse at the game: they become poorer pilots only able to fly properly in enormous fleet doctrines and unable to think for themselves.
6. Renters are less likely to defend "their" territory from small-gang raiding parties.
7. They're more likely to turtle up if facing bigger threats.
8. When their time comes to die, they are quickly and easily smashed by enemy forces.
9. They're the most likely groups in EVE to be awash in care-bears with no loyalty to their parent organizations.
10. They're the most likely to abandon their parent in droves if trouble starts.
11. Renting stultifies or just flat-out wrecks many budding FCs by forcing them into fleets or fights too big for them to handle.
12. And finally, renting teaches their leaders nothing about holding sov since the renter is beholden to their master to play the both the sov mechanics game and the meta game on their behalf.  Renter leaders are therefore no more qualified to be sov-holding alliance leaders than the roughest high-sec care-bear.

If a bottoms up income system for sov comes to pass, under such a system, renters are only going to become even more common and more beholden to their enormous masters.

Aside from the very ephemeral and short-term gains a renter makes in terms of making a few ISK, I can hardly think of any benefit the renters get out of this relationship at all.  And that assumes your corp or alliance isn't just the target of a rental scam of some sort.

I'd love to hear a counter-argument on this one.  Go!
Source: Rent to own

Renter mögen ja so richtig SCHEISSE sein, keine Frage. Aber man kann sie nie loswerden. Es ist einfach ein universales Prinzip. Überall dort, wo es Eroberer gibt, wird es auch immer Renter geben. Man kann das durch keine Spielmechanik der Welt ändern. Selbst wenn man das Sov-System völlig umkrempelt wird es immer noch Renter geben, und sei es auch nur in Form von Allianzen oder Corporations, die Schutzgeld an einen Oberherrscher zahlen, um irgendwo in Frieden leben zu dürfen.