These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Disallow using Blockade units to protect one's own turf
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2014-11-04 01:49:12 UTC
The current state of affairs has it that Blockade units can be placed by a party owning the territorial claim unit in a system.
It makes the system vulnerable but only for the ones placing the blockade unit.
I propose to end this bullshit defense tactic and either make it so that Blockade units make a system vulnerable so that anyone can take it or that the owner of a system can't place blockade units on its own stargates.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#2 - 2014-11-04 01:50:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
I've always found it curious - and more than a little questionable - that Defensive SBUing is even a thing. I wouldn't call it an exploit, but I would say that maybe a developer overlooked something.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2014-11-04 01:52:44 UTC
Sounds like a bug. It is not EVE-like to disallow PVP.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#4 - 2014-11-04 01:53:54 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Sounds like a bug. It is not EVE-like to disallow PVP.


It doesn't disallow PvP; it adds structure grind (and sends out a handy alliance mail) before your would-be invaders are allowed to even start contesting your sovereignty. So it's more a stiff deterrent than anything.
Sigras
Conglomo
#5 - 2014-11-04 04:23:02 UTC
I think the easiest thing to do would be to disallow unanchoring of SBUs while sovereignty is claimed in the system.

Thoughts?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-11-04 05:34:04 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Sounds like a bug. It is not EVE-like to disallow PVP.


It doesn't disallow PvP; it adds structure grind (and sends out a handy alliance mail) before your would-be invaders are allowed to even start contesting your sovereignty. So it's more a stiff deterrent than anything.

It disallows for the duration. If they can't use X SBU to take system, then they should be allowed to anchor Y SBU while X SBU is still up.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#7 - 2014-11-04 06:20:02 UTC
Sigras wrote:
I think the easiest thing to do would be to disallow unanchoring of SBUs while sovereignty is claimed in the system.

Thoughts?



Seems fair enough.


Only downside I see is the attacker if they win has to be real careful to remember to tear it down before they reclaim the SOV if a legit drop. Not too much of a hardship imo.

And if a crew is using this trick to play mind games...well they can have fun running a cta to tear their own stuff down.


Odd this situation though. I thought ccp made it an exploit. Odd in that ccp iirc made stuff they couldn't recode out an exploit (iirc ninjya dropping a structure right before a really long DT was made an exploit, someone please correct if wrong) but not this.

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#8 - 2014-11-04 08:04:24 UTC
yes its a pretty bad mechanic, wonder how CCP left it alone for that long.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#9 - 2014-11-04 08:06:34 UTC
Its going away along with the whole crappy dominion sov mechanics when occupational sov arrives