Sovereignty Mechanics

null-sec

(Smilin Jay Gallentealt) #1

So, I am confused by some of the sovereignty mechanics. I am playing on the test server, so I don’t know if these issues are the same on Tranq or not.

Here is the situation that left me confused.

Moved into a sov null system, with the only sov structure being an outpost, controlled by a player alliance.
Set up TCU, and IHub.
Since it is Sisi, instead of having to work hard to increase my alliance’s sov indices, I boosted sov for my alliance.
Boosting indices had the effect of giving the “enemy” alliance (the one who controls the outpost) a 6x defensive bonus. So… by asserting my presence in the system, I give the enemy the advantage… That is not how that should work!! It makes absolutely no sense.

So, (with permission) despite the defensive bonus, I attempted to capture the outpost.
The outpost is NOT being defended.
During the first capture event, the “enemy” alliance is making constant progress on ALL the command nodes, despite no one from the alliance defending, running entosis links, or in any way trying to prevent the capture.

After hours of taking control nodes, I realized that my two characters, constantly running entosis links, taking over command nodes, had made negligible progress towards capture.

So, in the end, it became obvious, that taking control of an UNDEFENDED outpost, was actually not possible. This makes absolutely no sense. It is undefended.

Two characters running a constant attack for hours should certainly make more progress towards capture than zero players doing absolutely nothing to defend the outpost.

The end result, is working hard to develop higher indices (on sisi, simply boosting sov) gives the enemy an advantage, instead of giving the alliance that has moved in the advantage.

This advantage is so great, that an undefended outpost is not able to be captured, despite hours of attacking.

This is screwy as all get out, and I would love an explanation on how these mechanics are justified…


(Soldarius) #2

You anchored TCU and IHUB in enemy-controlled territory and expected them to benefit you? That’s like the USA building missile silos in North Korea and expecting them to shoot at Pyong Yang.


(Smilin Jay Gallentealt) #3

Sold… Work on your reading comprehension please. The TCU and IHub were installed in a system with the ONLY sovereignty structure being an outpost. In other words, an UNCLAIMED system. With no TCU (if you remember this stand for Territorial CLAIM Unit) and no IHub, yes, I expect the mining and military work I do in the system to benefit the Alliance with the territory claimed, not the alliance with NO TCU, and NO IHUB. What I did is more like installing a military base on a pacific island, with the only thing on that island being an abandoned foreign military base, and expecting my infrastructure building to benefit my troops. Of course that is what I would expect. Apparently you think that building infrastructure on that island, should benefit the foreign power that abandoned the island, not the nation building the infrastructure… How you justify that… I have no clue… It doesn’t make sense to me… Can you explain it?


(Tasman Cabrillo) #4

Why would you even bother? Put up a keepstar you ninny. Jesus some people’s kids.
There’s no value to you in owning a station, nor does anyone care.

They funniest part of this whole conversation is that you’re probably trying to capture a non-seeded station too.

Plus you might want to give the old rules of the test server a read.

https://forums.eveonline.com/t/welcome-to-test-server-feedback/86

Especially the parts about "non-consensual combat"
Combat by consent only, except in the designated combat systems (6-CZ49 and PVH8-0, only on Singularity).

Rules Concerning Sovereignty, Structures, and Conquerable Stations
The rule concerning non-consensual combat includes all structures (including POS and Upwell structures). Do not attack structures without permission from the owner!

So by your admission, you are breaking the Test Server rules, and can, and probably should be banned.

/u/ccp_goliath might want to chime in…


(Smilin Jay Gallentealt) #5

@Tasman Cabrillo… You clearly need to work on your reading comprehension as well…

What part of “with permission” did you fail to understand?

Before you go accusing people of breaking the rules, maybe you should actually read the post.


(Tasman Cabrillo) #6

Stopped reading and or caring after

Nothing like a little hubris and/or e-peen to make people stop giving a rat’s ass.

No one is going to explain to you why it didn’t work because you answered your own question dimtwit.


(Smilin Jay Gallentealt) #7

What a pathetic response… Too lazy to read the post…Jumping to wild conclusions, and making unsubstantiated accusations, because you didn’t bother to read the post, too busy being insulting and rude to actually address the questions in the post. If all you can do is insult people for asking questions, you are nothing more than a troll… get bent…


(Gina Barbagrigia) #8

Yet you felt the need to reply


(Soldarius) #9

My reading comprehension is fine, along with my analogy. The conquering and taking of sovereignty structures was decoupled with Aegis. You dropped an IHUB in the system and boosted ADMs before taking the outpost. What did you think was going to happen? ADMs benefit all defenders, even if they are different alliances.

To use another analogy, its like invading a city and only taking City Hall and the local court house. All the other official buildings (utilities like water and power) are still intact and operational, even if abandoned.

What I don’t understand is a) why you would drop other sov structures if what you really wanted to do was capture the outpost, and b) why bother? All outposts are going to be removed and replaced by faction citadels in the near future.

You post shows a complete lack of understanding of the current and future game state.


(Smilin Jay Gallentealt) #10

Well that helps… thanks for trying to explain this better… The things you don’t understand… a) I thought from the reading I had done on the mechanics, that the TCU gave your alliance the claim on the system. It is after all right there in the name “claim”, so I thought laying claim to the system would give me the bonuses. It makes sense if you look at it like the TCU is the main thing that gives you a claim on the system. The Outpost being a much larger part of that claim makes sense, but is not apparent. b) Why bother: because they are going away and I wanted to experience the system before it does…

As for the rest of your comment, it is nothing but rude and condescending. It is completely unnecessary, baseless, and just shows that you can’t make a comment without being demeaning. Learn some tact and some manners. There is no reason to attack people for asking questions. It only makes you look pathetic…


(Zarianna) #11

I’m a little surprised you can’t make enough progress with 2 characters to eventually flip the station. I’ve done it a long time ago, and I think there were 4 of us, and it was fairly time consuming, but it was not difficult.


(Smilin Jay Gallentealt) #12

The biggest problem is I misunderstood how the defense bonus worked. If someone (I don’t know who is doing it) would stop boosting sov, I might try again… :smiley:


(system) #13

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.