Suggestion: Upwell Structure Inhibitor (like Cynojammer) to prevent anchoring of new Upwell Structures while it is online in Nullsec

structures
sovereignty
game-mechanics
(NorBdelta Aivoras) #1

There is a real problem of people dropping structures willy nilly in Nullsec. You do not need to own sov, grind indexes, or anything, and yet you can plonk down your own structure in hostile territory at your leisure and gain all the index defence bonuses.

There is no need to do anything, no prerequisites beforehand but simply drop your structure at a time when your foe has no activity and set all your timers to their inactive times of day and you are in business.

I believe this is quite a toxic mechanic and there needs to either be some way to prevent the dropping of structures (with some form of attackable structure like I suggest in the title) or an access list that gives index bonuses only to structure on the list, any other structures should have extra vulnerability in the form of longer windows, etc.

At the moment it is way to easy to grief by just dropping structures with no additional risk apart from the initial anchoring window and the final one.

Having a structure in the hostile territory should be something that requires significantly more defending requirements than the sov holders structures.

1 Like
(Azar Azorious) #2

This literally kills ‘staging’ grounds, with big blocs being able to put there ‘inhbitors’ along their borders, and just defending their core sytstems

(NorBdelta Aivoras) #3

I can appreciate that there has to be a compromise between anyone can drop structures anywhere willy nilly and you cant drop your structure anywhere you dont hold sov.

At the moment it is quite broken, hence my suggestion for the inhibitor structure or dramatically increased vulnerability for non-sov/non-access listed structures in the sov holders system.

(Salt Foambreaker) #4

If you can’t defend it, it was never yours.

Sounds like you need to move to highsec :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

-1 terrible ezmode idea.

4 Likes
(NorBdelta Aivoras) #5

If you can’t defend it, it was never yours.

Who says anything about defending? I am saying that plonking down a structure in a hostile system, with system defence bonuses, and then time zone tanked is silly. Not that defending our own structures is an issue. Read the post, my friend.

(Salt Foambreaker) #6

You can’t defend your system and timezone is your excuse.

1 Like
(NorBdelta Aivoras) #8

My friend, can you read? I have said repeatedly now that this is not about defence, this is about time zone tanking and structures gaining sov bonuses in non-sov holding systems.

(Salt Foambreaker) #9

It doesn’t matter, if you think a structure shouldn’t be there then blow it up.

If you can’t then consider moving to high or crying about it.

(22000) #10

The major revelatory process of Upwell symmetry had precluded to this date, the principal communication-blocker beacons necessary to lock-out citaddel expansions.
If you are seeking to response this question, please consider exclosure response to Upwell Corportation or, perhaps, one of it’s subsidiaries.

(NorBdelta Aivoras) #11

If you can’t defend it, it was never yours. Sounds like you need to move to highsec :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
You can’t defend your system and timezone is your excuse.
It doesn’t matter, if you think a structure shouldn’t be there then blow it up. If you can’t then consider moving to high or crying about it.

Why reply to a post without reading it and then contradicting yourself after you realize you don’t even know what you were replying to?

(Salt Foambreaker) #12

They are the same thing, defending is blowing ■■■■ up.

(Jennifer Austin) #13

If you want to be able to defend the system 24/7 and have nobody drops structures down hire yourself a mercenary group problem solved your 24/7 security

(Litsea Reticulata) #14

There are only so many AU-TZ players to go around, some of them want to do things other than bash citadel spam and clean up the dregs of the EU/NA alliances.

(Ms Steak) #15

Then those AU-TZ players haven’t been motivated enough by you to do the bashing… Whip is not likely to work but carrot might.

(Bronson Hughes) #16

I missed this idea when it was originally posted. I think that being able to prevent any hostile Upwell structure in any system where you hold sov is far too extreme. Forward staging bases are part of sov warfare, and always have been in some shape or form.

However, I do think that maybe there’s some room to limit certain Upwell structures in certain systems where you hold sov. Maybe have an “Upwell jammer” that prevents higher level structures from anchoring in systems with high enough development indices. So if you wanted a forward staging base in hostile territory, you’d either have to start small, or spend some time knocking down the overall index of the system first, or find a foothold in a relatively undeveloped system.

Note all those maybes. I’m not sold on the idea, but I think it’s at least feasible if it’s done in a limited fashion.

(Hillbert Alexis) #17

Doesn’t that just drive content? Attack staging ground, disable device, drop structure, defend anchoring, come back later to defend final anchor OR hit other locations and make the enemy have to spread out?

(Natocha Daisy) #18

Totally agree - it doesn’t make sense. There should be extra system defences like defence batteries or warp-capable auto-navigating interceptors that destroy ships attempting to anchor deployables.

1 Like
(Solstice Projekt) #19

You can not unlink defense from TZ tanking,
especially, but not only because:
tanking is a form of defense.

/thread.

1 Like
(Bronson Hughes) #20

I see what you did there…

1 Like
(Litsea Reticulata) #22

The Delve carrots are just too tasty to compete with my generic no-name version.