"it was broken when you used it, so we should be able to use it too" isn't saying that it's not broken, only that it isn't 'fair'.

If it wasn't fair for "A" to use it, then its not fair for "B". Or more to the point, not fair for "C" that had no part in "A" or "B".

At some point, the broken mechanic has to be changed, and somone is going to end up feeling screwed. But after 15 years of MMO's I think we all know that's the case with any change.

It doesn't matter who has the most powerful force to me, it is still broken.

And that's what it comes down to, power just like the title of the thread, and the ability to distribute power across NIA.

When alliances are forced to split their power base, the opposition only has to defeat the power onsite, not the power of the entire alliance.

SpT is broken because it allows the most powerful alliances to move that power around TOO quickly.

Teleporters are not the same as SpT, it takes time for them to power up, there is a delay between uses, and the DESTINATIONS are 100% different than SpT.

The timing of the SAPS isn't relative, the issue is that without SpT, it would be a TOTAL pain in the *** to move an entire fleet from Island1-SAP to Island2-SAP 'just in case' it was going to be attacked. With SpT you don't have to make that investment in mind numbing movement time, you just wait until an attack occurs then SpT in.

That is what is supposed to make HOLDING outposts on multiple islands PIA, the TIME and effort to move troops around.

You're 'Take it if you can' issue is valid, IF you had enough power to occupy the Islands continually; but your using broken mechanics to side-step the 'inconvient' part of holding multiple islands to make up for a lack of power.

That said. It's not up to any player or corp to fix this. If the devs are 'listening' to the community and weighting the opinion of people playing over objective analysis, then they deserve exactly what they are going to get.

Time will tell.

I admit, I struggled over keeping the 'too lazy ...' part in, but I figured if I just said "maybe you could spark to it" would be too clever for the intended audience.

This no indication of agreement in your arguement, only a lack of interest that resulted in the status quo.

<.<

Is this actually going to 40 pages.

Dreams do come true.

Shhh... 

<.<

>.>

There you're wrong. Faith has nothing to do with this, belief assumes I can't be persuaded otherwise by rational arguements.

No logical combat scenerio makes any sense with supression/ecm needing LOS. I've already conceded that tweaking the EW tuners is something to look at, but there's been no arguement other than 'it needs it' and 'something else needs it' to demonstrate why it should be LOS.

How many missle strikes are they going to have to absorb BEFORE they get LOS on the missle bot?

Edit: That is, they can't even start to shut down the bot until they manage to get LOS, which the missle bot does not need to start it's barrage. A decent volley of missles from a green hmech can 1 shot an unsheilded zenith, and break the acc of a sheilded one.

And here it is.

6 go out roaming in all combat bots, while group 2 goes out with combat and EW, can't have that, make it balanced so that it's 6 combat bots against 4 combat bots, and 2 EW along for fodder.

Broken by bold assertion and comparison without contrast. No.