Tetrismonkey wrote:How does this not have potential? I see lots of it. The ability to treat the MS's systems, as "weapons". To have another way to kill an MS's shields and Weapons when you cannot take it down any other way? Its a cheaper solution to massing the big MS's.
Let me give you an example:
Say a small alliance declares war on a mediam size alliance. Small alliance has good strikes, and coverts, but weak MS's. (Which most of us know that those stats can be build very fast and easy, where as a good MS takes MONTHS to build) However, the other alliance has very very good MS's. Thus, it would cost the small alliance lots of naq to kill the MS's. So instead, after the defenses are down, and covert, the small alliance begins to sab away attack weapons and MS weapons and shields. Shields and weapons are down on MS, making it easier and better for the small alliance.
I find it hard to beleive just because you dont like the idea, you say there is no potential. I suggest looking further than a foot in front of you.
Well For the most part I agree with him, it has little to no potential.
1. Cant be sabbed on PPT, so its useless
2. Can't be sabbed if sent away, so again useless
3. If instatuted, MS strategies will also change to overcome it by
A. Leaving the MS dead in the water after the daily MS massings are done resulting in nothing to sabb
B. Getting covert phased prior to MS buildup, and possibly/probably remaining covert phased during MS massings due the friends allies constantly spying to keep the covert phase up until PPT, ship sent out serching, or MS masses itself massing others.
This also just adds another "down" side to battles. when a MS is built up, you can't sell it off or untrain it. BUT you can train alot of spies, sabb like mad, then untrain them, so its a stabb in the back for MS builders.
I'm neither for nor against it, I have arguments for both sides, but I am also convenced in the long term it will acomplish nothing as there are clear and easy ways to get around/neutralise the threat.
