I understand now that you don’t see it as broken… I think I was just generalizing comments in the thread and not intentionally trying to mean you but not taking the time to explain it better. I apologize.
I understand that thought process but don’t try to ever approach things that way. I would question why the thing is needed first and that it fulfills a need. Then I would see if there are options that exist to solve that need before I created an asset. Then if it did need to exist I and it wasn’t performing I would look at trying to make it better.
Since I didn’t see an original problem that caused this asset to be created I can’t really see a need to look at how to fix it.
The asset and how it fits into the game is exactly working as intended. The developers designed it was an inverted scale of return (maybe not the best way to say it). I know this is true because I talked with James personally about it as Ollie (if I remember right he was the Dev that helped design) worked out the system. I don’t know all the specifics but basically that was the rough explanation.
Basically that you used more Oort to get longer fuel times. They were not going to give people the ability to have to fuel portals less without them having to pay something for it – in this case more Oort. This is consistent with how they have approached portals.
Now I do understand that people not using the asset can say that it appears it is not working as intended. Personally, though, I would say it another way - the asset people wanted was not delivered in the way they wanted it - e.g. more time between fueling without more Oort costs. So that caused it not to be used and create an appearance that there is a problem here due to it not being used.
I don’t have an exact list of who was for it and who was against it. Here are a variety of threads related to the discussions: