We are continuing backend server testing that may temporarily increase latency on the Ingress app and on Intel Map Learn More

Feature Request - Septicycle Scoring Revamp

The Septicycle scoring broke a long time ago, still it's what a lot of agents play for as far as daily competitiveness goes. A few things are desperately needed to fix it.

Firstly, update the MU counts. It's been stale for 7 years now? Inaccurate borders, etc are also part of the issue with MU counts not being updated.

Secondly, portals captured or under control needs to be made part of the septi scoring. It's easy af to keep a field over an area for months while no one actually plays there. A much larger weight being given to portals under control would bring Ingress back to life. Capturing portals is also easier for new agents coming in.

And lastly, factor in unique agents playing somewhere into a new scoring mechanism. You can have 1 berserker capping 1000 portals every week, but what good is that if there's no community?

This isn't a small thing. It's part of what's desperately needed to keep Ingress alive. A combination of these 3 things will see Ingress change drastically.


  • 1valdis1valdis ✭✭✭✭

    Agree with all except unique players. This point would be good if Niantic was fighting multi-accounts. As we see it doesn't - some people have 5 backpacks in my area.

    Also, portal control shouldn't have "much larger" weight than MU control. Many (if not most) BAF operations are still happening to win checkpoints and cepticycles. By taking out this reason, you take out BAFs built for it. I don't like it because big fielding ops are one of the most interesting parts of the game.

  • aaronviannoaaronvianno ✭✭✭

    Fully agree that multis & by extension spoofers are an issue, but the thing is both will always be an issue for both fields & captures. Niantic has failed in stopping them over the last year and that's only made things worse. That however doesn't mean it should stop progress because of them.

    I see portal control vs MUs vs unique contributors as a 50-40-10 thing. The problem is that game-play has stagnated because of the way fields affect scores. Big fielding ops should continue to be a marvel where they can absolutely overcome any portals captured advantage the other team has. It will change the way people play & plan. I've seen fewer & fewer big field ops happening because it's so predictable. For a lot of people it's been there, done that. A higher weightage to portals captured will help people under perma-bafs to fight back.

  • KarM3LKarM3L ✭✭✭

    Broken??? How?

  • zeqinzeqin ✭✭


  • zeqinzeqin ✭✭


  • aaronviannoaaronvianno ✭✭✭

    The general mechanic promotes strategic play (which is nice) but minimal activity (really not nice). This ultimately leads to a handful of agents being the only ones who play while a lot of newer agents simply drop out over time as there is no simple feature/scoring.

    Capturing 100-300 portals in a week in a lot more achievable for a larger set of players than putting up 3-5 million MUs is. It still takes time to teach new agents how to field properly, vs telling them to capture 50 portals in a day. The link amps, strategic key distribution, hard anchors, and ridiculous distances also make it impossible for the vast majority of new players to immediately have an impact on the game. By the time they can, they've stopped playing.

    Take a look at any small-medium sized city (maybe not right now during the pandemic). You have 5-20K portals but 2/3rds of them aren't even captured. Even though 100 odd agents may exist in that city, only a dozen of them are active because it takes a lot of strategic fielding to achieve anything. More of those agents could easily be retained if their local play could have a bigger impact. That bigger impact is only possible if the daily scoring mechanic is revamped to promote localised play.

    Fielding is out of sync with the most commonly used anomaly mechanic - portal battles. If your daily game-play scoring is a lot more complicated than anomaly scoring is, that says a bit.

    If the "battle beacons" found in APK teardowns are a sign of anything, that too would likely be aligned to portal battles. But that too will end up failing if the daily scoring isn't aligned to the same simple game play mechanic.

    At the end of the day the simplest game mechanic needs to have the largest impact.

  • KarM3LKarM3L ✭✭✭

    So it's not broken, you just disagree with the game premise,

    Guess fielding depends on where you are,,, ops are still a big part of the game in Australia for example

  • aaronviannoaaronvianno ✭✭✭

    The game premise of regional or global scores is still maintaining control of an area. All I'm saying is Control should be a combination of both XM Control via portals captured & MU Control via fields. Control without controlling XM is a broken concept of control.

    The fact is that MUs are not the only thing that determines control of an area. In fact having MUs as the only indicator of control is a a bit deceiving. Even the anomaly logic of controlling an anomalous zone is basis XM Control. Take the USA, Europe or Japan for example. These parts have the majority of agents but a much lesser impact on global scores than India or China. One tiny OP in India or China changes the global score completely. OPs will always be a part of the game - no one can get rid of that. But in the wake of much simpler real world games, Ingress will only lose agents if things aren't simplified or made more universal. Portal control is simpler & more universal.

    The biggest issue is keeping agents active. Localised play through XM control / portal control is the best way to do that. Revamping the daily scoring system to reflect this would refresh Ingress in a big way. Where a neatly layered BAF is enough to win a septi now, agents would need to counter or strengthen their presence by being truly active. If things were this way, only the biggest of BAFs would have any impact. That would force BAF planners to think of bigger better plans even.

    I also understand that updating the MU counts around the world might be a more difficult thing to do. Hence it's stayed the same & largely stale. But if Ingress used portal control, every new portal would have an impact.

    If done in the right way (a higher weight-age to portal control), portal control would even negate the influence of spoofers making or breaking fields. It's impossible for anyone to control enough accounts or have enough resources to handle the millions of portals around the world.

  • aceace ✭✭✭

    @aaronvianno thanks. i am a big fan of the septicycle scoring concept. thanks for highlighting some of the bugs. when you say MU counts you mean the underlying value for a particular s2 cell and you are saying that some of those values are known to be wrong? just want to make sure i'm taking away accurate interpretation.

    incorporating portal captures and unique players is interesting. some blend seems like a good idea.... but definitely would preserve a big impact for big fields.

  • aaronviannoaaronvianno ✭✭✭

    I think the biggest complaint about MU counts across the world is that they haven't been updated in years. It's understandable that this might not be possible to update since it's largely based on various Census data.

    As far as S2 cell borders go, I don't know if you can fix some of these things since the underlying data borders are again census based. Eg. https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=19.229717,72.909479&z=21 is in the middle of a thick national park forest where close to zero people live. But if you throw a field over it, you get 1 million MUs easy. I did check our census maps and found that that the area falls under an adjacent populated part. So that census population gets spread out over the urban + forest area in the game. The map here (https://mickeykedia.github.io/mumbai_pop_map.html) would give you a better idea if you overlay it on the intel map.

    It's the same situation in most of the world, so your MU counts in the game are always going to be "wrong".

  • aceace ✭✭✭

    thanks for clarifying. you have identified a key limitation of how population data is used and your summary of how that can lead to misleading scores with population from a conentrated area being 'smeared' over adjacent less populated areas.

  • MorganzaMorganza ✭✭✭✭

    How about a badge for MU that makes checkpoint?

  • 1valdis1valdis ✭✭✭✭

    And replace Illuminator with that, and ramp the needed scores an order of ten or so.

    </crazy ideas>

  • aceace ✭✭✭

    that's a cool idea. basically MUs that count.

Sign In or Register to comment.