Would you keep the APBoost for recharging, the dramatically decreased decay rate, or the double deploy on level 7&8 resonators?
None. A bunch of coregame-killers. But if I had to, anything else but the decay. That's a gamekiller, not just the core.
really none are good as permanent....
Just thinking about reduced decay rate gives me nightmare. Hell No to all the three. :D
Keep nothing from it.
I would keep the reduced hack timer, and if I could bundle them together also the increased burnout count. Waiting for portals to be hackable is boring.
AP for recharging: Couldn't care less.
Decreased decay rate: No, very bad for players in low-turnover areas. They already build, wait a week, and build again. Waiting three weeks would be bad for them.
Double deploy: This is actually sort of sensible for a dwindling player base, but in other areas it shifts the game to easy mode.
Maybe there should be a period of time where the Nemeses have run of the system.
Instead of living in a mana flare+ howling mine world (I am ancient MTG player) , maybe a world of winter orb and manabarbs instead.
Consequences, all lvl 8+ players (including recursed) need a lot more power cubes to deploy resos and mods l, glyph hack rates are at best 10% better than tap hacking, and decay rates have a minimum decay rate of 33.3 %.
Too hard mode?
I'm new to the game, what us double deploy lol 7 and 8? Does that mean you're supposed to only get 1 level 7 and 1 level 8 resonator in? Cause if that's the case, keep the double for them
Yeah. 1 7, 1 8
Decreased decay rate: Hell no
If possible: The new burnout and hack times.
As for me,i'd like to have decay rate lowered as it is now,i still got enough "players" with lots of xmp in oppostion to hate all decay rate states even if it was 1%:))) I don't like double deploys and increased speed/extra hacks because of the same reason :) But that's only my opinion. And yes,i also don'tlike that drones because of that yellow dot,it looks bad enough imo.
I'd like to keep the AP for recharging, it doesn't affect the gameplay a lot. Other changes are actually worse than normal or just OP.
The changes were:
Double deploy is the preference for me. Decay is too slow, and I'm overloaded on cubes. The fast hacks are nice but make heatsinks meaningless.
I already wrote this after one of the previous double deploy periods.
Reduced decay rate. Makes it so much easier to keep everything recharged.
I would keep the double deploy. Ingress currently has a low number of player.
When we had more players, making P8 farms was relatively easy.
With fewer players, it is more difficult. And it also doesn't help with getting new players to stay.
So double deploy is a good compromise to help with recruitment.
Recharge counting towards Sojourner is the only thing I think should be kept permanently (should have been that way from the very start of the game really, Sojourner could have been named something different).
none, low decay being the most boring
I like the reduced cooldown time for hacking, but I am not sure if I would want it as a permanent feature.
I actually like the Recharge counting for Sojurn
The double deploy of resonators and reduced decay plus hack changes together are awful though
Even with Covid and reduced travel it gives agents way too much high level gear
Recharging counting for Sojourner is a nice accommodation for anyone who gets really ill for more than 24 hours - Covid-related or not. I would suggest keeping that.
Personally, I like the ability to deploy two level 7 and two level 8 resonators instead of just one. In my area, that has made it possible to create level 8 portals without having to ADA/Jarvis to the opposite team colour and back because neither team actually has 8 active players. The impact of that change is obviously going to be region-dependent. (I'm looking forward to going back to normal decay rates though. I live in one of those low-turnover areas.)
I also enjoy the drone as a separate side-game. I don't know whether you're counting that as Covid-related or not. But I'd keep it.
Recharging counting for sojo is fine, this could have been implemented from the beginning, that's the only thing I'd really be happy to keep.
AP boost for recharging isn't a big deal either way.
Double deploy is kinda OK, it doesn't break the balance as much as one could imagine. Could be useful to keep players interested in spite of a shrinking player base. Same with hack speed: it just means we'll use fewer hack mods. I don't really mind if it stays or goes.
The thing that needs to go away ASAP is the slow decay rate. It's at best useless in active areas, and it's harmful in less active areas.
Take them all back except for the double deploys.
However, to keep a double deploy, I suggest to see its efficiency in rural area before keeping it. I was in a low density (6 portals) to moderately decent (21 portals), far away from other places. Double deploy helps us to get inventories despite only two of us were actively playing.
I'm OK with the AP bonus upon portal recharge, although I'd lower it down to 25 AP.
This would be a sensible extra that would compensate time invested in, for example, recharging a portal before upgrading it.
The rest should be taken back, the game is intended to require several agents to play. If you can't access higher level gear, then you will have to learn to play without it. And yes, it is possible, only a bit of creativity is required.
The best change ever is the reduced cooldown times. It makes your routing so much more flexible if you want to build up an area, and makes the game more interesting.
The rest I could take or leave, though I'm not a fan of the reduced decay.
well sure but then what is the point of having heatsinks or multihacks? it just makes everyportal like a farm without any mods..... id say this is not good in the long run now with drones they should turn this off imo.... I dont think i have ever used a multihack since they turned this on.. they seem useless.... 16 hacks and 90 sec cooldown is just crazy we have so long... and only 4 people to build p8.....
Double deploy, but triggered by a threshold of faction activity in the cell.
tbh slow decay rate is what ruined the game for me and i am sick of it.
@Strandit That is an interesting one. I think it would have to be smaller than scoring region cells, though. Using San Francisco as a high-activity area I looked to see who would be affected, and both Yuba City and Castroville would be under the influence of SF. Castroville would be affected by most of San Francisco, most of Oakland, and everything to the south. That doesn't seem like a reasonable sphere of influence to me.
Are you suggesting that it be per-faction? Defining activity would be interesting. In an area dominated by one faction it may well be the case that the underdog faction is more active because they have more stuff to do. Active player count maybe, but perhaps that could be manipulated?