Ingress: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

124

Comments

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JukkaJuu I provided you a long list above. There were lots of cities that I looked at and didn't include in the list because there was what appeared to be a small amount of local activity. The vast majority of Havana is grey. Downtown Kansas City is nearly all grey. Rapid City South Dakota is pretty grey but I strongly recommend avoiding the Dakotas at all costs right now. I found many cities in Mexico that had almost no activity. I think I could scroll around the map and find new ones all night. For Europe, look around eastern Europe and you'll find several low-activity zones.

    Once it's safe to travel again I may plan a road trip and try to get double onyx Pioneer.

  • MoogModularMoogModular ✭✭✭✭✭

    The game is now 8 years, The gameplay has been essentially the same since at least 2015 with the addition of drones and kinetic capsules. We now have Ingress on a new engine with the same game play. We need gameplay that utilizes the engine we have on it today. Not from 2012. Not from 2015. @NianticBrian stated that Ingress is forever evolving and I agree - I would love to see game play changed and evolved with Ingress. We already took a risk with moving to Unity.

    The game play needs to adapt to today. Maybe we have some thick rose-tinted glasses and miss the redacted game play when AR was a brand new venture? There's different ways to ultimately play Ingress but what would redefine it?

  • Familiar situation 😕 but Australia, you already have Catan there? I think it will come here sooner as the field that prevents me from playing breaks down.

  • Ingress is not a game. Also, it's been going for 8 years no, so the longest running AR mobile game yet.

  • In chess, you can’t stop others from playing no matter how good you are.

    In chess, good players help and teach new ones and don’t try to stop them from playing.

    That is why it is still being played.

  • I did not mean to imply that a single change would "fix" the challenges Ingress faces. My original post suggested that NIantic tweak the rules regularly as a means to shake up gameplay. When the person from Niantic came by, I made the suggestion of changing MU value as a single example of one of those tweaks. And to do it temporarily. As they begin to make changes like this, they'll see what brings more people out to play, and what upsets the balance, and they can decide what to keep and what to abandon.


    The suggestion of changing MU point for big fields was me suggestion that this is the main problem Ingress faces, and it would solve everything. A single tweak among hundreds they could try.

  • Please see elsewhere where I've said that my single suggestion was not a silver bullet.


    The reason I believe that tweaking the rules would lead to more players and engagement and not less is because of the many video games that do exactly this. It keeps the player base active and engaged. Ingress is not a video game, but it has many similarities. I believe that by tweaking rules they will make the game more interesting, and won't seriously "break" the game. I could be wrong, but believe the data from video games suggests I'm right. All of Blizzard's game constantly change and update their games, and they have some of the largest and most active players in the industry. Other games have copied their model, not provided an alternate. I believe change is good.

  • Sure. But "change or die" is not accurate either.

    Ingress has some fundamental issues to resolve, but the wrong resolution, or a rushed resolution will destroy the game far more quickly.

    As I've mentioned above and elsewhere, if you're going to allow fielding under a field, you have to make the fielding not count towards MU. Ideas of making the higher fields less MU will not stop people. And as multiple people have repeatedly shown, people are not quitting because they're fielding. There's plenty of fields of grey that have no overhead fields too.

    Making only the top layer of a field count towards the Cell score, would be one way to allow fielding under a field. Making the top field count less than smaller layers would not help, but would hinder the parts of the game that made Ingress as popular as it was.

    The two things that got people interested in the game were large scale operations and events. Both have declined long before perma-fields were a problem anywhere. Before making a game breaking "tweak", fixing the real problems might change the situation so that these issues aren't issues any more. As @d0gboy mentioned, permafields are more of a result of lack of players, rather than a cause. Because when there's plenty of opposition, these sorts of fields aren't possible. It usually happens as a result of there being insufficient opponents to take these fields down and sufficiently block them.

    While player levels are dropping everywhere, not just places where permafields are a problem (which is realistically very few), there are bigger things to address before making a change that in most likelihood will not improve the situation in those regions, AND create a worse situation elsewhere.

  • I've been thinking about your idea of not being able to replicate keys in a quantum capsule and like it more and more. Especially because backpacks are so prevalent. We have portals in our area that are inaccessible 6 months out of the year. If those portals could be taken out by repeatedly attacking accessible portals, it may make people more engaged. Sometimes it feels like there are endless copies of the keys.

  • Five years ago, long lasting fields were not a similar problem as they are now. Then if the field prevented people from playing, they waited and looked the next day again, and again, and again... until the field was gone. They continued to play when it was possible again because there were no alternative games. There are now almost ten different games to play while waiting.

    I argue that every ingress player has sometimes had to situation that they cannot play because of the field. Anyone who has been in that situation five years ago and this year will recognize the difference and how they themselves act differently.

  • In board games, they solve this by "diminishing returns." So doing something gives you a reward, but doing more of that doesn't give you the same reward. This encourages diverse play, and keeps players from running away with the game on a rule technicality. I've studied game theory in college, and I probably get overly excited by this, but there I see so much potential with this game just by tweaking the rules, not new ways to play, or new "things."

  • d0gboyd0gboy ✭✭✭

    It wouldn't be the end of the world if you did this, but it also wouldn't have the impact you might think. All it would really mean is that on adventurous trips to very hard anchors, you'd take on some time to frack + flip + HS-to-clear + frack again, and clear 600-700 keys on a visit. With the new battle beacons, this number can get even higher -- since every battle beacon flip to the opposite side is a chance to clear mods. This is in fact what people used to do before quantum capsules.

    But as stated before, it's not the difficult portals that are really the problem, it's the people.

    The quantum change might help with the people doing perma-local layers, since a quantum of 10-30 layer keys or two essentially removes key farming from the time required to throw these. You'd have to think pretty hard about this though, since it's most of how quantums are used now that they're don't replicate VR gear.

    You might also consider the early 2017 key drop buff, when keys got a bit more loose, but that's a lot more dangerous to tweak. It made getting the keys for fields easier (yay, more micro-fielding), but also for the bigger stuff and denser layers.

  • d0gboyd0gboy ✭✭✭

    I mean, this is it in a nutshell. I think changes are interesting as long as they are mindful. Being mindful means the changes have to address real problems, and then they should be careful understood in light of existing agent motivations and game loops.

    The biggest problem Ingress faces is not rewarding people for large, difficult fields. Lots of evidence has been presented here that this isn't a big problem, or at minimum certainly not the biggest problem.

    After that, there are substantial unintended consequences -- not least of which is dialing down rewards for something that has been a driver for more team play, more people becoming activated and engaged, and the competitive forces that drive both teams. If you decide to change it for a small amount of time, you run the risk of convincing people that the game masters are not in touch about what people love about the game. Not that it would ruin everything all in one go (e.g., 'let's wipe the portal network'), but there are better and more thoughtful solutions out there, and the point here is to consider those, rather than just using the fact that things can be changed back as a crutch for not being mindful.

  • ToxoplasmollyToxoplasmolly ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2020

    I suppose this depends on how you define rules versus scoring incentives? For example:

    One rule is that two links may not cross each other. It is one of the core aspects of Ingress that makes it interesting. To create a link, I have to obtain a portal key from one portal, transport it to another portal, and make sure that in the meantime, no one else has blocked the path of the potential link between those two portals. I am compelled to move and to care about the actions of other players, the latter giving rise to both cooperation (with my faction) and competition (versus the other faction). I feel like changing this rule runs a significant risk of ruining the game.

    On the other hand, there have been more than a few events over the past few years whose primary feature has been to introduce a new, temporary scoring incentive: unique resonator slots deployed, cumulative total of length of links created, etc. Their goal was not to penalize agents for playing a certain way (which seems to be the goal of many suggestions…), but rather to encourage agents to perhaps play for a goal other than MU, or to modify their quest for MU to accomodate a second goal. I feel like there's a lot of room for thoughtful experimentation here, especially if you consider adding on real-time leaderboards, as demonstrated with Hexathlons and more recent Anomalies.

  • gazzas89gazzas89 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I might be wrong, but fielding over another field still lets the files underneath count towards the score, so why not allow fielding g underneath already put up fields to happen and get some level of mu, even if only like half or a 3rd of what it was when clear? I know a few players who couldn't care less about the overall scores or destroying g other peoples fields, they just enjoy making g their own fields, and if they are fielded over, they don't see much point in playing

  • grendelwulfgrendelwulf ✭✭✭✭✭

    Because fielding over an area is how you deny your opponent of certain aspects of earning points. That's a core aspect of the game. Now say, if a VR mod was introduced that allowed you to throw a link from under a field, that would be a different story.

  • I might be wrong, but fielding over another field still lets the files underneath count towards the score, so why not allow fielding g underneath already put up fields to happen and get some level of mu, even if only like half or a 3rd of what it was when clear?

    Because

    a) it disincentivizes actually taking down the big fields. People would just keep adding more and more layers underneath and leaving the big stuff up.

    b) large fields have traditionally been used competitively specifically to stop people from gaining MU. What's the point of throwing a big field if you can make far more AP by smaller fields underneath.

    It's a trade off between allowing noobs to keep playing, and still having a reason to compete for having the biggest field.

    I know a few players who couldn't care less about the overall scores or destroying g other peoples fields, they just enjoy making g their own fields, and if they are fielded over, they don't see much point in playing

    If you don't care about the overall scores or destroying other people's fields, then having your fields not count underneath another field will not matter to you. That's the trade off. What you're saying is actually the justification for why you can allow fields to not count for region score MU, because the people making fields under another field don't care about the region score.

  • Five years ago there were far more players, big fields were far harder to put up, and when they were taken down, people put blockers in to prevent them going up again.

    One person could not put up a field over and over again, because they had competition.

    Then the player based died off, due to lack of events, lack of development, and lack of attention. This allowed people to start making large fields due to minimal competition.

    You're claiming to know chicken came before the egg, while ignoring all the 'long term players' who saw the egg long before the chicken.

    Permafields are a result of the lack of players. Not the other way around.

  • MoogModularMoogModular ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm not saying throw out all of the current gameplay but we need some solid focus on items we know that can shine really well.

  • Allowing people to generate MU under existing fields (which is what you were replying to originally) would be throwing out a large part of the current gameplay.

    As I said above, there are changes that could be made right now that would improve things. Allowing people to capture MU under a field, and/or making larger fields worth less MU than the smaller fields underneath them, are not changes that would improve things.

  • RostwoldRostwold ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is why I've suggested that only low level players should be able to field under fields. Going on a road trip to a hard to reach portal (or even just a distant easy to reach one) to take down a big field requires a certain level of investment in the game. A new player simply isn't going to bother doing that, allowing them to get invested by fielding up to a low level before joining the 'big guys' would resolve this.

  • The only issue would be the jarring change at level 8 when suddenly you can't field.

    And even higher level players want to just be able to play and not care about the regional score often.

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2020

    My personal solution to allowing fielding under existing fields would be to limit outbound link distance significantly. Perhaps restrict it to a distance which only allows for micro-fielding (leveling) such as 1-2km. If you want to get more complicated(to help account for the city vs. rural issue), you could add a new value to portals which queries all nearby portals and spits out a max link distance number based on total # of portals nearby and average link distance to said portals. Then use that value if covered = true.

  • In my opinion, the fields under the fields are not needed if the lifespan of the fields is shortened.

    But maybe it’s better that with current resources doing nothing. I read on Facebook that they have made updates to the comm, but have not fixed its actual bug. After all, we can always talk here when we can’t play because of those big fields.

  • How does restricting a field's life change things, if as you say, the fields can be restored immediately?

    And COMM is annoying, not broken.

  • In between, you might have to make one or even two links yourself.

    All changes to the game have been made based on the opinions of the players. No one listens to the opinions of those who have stopped playing or can’t even get started. The end result is this. Some dominate and others stop. Just like here in the community.

  • grendelwulfgrendelwulf ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sounds like you let your opponent win instead of coming up with a strategy to stop them.

  • That sounds like it is. They are better, they have boats, cars and unlimited gasoline. Plus, they have a lot more time than I do. Ingress is a game of winners, for others it doesn't really offer anything and therefore there are few players. The winners continue to win and others start playing something else.

Sign In or Register to comment.