Changing how effective continually recharging a portal is

harkonnnenharkonnnen ✭✭✭✭

Not sure if this has been suggested or considered before but I was wondering since "Guardian" has long been retired if it might add an interesting change to the game dynamics if they changed how effective continuing to recharge the same portal week after week was.

for example: If you had a level 8 portal, it costs you 48k energy each week to keep it fully charged. What I was thinking was if they added it to the mythology etc that to recharge that same portal for a 2nd week it would cost 96k energy, than for a 3rd week it would cost 144k and so on going up 48k energy each week. The max energy level of the portal would stay at 48k, however the cost goes up each week due to diminishing return.

They could link it to portal ownership so if the portal gets flipped it would refresh the portal

I thought it might add an extra layer to things as it would mean holding strategic portal for extender periods of time (month after month) would come at a cost and require faction agents to work together even more to keep the Portal charged or donate Cubes to the recharging agent to hold the portal.

Tagged:

Comments

  • ToxoplasmollyToxoplasmolly ✭✭✭✭✭

    Guardian might have been retired, but the underlying stat is still there, and I bet more than a few people are still trying to see how high they can get that stat. While you can plan ahead for this recharge mechanic, it'd be a bit of a nasty surprise if this (potential) change were applied to portals that were captured before the change was instituted.

    ===

    I think that part of the reason for capturing out-of-the-way portals is to put your mark on the map — to say, "I was here/We were here." It would take something away from that sense of achievement if the recharge requirement increased without limit, eventually making it practically impossible to maintain those portals.

  • HydracyanHydracyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    Neutrals exists because lack of player or lack of player's will to go there and capture it. The proposal will just affect remote portals that are keep online forever just waiting to receive a link or already sustaining one. The proposal is valid, since if the player want a desired portal active for so long, it should pay fore than just two hacks per week to maintain it forever online.

    There is a bit different from trying to keep you neighborhood online a few days until you are able to field there or just to counter the rivals, from keeping hundreds of hidden anchors that nobody go there or keeping your personal farm forever.

    harkonnen's idea might not be perfect but it have a valid point on it. I would make it simpler, and just increase the decay exponentially each week.

  • kiloecholimakiloecholima ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm not sure where you read in that proposal that only remote portals would be affected. My reading of it was that it would affect all portals being recharged for more than a week.

    Neutral portals also exist when agents make a decision to stop recharging areas because they don't have enough cubes. If an idea like this were implemented, a lot of agents will have to decide what to let go, and I'm guessing that in many cases, once they're let go many of them will stay neutral for a long time.

  • HydracyanHydracyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    I said it would only affect remove portals, because if you portal on the next block got neutral you can just go there and recapture it in 5 minutes.

    Just recharge it every day or two. If you're out of cubes, just play the game every day or two.

    What's the fun of never playing the game?

  • MirthmakerMirthmaker ✭✭✭✭

    It's called clearing inventory so that you can come back and reload stuff you need/want.

    Part of me would love to see the 1% players work exponentially harder to keep what they have, but there aren't enough boots in the game to enforce that.

    As a 10% player the difference between taking an occasional rest day and having to stomp anything that wrecks a 1m+ mu or 100km2+ field twice a day because the cell is either won if the field stays up or lost if the BAF is getting pounded more times than cubes can be collected to recharge against agents is the difference between burning out or long hauling to nine digits.

  • harkonnnenharkonnnen ✭✭✭✭

    I think the number of portals held for such durations (also most wouldn't be level 8) would be a tiny number and the majority of those would be held for strategic reasons .

    So it's likely recharging it or them wouldn't fall to one sole agent. I don't see a drama in increasing the incentive for people to revisit such locations again after eg 6mths. Alternately asking fellow agents "oh when your up there can you double flip or such the portals"

    If it's just to have your name of an exceptionally difficult portal you could end up eventually charging up 1 resonator meaning the overall cost wouldn't be excessive

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @harkonnnen I'm guessing you don't live in the western United States. The number of tactical and strategic durable portals is far higher than you're guessing and some of them are only accessible for a few months out of each year. Some require climbing permits. Some require specialized equipment. I can think of one set of portals that's only accessible two days per year.

    Most durables aren't P8s but keeping a P5 is more than 50% the cost of keeping a P8 charged. Keeping five P5s charged after 26 weeks at 80% efficiency would be... 27500 * 5 * 0.8 * 26 = 2.86M XM or 357.5 PC8s. Farming 1500 PC8s per month just to charge strategic portals doesn't sound like fun to me.

    A few months ago I contemplated the idea of making portals unlinkable if they hadn't been accessed for six months. I concluded that what would happen is that spoofers would just hack a bunch of portals periodically. It's easy to chase down spoofers that take visible actions, but there's no way for me to know if someone has hacked the portal legitimately or spoofed it.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    No, just no. Holding up fields? Maybe.

  • harkonnnenharkonnnen ✭✭✭✭

    You have a very fair point and correct I'm an Aussie.

    I can only go off what I've seen and exerperience in Ingress which unfortunately hasn't included playing it internationally......yet.

    Part of where I got the idea from was I've often seen several strategic portals that make up the most common large Bafs held by agents that otherwise seem semi retired, so just with the keys are sitting in quantum caps. While I see no problem with that I thought this would be a way of keeping that ability while atleast making it a little more difficult and meaning you may need to work with you community of agents to maintain or reset portals.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @harkonnnen I absolutely get where you're coming from, and one of my frustrations right now is portals that are completely inaccessible for extended periods of time... not just things that are hard to get to, but things for which there is no reasonable method of accessing them. I am speaking as someone who has been in a Cessna 50km off the coast of California flying repeatedly over portals to deploy, mod, and farm keys, so my definition of inaccessible is pretty high. (The portals have since been removed but access to the island was extremely restricted.)

    To give you a feel for what the game is like out here in the western US, it's quite common to exchange keys to durables a couple of states away (say from California to Utah). It's also common for people on the west coast to have a variety of keys to places like Alaska and Hawaii that are barely within L16 recharge range. And yes, the keys are spread out a fair bit but an escalating recharge price would quickly become a burden and probably **** off the durables game over time. That would be very sad.

    I don't know how to differentiate technically between portals that are hard to get to and those that are inaccessible. It's a thorny problem to be sure.

  • DSktrDSktr ✭✭✭✭

    With my *53 recharger i am completely against this idea. Decay can be a bit increased if poi is used to baf,the more mu/layers the more decay but for example 30% maximal(idk),but constant or exponent decay increase - no,thanks.

  • harkonnnenharkonnnen ✭✭✭✭

    Fair just keep hearing about certain baf's being left up constantly, so tried to think up a way to balance without going overboard.

    Like different ideas etc than more drone and scanning updates.

  • harkonnnenharkonnnen ✭✭✭✭

    I really like that Concept, could help in areas where there is a clear dominate side so the other just don't worry about the scoreboard

  • MoogModularMoogModular ✭✭✭✭✭

    That's a completely different subject at hand here

  • EvilSuperHerosEvilSuperHeros ✭✭✭✭✭

    Time to take a drive and maybe even a hike to go **** some fields...time to explore! Don't like a field? Go take it down. Agents have been doing that for years now...you can too!

  • NysyrNysyr ✭✭✭✭

    OPs suggestion doesn't combat the real problem portals, but lets nots pretend exploring has anything to do with it.


    These problem portals are restricted access portals either in a military base or private business property where public access is not permitted.


    Here's a couple of examples:

    https://intel.ingress.com/intel?pll=-21.832579,140.924588&z=4

Sign In or Register to comment.