Field in Field, why not ?

During a special event we got temporary the opportunities to link/field inside a field of same faction.

It was great !

I will not hidde my frustation to be permanantly bag and having no choice in game to only capture portal ...

Always speaking with the community to be unbag for just 1-2 days, some time they don't answer, or don't care, or do when you can't play (because of IRL ...), just make me 😡

My question is : Why it can't become a permanent option ?

Remember i'm speaking about the opportunitie to link/field inside a field of the same faction as you.

I hope the community will be positive in speaking about it can be good or not to do that.



  • gazzas89gazzas89 ✭✭✭

    On one hand, I liked being able to make my biggest field then just work backwards underneath, but, that was also the thing, it was overpowered, even if players can destroy fields, it meant that planning defensive blockers weren't needed. So me personally, I dont like fielding under fields, but I wouldn't be against linking under fields

  • jjavierjjavier ✭✭

    fields in field permanent, no.. microfields in field permanent, yes!

    adding a limit of 2-5 km for links will:

    - avoid lots and lots of fields. target is avoid blocked agents, not collapsing the system.

    - similar motivation to destroy the outer field because nobody wont be able to build big fields into (illuminator badge).

    that could be balanced.

    i encourage Niantic to launch a new survey if thinks fields in field could be permanent.

    if is wont be permanent i will ask Niantic to try to delete portals with not easy access or in private areas, baf builts using that kind of portals is a big thouble actually. there are so much obsessed/spoofers playing ingress.

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭

    This has been my mantra as well. Enable ease of playing small in your own local area without having to worry about larger fields. You can introduce a number of ways to balance this out without hurting the MU game. Being able to build large MU fields from the inside out shouldn't be possible, but general gameplay in parks/dense areas should be possible for leveling.

    TBH, lots of elitists/trolls here have their pants in a bunch because they won't be able to use big fields to shut down others' daily play. They get off on it. They might actually have to go to where that player is playing, build up microfields, and shield the area. God forbid they have to go out and compete.

    100% do it, help Ingress retain new players.

  • jjavierjjavier ✭✭

    as you told.

    imagine.. newbie born, try tutorial, its interested.. but at the time of playing he cannot link and he dont understand why. if he still wants, he ask community why (99% comm), if he has been replied and understand the situation can wait or try to destroy field, L1 can destroy anything, knows how to reach portals? or he can ask for help.

    at 90% newbie gone..

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 15

    @jjavier my thought on the distance limitation would also be they can create a scaling link distance limitation, so rural areas are still able to make small fields too (at scale). They should be able to use average link distance to XX amount of portals be relevant and balance well. If not, they can use standard deviations to tweak it further. 2-5km is huge in a city, but tiny in a rural setting. Better to introduce mechanics to scale properly.

    I'd also be interested to see larger BAFs have more weight on shortening max link distances. For example, if a team pulls off a gigafield, it might disable linking completely. That 10km field someone threw just so someone can't play in the center of it? notsomuch.

    Post edited by KonnTower on
  • TrerroTrerro ✭✭✭

    The thing with microfields is they don't affect the overall world, and they don't have a competitive effect even at the cell level - there's 5, 6, and 7 digit fields, so no one cares about your cat's cradle down some random city street for like 100 MU. So... why not allow it? It ensures people can always level effectively and encourages the local play game to not be dead outside of major cities. If they want to make sure it doesn't affect scores, have field-in-fields give 0 MU on the scoreboard, but count for all badges (MU, links, fields), and give full AP. KonnTower's suggestion of a max range of 2-5 km is also good to ensure that this is -only- for local play, and ensures that doesn't become unmanageable.

  • MuzzgoodMuzzgood ✭✭✭

    Instead of arguing that the Knight moves wierdly, that it should move like the Bishop -learn Chess!?

    I can already today field inside a field of the same faction I need to do it from the corners of the surrounding field.

    I can not field inside a field of the opposite faction, then I need to 1) take the field down or 2) move to play elsewhere.

    This is the whole idea with making a field: to claim that area for your faction.

    And this in turn is the basics of the game Ingress: to claim area, measured in MU.

    Ingress is a multiplayer game with a shared playfield where two factions fight eachother to claim area.

    This is to me where Ingress gets interesting and is unique: there are other players! I can team up with fellow agents to take the opposing faction field down.

    Or my local fellow agents in my faction can make their big fields elsewhere.

    If my local faction is weak I can recruite more fellow agents.

    I need to communicate to play! Ingress is a "We"-game more than a "Me"-game.

    These are in my opinion the strengths of the game Ingress and I believe these unique strengths should be amplified instead of "pokifying" Ingress and downplaying factions and cooperation.

    If I want to play in my own bubble there are such games, personally I find them boring but some prefer such games.

  • TrerroTrerro ✭✭✭

    The thing is, it's also a game where your entire city can be under a field that extends 30 km in every possible direction. Not everyone has the time - or the vehicle - to deal with this, and even those who do generally can't do it regularly. These fields often remain up for weeks, or even months. Imagine being a new agent and being told, "oh yeah, normally there's the thing called fielding and linking, but our whole city's been captured, and well... hopefully someone takes a lengthy road trip this month sometime or you won't be doing it".

    I live in an area where this has happened twice in the last 2 months. The second time, I drove out to one of the anchors, blew it up, established my own, and then my city-encompassing field sat there. For 6 weeks. Until someone else finally drove out there and... hit the wrong anchor because they have no idea where I live. So I can restore it. Probably for another 6 weeks.

    That's isn't multiplayer. That's "the game is on pause until someone has the time, the will, and the car to press the play button".

  • jjavierjjavier ✭✭


    And you can be under a BAF of your same faction. It's ethical to virus an anchor lowering global MU counting? the main objective of game? i dont know..

    and how about portals on top of mountains, military private areas, etc.. easy for a spoofer or someone with time and privileges but dificult for a legal player. frecuent..

    every player who dont want the rules changes didnt experiment the situation and frustration it is.

  • BilleasBilleas ✭✭

    The declining player base also needs to be put into consideration. There are cells that has been under a BAF for months simply because nobody else is playing that could neutralize the anchors and the ones who throw the field keep recharging said anchors everyday. I have been in this situation a few months back and trust me, it's not the most pleasant thing to experience.

    I understand that fielding under a field needs some serious thought-out to balance things out, but, IMHO, it is something that needs to be the new gameplay mechanic.

  • MuzzgoodMuzzgood ✭✭✭

    From the top of my head: technically,

    permafields killing play in cities is not a game design problem

    its an a♤♤◇ole problem.

    The players should know better how to generate MU in the cell without permakilling play for others and appaerently there is no local community dialogue between factions?

    Again: Communication. Team up. Start a faction/xfaction dialoge with the permafield holders. My two cents.

    I just checked intel and I see no permafields covering Paris, London, Berlin, Rome, New York, San Francisco, Rio, Melbourne, Tokyo, Moscow to name a few larger cities

    so this is a rural problem?

    Personally 1) I dont think the major playerbase is rural 2) I play rural right now. Yes me and others have to work hard if not to be fielded over.

    Sometimes we succeed sometimes we fail -this is the game, what else is new?

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 15

    @Muzzgood I understand what you're saying, though we can make the best of both worlds really. Letting someone link/field at their local park a little in addition to allowing large fields to stay up in a win-win situation. It also would require veteran agents to go out and attack/defend areas locally if they don't want players from the opposite faction playing there. So, that would mean the map has more action instead of less.

    I think a lot of these agents "know better" as you state. But as of right now it's a highly effective strategy for pushing people out of the game. Just because it's effective, doesn't mean it's balanced. I know specifically up here in the CT area, agents on both sides go out of their way to grief new players purposely covering them with fields. If they do it long enough, the person quits and they don't have to deal with competition. In our state the map doesn't really change much. New players pop up, but generally the population balances in different areas of the state make it so they can't compete.

  • NineBerryNineBerry ✭✭✭✭✭

    The point about Ingress is that it is "Augmented reality" and "Location based". So, geography and location and the situation of the player community should have an effect on how you play. Links and Fields are one main element of this. Remove it and there isn't much "reality" left in "augmented reality"

  • ToxoplasmollyToxoplasmolly ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ingress is not Chess.

    Each game of Chess has a beginning, middle, and end, with rules to ensure that the game does not go on indefinitely. When each game ends, the board is reset, and you can play again, either against the same person, or someone new.

    There is no final end or win condition to Ingress, so there is no end or opportunity to reset the board. What some areas have devolved into is essentially a dead position. If Ingress actually were like Chess, we'd call the game in those areas a draw, clear the board, and start over.

  • MuzzgoodMuzzgood ✭✭✭
    edited July 15

    Intentionally left blank

  • LynoocsLynoocs ✭✭✭

    why not go the way of increased recharge costs?

    does a portal have links going out of it? increase the decay amount and decay rate based on the number and length on links. after all, it makes sense for a portal to be under more stress while maintaining links. and you can't really touch recharge efficiency, since it messes up the defense.

    it would go like this:

    1. decay is not changed for the 24h after a portal is captured
    2. decay is not changed for portals which have incoming links (these might be strategic hard to reach portals)
    3. decay scales up with the number of outgoing links on the same level as mitigation - 16% at 1 link, 67% at 40 links
    4. decay rate increases from once every 24h on a portal which has a link length equal to a level 1 portal range (160m) to once every 8h on a portal which has a link the length of a level 8 portal range (655km). the longest outgoing link is considered for this step

    you can still maintain long strategic links easily if you login twice a day. if you're not up to that, than maybe those links aren't so strategic

  • That would open up new possibilities to have portals decay faster by adding extra links. And speed up progress on the mind controller medal because the anchors of multi-layer fields would decay much faster.

  • At this point you have veteran players maintaining huge fields as that's what the game mechanics and scoring incents them to do. They don't need AP as they're maxed out on levels so it becomes an area control game.

    The problem, as stated, is this makes breaking in as a new player a pain. Doesn't matter which faction you choose, to really play the game you need some clear space.

    I agree that allowing field in field is worth the trade off in strategy to allow new players easier entrance.

    Incentive to destroy fields could be added as well. Allow same faction field under field only. Or better still alter hack output of portals under fields. Less output for opposing faction portals that are covered. Or bonus output for same faction portals though that could end up being abused.

  • mortuusmortuus ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 17

    big fields should cost alot to keep up, its too cheap to recharge fields today if they hold alot of MU then it should come at a high recharge cost imo, where in cities where these so called perm fields are up more or less all the time or with very little effort put up again..... i can see how they lost alot of players due to not being to field being inside a huge fields and nearest portal to take down is 2-3 hours drive with car... not many are motivated for such efforts to be able to play..

    casual players will quit pretty fast after tutorial if they cant understand why they are not able to field, they will think game is bugged or whatever and most likely will stop play the game and thats just sad if it happens lose new players thanks to big permfields..

  • LynoocsLynoocs ✭✭✭

    the decay could also be significantly increased after a week, in case someone makes a 1 layer baf just to block people from playing. one week gives it enough time to hit a cycle, two even if timed right. but after that it should take a considerable team effort to keep it recharged, one player holding several hundred portals up is not okay

  • grendelwulfgrendelwulf ✭✭✭✭✭

    The real solution is just to have a mtryoshka link amp mod to make linking under fields possible but limit linking under fields at the same time.

  • GoblinGranateGoblinGranate ✭✭✭✭✭

    As I suggested in related threads, why wouldn't it be good to just reward 0 MU for any field created under another field?

    I understand the goal is to allow agents to get a more normal gameplay under MegaFields, so I think the following restrictions would do the job:

    -Null MU gain upon field creation.

    -Reduced AP gain upon Link/Field Creation.

    -Reduced link distance upon Link Creation.

    I see no need at all to create a new item for this actions. Perhaps, nullifying mods that increase link range under a field could also be a good restriction.

    I strongly believe this would bring much more good than bad to the game in terms of community growth.

  • grendelwulfgrendelwulf ✭✭✭✭✭

    Linking and fielding inside fields should never be normal for AP gain.

  • EvilSuperHerosEvilSuperHeros ✭✭✭✭✭

    If they want to keep it, it should be a power up you buy in the store, like an Apex if anything. Shouldn't be an always all the time thing. Learn how to field better.

Sign In or Register to comment.