Invalid Portals - remove portals unless general public has free access

2»

Comments

  • NysyrNysyr ✭✭✭✭

    Ah yes, so much planning needed with permanent baselines used to rethrow BAFs constantly because both anchors are restricted access.

  • LynoocsLynoocs ✭✭✭

    portals with link should just have their decay rate increased exponentially after a week. that way you can keep the strategic ones without links until you need them, and clear them out afterwards; i mean, they're still accessible to some people as many seem to argue, so it won't be a problem for them to be redeployed

  • NysyrNysyr ✭✭✭✭

    Decay solves nothing, the players with restricted access just rethrow the link.

    I recharge 6-8m XM a week, unless the portal is losing 100% or greater XM in a short period of time it means absolutely zero.

  • Nusyr, you need to plan to create the initial lane 9n the first place, and to build the spine. Again, if you do not understand this game, seek to understand it instead of mocking the work of others.

    Oberle is not talking about a secure-secure link in any case. He is talking about a single portal that he was unable to get to during a Roaring Rampage of Revenge for losing his farm. The entire discussion is sour grapes.

  • I personally think that agents should stop complaining about where portals are or are not allowed. Focus on upping your game, not on working the refs - the latter is tiresome, and encourages all parties to waste time arguing over rules rather than on genuine improvements to the game.


  • The most effective way would be that the Army (Navy, Air Force), as owners of the military base, request removal of the portals.


  • Having reviewed more than 36 000 nominations, my impression is that it would be rather difficult in many cases to determine accurately whether or not the public has access to a place. One typical example is artwork on company grounds, where it will be hard to find out whether or not the place is open to the public. Generally, reviewers do not have enough information to make that kind of decision ... some of them even appear to have difficulties to apply the existing criteria correctly.

    I would prefer for these strategic portals to remain in the game, but make some changes (e.g. Matryoshka) to prevent the damage from portals that are only accessible to a tiny minority of agents.

  • gazzas89gazzas89 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just because the op had a reason for one portal, doesnt mean it isn't wrong, if there are secure portal links that can't drop ever and are bei g used to baf constantly, then that is a fair complaint. Can't say I have that issue, but I know if I did I would t be too happy

Sign In or Register to comment.