Except that's not what will happen if fields die off rapidly (as opposed to portals).
You will reach a fundamental limit where you run out of keys, and therefore need to return to the portals. And since for most of the problem fields people complain about, those portals are inaccessible, except maybe one day a year, keys are not able to be obtained, except through duplication.
So rapid removal of fields would result in keys drying up, once Quantums don't duplicate them. If Quantums continue to duplicate keys, then the removals need to be faster to outpace the duplications.
I disagree with decaying the portals, but rapid removal by whatever means, of the fields repeatedly will have an effect on the ability to rethrow them. Whether it's but cutting links from within the field, or the links randomly (increasing chance over time) decaying on their own, if fields are repeatedly removed, keys dry up unless the portals are still accessible.
@Perringaiden How rapidly are you proposing that fields die off, exactly?
I think you're wrong that most of the fields being complained about have inaccessible anchors. I looked at some of the ones people were complaining about maybe a year ago and for the most part they could have been taken down easily by anyone who wanted to travel to the anchors. The problem was there were no agents of the appropriate faction near the anchors.
There's a certain portal in GUANTANAMO BAY right now that has FIFTY SIX links to it. this is persistent, not because "there is nobody there", but because it is in a secure military facility, with ZERO public access.
This pattern of persistent fields linked to unicorns can be found all over the place.
@GorillaSapiens Both things can be true. There are lots of fields from hard portals, and lots of fields where there's just nobody around to take them down.
@Perringaiden I asked what kind of rate you were thinking of when you made your comment about running out of keys. In an hour, a day, a week, a month?
I like this but I'd prefer it if it increased how frequently the portal decays rather than how much it decays by.
If maintaining an inaccessible portal still requires a daily charge, it doesn't make a huge difference whether that's 10% or 30% or any other value until it hits 100%. As such, it might as well just be a day limit without the complexity of decay rate changing.
On the other hand, if it went from decaying daily, to twice a day, every hour, every 10 minutes, every 20 seconds, every half-second, 20k times per second... BAFs would constantly be getting more difficult to maintain throughout their life.
If it's one person maintaining then at some point they're going to lose the portal sleeping through the night, and eventually from a few hours (minutes? seconds?) AFK/AFP. To achieve better MU-days they'd need to coordinate with others, to collect and distribute keys to all three portals and keep people vigilant and motivated enough to charge 24/7.
The exponential curve would inevitably overwhelm even the most concerted factional efforts, and even the most cheaty botnets (hopefully revealing more spoofers to Niantic as it goes), but it also never draws a hard edge beyond which something is actually *impossible* to achieve.
@Perringaiden I asked what kind of rate you were thinking of when you made your comment about running out of keys. In an hour, a day, a week, a month?
You did? I don't see it.
But regardless, that's completely dependent on when they make the changes, and the current behavior of agents. Some places have shown they have hundreds of keys and likely aren't running low since they are happy to waste them. So it all depends on how many backpacks are duping those keys for a player who wants to push everyone else out of the game. It also depends on how regularly the fields are dropping. Some people may decide to speed up the process once they know the keys can't dupe and therefore the person won't be able to keep going. Faster they run out of keys, the faster those others can play again, etc.
Essentially, how long is a piece of string. But the string is currently still growing.
If you mean this, regarding the rate of the fields themselves:
How rapidly are you proposing that fields die off, exactly?
@Perringaiden So you think all links should decay, including those not attached to a field? Including those that are holding up 1MU fields? Including tactical and strategic blocking links that both factions maintain? If so, that is a dramatic change to the game and one that I absolutely would not support.
If you want to adjust it, make links that are holding more than 5000 MU decay. Or links that cover more than X km2. But decaying the portals is just worse, so it would have the same implications without the exact same limitations.
Like a mod that if you deploy to a portal will allow a link to be thrown, if you make a field with 1 disruptor on each portal it nullified the field above it.
You could end up with mega fields that look more like Swiss cheese.
Thread is quite long I haven't read every post, but a few points to make-
Having links under fields possible is alright but it removes the incentive to get rid of the large field, those fields will just sit there still.
Dynamic decay will be no problem as it may only cost twice as many cubes etc which is not a problem for a team.
Being able to attack anchors in tricky locations removes a big part of the draw for alot of people, getting out of your car and heading to the woods etc for that hard to reach anchor is part of the game.
The only way to truly remove the need to make the biggest field with the hardest to reach anchors is to overhaul the scoring system.
Another possibility is that for each consecutive Septicycle, the cost of recharging those BAF anchors goes up. But then, how would the devs know if a portal is a BAF anchor? If it has more than say 250k MU hanging off from it?
However even with this some of these BAFs are easy to rebuild.
The only real option is to enable limited linking under fields, up to 4km. Although I am personally on the fence on that, because it would discourage the opposition to ever take down said BAFs.
Interesting. Disney is probably not the best example. A more seasonal amusement park (closed October to April in the northern hemisphere), I'd say no portals except for the front gate at the road.
Disney is specifically a good example, because there's a bunch of "Staff Only" portals, that park-goers can't access, and only employees of the park can use. That's why I used the example. Niantic has no way of telling which is which.
Comments
So here's how I adapt if my big fields start decaying rapidly and I'm playing legitimately-- I take them down and rethrow them.
If I'm playing dishonestly I have recharge bots to handle it for me. (Hypothetical, of course, as I wouldn't do that.)
My point is that rapid decay isn't going to make most of the big fields come down. It's just going to make people rethrow them more often.
Except that's not what will happen if fields die off rapidly (as opposed to portals).
You will reach a fundamental limit where you run out of keys, and therefore need to return to the portals. And since for most of the problem fields people complain about, those portals are inaccessible, except maybe one day a year, keys are not able to be obtained, except through duplication.
So rapid removal of fields would result in keys drying up, once Quantums don't duplicate them. If Quantums continue to duplicate keys, then the removals need to be faster to outpace the duplications.
I disagree with decaying the portals, but rapid removal by whatever means, of the fields repeatedly will have an effect on the ability to rethrow them. Whether it's but cutting links from within the field, or the links randomly (increasing chance over time) decaying on their own, if fields are repeatedly removed, keys dry up unless the portals are still accessible.
@Perringaiden How rapidly are you proposing that fields die off, exactly?
I think you're wrong that most of the fields being complained about have inaccessible anchors. I looked at some of the ones people were complaining about maybe a year ago and for the most part they could have been taken down easily by anyone who wanted to travel to the anchors. The problem was there were no agents of the appropriate faction near the anchors.
Point 2 of the OP's post. Fields decaying.
Respectfully disagree.
There's a certain portal in GUANTANAMO BAY right now that has FIFTY SIX links to it. this is persistent, not because "there is nobody there", but because it is in a secure military facility, with ZERO public access.
This pattern of persistent fields linked to unicorns can be found all over the place.
@GorillaSapiens Both things can be true. There are lots of fields from hard portals, and lots of fields where there's just nobody around to take them down.
@Perringaiden I asked what kind of rate you were thinking of when you made your comment about running out of keys. In an hour, a day, a week, a month?
I like this but I'd prefer it if it increased how frequently the portal decays rather than how much it decays by.
If maintaining an inaccessible portal still requires a daily charge, it doesn't make a huge difference whether that's 10% or 30% or any other value until it hits 100%. As such, it might as well just be a day limit without the complexity of decay rate changing.
On the other hand, if it went from decaying daily, to twice a day, every hour, every 10 minutes, every 20 seconds, every half-second, 20k times per second... BAFs would constantly be getting more difficult to maintain throughout their life.
If it's one person maintaining then at some point they're going to lose the portal sleeping through the night, and eventually from a few hours (minutes? seconds?) AFK/AFP. To achieve better MU-days they'd need to coordinate with others, to collect and distribute keys to all three portals and keep people vigilant and motivated enough to charge 24/7.
The exponential curve would inevitably overwhelm even the most concerted factional efforts, and even the most cheaty botnets (hopefully revealing more spoofers to Niantic as it goes), but it also never draws a hard edge beyond which something is actually *impossible* to achieve.
those lame portals with access to only one faction exist everywhere and nia seems to liek them.
So cell score is dominated by those but until nia change the rule so public access at least once a year is a criteria they will stay in game 😐️
@Perringaiden I asked what kind of rate you were thinking of when you made your comment about running out of keys. In an hour, a day, a week, a month?
You did? I don't see it.
But regardless, that's completely dependent on when they make the changes, and the current behavior of agents. Some places have shown they have hundreds of keys and likely aren't running low since they are happy to waste them. So it all depends on how many backpacks are duping those keys for a player who wants to push everyone else out of the game. It also depends on how regularly the fields are dropping. Some people may decide to speed up the process once they know the keys can't dupe and therefore the person won't be able to keep going. Faster they run out of keys, the faster those others can play again, etc.
Essentially, how long is a piece of string. But the string is currently still growing.
If you mean this, regarding the rate of the fields themselves:
How rapidly are you proposing that fields die off, exactly?
Then I'd be saying:
@Perringaiden So you think all links should decay, including those not attached to a field? Including those that are holding up 1MU fields? Including tactical and strategic blocking links that both factions maintain? If so, that is a dramatic change to the game and one that I absolutely would not support.
Yes.
If you want to adjust it, make links that are holding more than 5000 MU decay. Or links that cover more than X km2. But decaying the portals is just worse, so it would have the same implications without the exact same limitations.
New XM mod might be nice. Like an MU disruptor.
Maybe have some qualification criteria to use it.
Like a mod that if you deploy to a portal will allow a link to be thrown, if you make a field with 1 disruptor on each portal it nullified the field above it.
You could end up with mega fields that look more like Swiss cheese.
Thread is quite long I haven't read every post, but a few points to make-
Having links under fields possible is alright but it removes the incentive to get rid of the large field, those fields will just sit there still.
Dynamic decay will be no problem as it may only cost twice as many cubes etc which is not a problem for a team.
Being able to attack anchors in tricky locations removes a big part of the draw for alot of people, getting out of your car and heading to the woods etc for that hard to reach anchor is part of the game.
The only way to truly remove the need to make the biggest field with the hardest to reach anchors is to overhaul the scoring system.
Maybe not like that.
Another possibility is that for each consecutive Septicycle, the cost of recharging those BAF anchors goes up. But then, how would the devs know if a portal is a BAF anchor? If it has more than say 250k MU hanging off from it?
However even with this some of these BAFs are easy to rebuild.
The only real option is to enable limited linking under fields, up to 4km. Although I am personally on the fence on that, because it would discourage the opposition to ever take down said BAFs.
Interesting. Disney is probably not the best example. A more seasonal amusement park (closed October to April in the northern hemisphere), I'd say no portals except for the front gate at the road.
Disney is specifically a good example, because there's a bunch of "Staff Only" portals, that park-goers can't access, and only employees of the park can use. That's why I used the example. Niantic has no way of telling which is which.
Here's a pretty obvious example
And possibly the most blatant example: remote mining site with no reason to be there unless youre a miner.
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?pll=56.339317,-62.097448&z=4