BAF Category Scale

Here is a simple and quick way to compare BAF's - The BAF Category scale.  

WARNING - there are some math like activities ahead!

The scale is based on the highest TOTAL MU count the field ever achieved. It starts at 1 million MU and goes up one for each power of 10.

Category 1 - 1 million to 9 million

Category 2 - 10 Million to 99 million

Category 3 - 100 Million to 999 Million

Category 4 - 1 Billion to 9 Billion

Category 5 - 10 Billion - 99 Billion

Category 6 - 100 Billion to 999 Billion

Category 7 - 1 Trillion

If the BAF did not make a check point give it an asterisk. 

A long winded explanation can be found at:

Example - The midwest US RES BAF on 6-22-19 was about 141 Million MU total. That makes it a Category 3 BAF. No * - it actually made 2 check points!


  • SonicgottSonicgott ✭✭✭✭

    Who in the world has 1 Trillion MU? o.O

  • DeweyJDeweyJ ✭✭

    Supposedly there was one case that theoretically hit .7 trillion. It was in the early years of Ingress. Res agent SSKumk (In Russia) created a single field that was 728,600,617,722 MU. Layer that once and you get 1.4 trillion MU.


    If you read the article you find it was due to three portals in an EXACT straight line (no width) running north to south that created the field. This created a zero MU sized field. It is believed what happened is that either it was a divide by zero error and/or it created a field OUTSIDE the line and thus made the entire plant the area of the field. Like all things in Ingress, rumor, history and lore on this is intertwined and some see it as fake, some as truth and some as a way to advance the backstory and lore. It was about this time that P.A. Chapeau popped up and some pointed out that name is an anagram for "Apache A Up" which could be a reference to the OS of the website and servers (Apache) and "A Up" may indicate that the systems acted up. (I would have called him P.F. Chapeau - you figure out what the F is for.)

    So in the end the 1 Triilion marker is more of a theoretical limit at this time. You always want to build a scale that does not need to be extended or changed to cover an event that happens. BTW - I have been told the zero sized field error has been patched so we will PROBABLY never see it again.

  • My personal categorization:

    Does it cover a city? That's a BAF.

    Are the links noticably curved, or does it cover a country or significant part of one? That's a giga.

    I would also consider something as a BAF should it cause an order of magnitude increase in cell score from the previous checkpoint.

  • LemoMcLemonFaceLemoMcLemonFace ✭✭✭✭

    Don't recall the 'score' but this most definitely happened, which resulted in lots of players globally trying to replicate it.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭

    Who in the world has one trillion MU? Me, and I'm pretty sure I'm the only one. 1,629,317,627,904 is my largest field.

    It was a 1MU field and Niantic was very bad at math one day. It's well-documented, for example: Well, nevermind, I can't post links. Google for hosette ingress and you'll see "I think Ingress broke" as the search result.

    My stats are open for a few days. Feel free to check for yourself if you'd like.

  • TheKlutenTheKluten ✭✭✭

    The agent is no longer in the system so we cant verify on stats

  • There was an ENL BAF covered Southeast Asia that used the 3 points as anchors: Japan, Oman, Christmas Island. Think it adds up to a trillion? Is there a sitrep of that baf from last year?

  • d0gboyd0gboy ✭✭✭

    I've thought about this a lot, and one charm of the field game is that there are definitely easy, challenging, or nearly impossible fields, but they defy easy metrification. MU (when it works) is a sort of rough first order approximation to something -- at least to make one of the most unique games ever -- but is not even close to complete.

    I had one idea, which is that along with MU, fields should be scored by the 'average 7 day activeness of the closure of the cells covered by the field'. This metric (and its cousins: 30 or single day actives) is fairly easy to compute for a cell and store, and reflects the fact that the primary obstacle to fielding is people -- both the opposition and your own.

    I think this captures the notion that a field over a city where nobody plays ought to be worth way (way) less than one which is teaming with people. You might say some cities are disorganized and have no effective counter-fielding, but that is a social problem at the heart of Ingress. It's still not perfect, since lanes through the Big Empty with a few singleton players throwing blockers from isolated and hard portals can be frighteningly challenging persuasion challenges -- but it would at least encapsulate the idea that undefended territory is pretty easy to field.

    Otherwise it's a very fun thought experiment. Linearly independent blocker counts definitely matter. Anchor TTL matters. Active play matters. Opposition matters. Heck, weather and how many tourists have rented all the kayaks can matter.

    I know difficult fields when I see them though, and I know elegant fields in the same way that I can spot theorems from the Book. It's naturally to try to assign a number to this, but I don't even know if we have the language for it.

  • StranditStrandit ✭✭✭

    Scoring on activeness is a great idea. Possibly you want some measure of activeness per capita, which balances out that Big Empty problem a bit, and you certainly want to look at Enl and Res activity separately, but I think that'd be a fun measurement to look at.

  • GoblinGranateGoblinGranate ✭✭✭✭

    What about the lore? Fields are suposed to control people's minds, so, within a populated cell, the larger the field, the better. That's OK and I think everybody agrees on that.

    But what sense make to build multiple fields over the same population? What if we use this to actually reward activity?

    Base field (lets say the largest one) will score its full MUs captured upon checkpoint. Nested field will only score a % based on the activity calculated at the end of previous cycle.

    This % should always be greater than 0 since even if there was no activity at all there is effort in each layer. This way, scoring harder areas could become worth the effort rather than looking for very large, dead areas.

Sign In or Register to comment.