A scan of the portals unlikely to prove anything. You could scan the ground... and most bgan or remote portals have no existing scan data to compare to.
and Nianic, as always, won't affort manual review of portals scans. They are not even used as reference in Wayfarer system, which is more important than Ingress game.
Still using a Razer Phone 2 to play. It doesn't support AR features, so this would be a no-go as other agents have stated. Plays the game smooth as butter though, I don't really have a reason to upgrade to a new phone until this one dies out.
In addition, the CAL system will also reward an account with multiple users out there because of the boosted activities in the said account. The CAL may have been created to deter spoofing, but it does not seem to deter multiple users or "bots."
I don't think so. If I were the developer I would get his/her CAL score significantly reduced if that player frequently switch devices especially those often are linked to other accounts. Try not to suppose all Niantic developers are fools.
The CAL system still needs to show its accuracy and precision in meeting its objectives and goals. Otherwise, it would be another bandaid effort of Niantic to address the spoofing, multi-user account, and Niantic's inefficient way of responding to the reports submitted by its players to the company itself.
weird how quiet niantic are on this subject since there are some concerns how this system will work and should agents worry for some portals in the future.
@Mortuus, it couldn't be called "weird" if the usual M.O. of Niantic is a lack of communication or poor communication about its future features concerning its game. So, nothing really new nor surprising....
while there are concerns there are not MANY false positive reports and complaints on the forum. Actually there is only ONE on the forum after one week passed. Niantic usually does not react to complaints when there are many, not to mention when there is almost zero. Almost zero demonstrates that this system at least is not running poorly. At least for now. Then loud for what?
Better than not having this system.
What good is the existence of this system when it is not accurate or precise? Having false positives or negatives is not good either. Niantic is **** its foot by letting this system go live without a 100% guarantee concerning its accuracy and precision. Or is Niantic just making this system as it goes along and just using it on current players as guinea pigs???
This system exists long before the annoucement of CAL. I don't see people coming in a bunch to the forum to complain about it throughout these years.
@LuoboTiX I don't know what circles you've been hanging out in for the last decade but I'm aware of lots of false positives over the years, and ops that have failed because of those false positives. Maybe you don't hang out in the same circles that I do?
CAL blocks should be reasonably rare because those portals don't get visited very frequently. Also, only a small percentage of Ingress players use the forum, so this isn't where I would expect to hear most of the complaints.
Regular play activity?
That is, all honest agents of Russia and Belarus will have a low level because they can not play physically, and spofer-accounts created by local cheaters will have a high level because they are somewhere yidrat?
Then why didn't you talk about, raise this issue of "lots of false positives" and criticize Niantic on the forum in the last decade but is now proactively involved in doing so? Is it because your precious circle actually didn't see it as a big problem that "draws the end of large OP" as you suppose? Maybe you should listen to your precious circle, do some statistics and analysis according to real examples not assumptions.
C'mon now! This is the Ingress forums, 90% of the users here type with one hand while their other hand holds a pitchfork, ready for internet battles. Myself included at times, lol. Though, in this case, definitely seems like we need to wait and see what happens and get some real world data before going full pitchfork mode....
@LuoboTiX This forum hasn't existed for "the last decade". I have criticized Niantic in the past for false positives both online and in person.
I don't remember pitchforks for false positives on G+. Just group efforts when someone "falsely" gets banned (provided they didn't do anything shady).
If the CAL has existed and has been working "fine" throughout the years, why are there still unresolved spoofing complaints brought up in the forum?
Think we talking 'link bug' with regards to old CAL process. We had a few ops delayed or slightly impacted by it over the years.
It was more an annoyance, momentary panicy thing. Usually a ticket would resolve it quickly or we were lucky and had backup people.
Personally, as long as it's not worse now, I applaud any introduced anti cheat measures.
I'm tired of subbing spoof reports for certain portals and I'm sure a certain Vanguards tired of hearing from me about it too.
Be interesting if spoofers start targeting the other easier to access ends of links now.
Because CAL system alone cannot determine independently whether an account is a spoofer or not and, Niantic is conservative and lazy about banning spoofers. It cannot deal with pro, well-prepared spoofers. Plus there are some technical limitations for example EU law forbids Niantic to gather some device-specific information which is important for analyzing correlation between players and the true scale of movement. Still, this is off-topic.
This forum launched on 2019/June. If "false positives" is a critical issue that directly destroys the process of doing OP as you assumed, then throughout the past 3 years there should be many posts regarding this issue on the forum. Mind sharing some?
Yes I fully agree. Give it one month and let's see. All what I'm doing now is to stop the escalation of "Niantic 100% did it wrong" negative tone originated from pure assumption and empiricism, when there is no sufficient data yet.
All I see here are apex power users. To someone who is not at that level, CAL is an attempt to sniff out and immediately "bust" blatant junk spoofers.
I hope that insufficient CAL interactions on protected portals auto triggers a spoof check.
It is still an open loop check.
Therefore, bad actors will find a way if they are determined enough.
As this is like the 5th iteration of the anti cheat system. It is reasonable to assume that it will follow the same logic as previous iterations.
Until there is a closed loop method, ie 2FLA