Quantums for keys - anti spoof suggestion
With the end goal of reducing spoofing, I suggest making keys not replicate in quantum capsules.
A portal that is not accessible any more can still be used for BAFs, as long as agents have keys to recharge and cast fields to.
But the only way to take down one of these portals is spoofing.
If keys didnt replicate, and there is no way to get more, eventually these portals would no longer be usable for fields.
And the demand for spoofing would be reduced.
6
Comments
I would go farther and say inactive accounts shouldn't be allowed to replicate items in quantums or drop gear. But then you would see hundreds of old accounts conveniently start playing.
agreed. perhaps make them work like kinetic capsules, so you have to walk 8km for the quantums to replicate.
But that wouldnt solve spoofing.
The spoofer isn't directly the target of my change suggestion. We can remove some of the motivation of a player to spoof. If the (legitimate) player that casts a field isn't able to generate new keys in a quantum, they'll be forced to hack more, or stop casting the field.
The need to regenerate keys is less now, that we can glyph and frack for more keys in person.
And the demand for spoofing would be reduced.
You're telling someone they can't replicate keys for that inaccessible portal? What will they do? Spoof to it and hack for keys, of course.
I don't see how this would reduce the demand for spoofing.
Whenever I come up with an idea like this I ask myself, "If I was a cheater how would I work around this new mechanism?"
I was about to say exactly what @starwort did, which is that people will just start spoofing for keys. IMO, this situation is actually worse because spoofing down anchors is highly visible to players, while spoofing for keys is completely undetectable to us. With the advent of hypercubes we can no longer even look for missing XM around a portal via remote view.
A while back I considered the notion of making a portal unlinkable and having its links decay after X days of never having been hacked in person, where X would be something long like nine months. The idea was to target portals that were no longer accessible but were still being used strategically and tactically, but I realized that the cheater workaround would be to spoof hack the portal every few months.
I still think that Niantic needs a way to remove truly inaccessible portals from the game but I haven't figured out a way to make that happen without unpleasant side effects.
I think the only argument I have with that is defining what is "truly inaccessible." Obviously there will always be a few people who say places like the moon are accessible, even if humans haven't touched the surface for the past 45 years... Meanwhile some folks who think if it's not accessible 24 hours a day by any convicted felon, then it shouldn't be in the game...
I'd remove:
All military portals. (Bases, airfields, naval facilities, ammunition dumps).
All mine site portals. (This would hurt my team but overall I think it would be beneficial for the game).
All employee only access portals. (Ports, warehouses, factories, power plants etc).
All resident only portals. (Gated apartments etc).
A provision could be made if its within decent splash damage range of a public area.
Have to pay or fly or boat to get to? Fine as long as anyone can do it.
@ZeroHecksGiven Yes, defining "inaccessible" is a can of worms. Some are reasonably obvious-- like a volcano got frisky, the whole area is covered with several feet of new lava flow, and it's off-limits to everyone for the foreseeable future. Anything that was a portal in that area no longer exists and should be removed.
There are portals that are extremely difficult for "normal people" to get to, but that I would consider accessible.
Certainly how that line gets drawn is a difficult question. Perhaps after N months of not being accessed a portal becomes unlinkable and all links drop until such time as it is credibly accessed in person? N would have to be reasonably large, like maybe 12?
Agreed, key duplication has horribly ruined the game.
I have a feeling that on days I play less, my quantums produce less. And days I play more, my quantums replicate more. I don't have quantifiable (proof... but it's possible Niantic is already doing this, kind of?
Removing key replication could also keep down perma fields. Once they ran out of the keys they hacked while they were there, they have to go back. Assuming the other faction keeps taking out another corner.
And assuming the perma-fielders don't spoof - most people think spoofing is not OK and don't do it. I don't know if the keep-permafield mentality is always paired with the spoofing-is-ok mentality.
if only nia could agree
That would exclude perfectly accessible places that just cost money to get to.
We have an offshore island that both teams access. However it costs around $300 to go there. So visits tend to be a year or so apart.
It would also exclude remote islands that cost $1200 to get to. But locals live there and some players, they just dont need or want to play often.
Funnily enough both have had multiple visits in the last month by agents.
@SSSputnik It wouldn't exclude them. It would just require annual-ish maintenance for them to be usable. I'm well aware of portals that are accessible but expensive or difficult to get to, and my key lockers are full of keys for exactly those sorts of places-- very remote islands in Alaska, mountain peaks that are only accessible via strenuous hikes, things only accessible when booked in advance, and something that is only accessible two days out of each year.
As is often said in other contexts Ingress is not intended to be a static game. Visiting something once per year doesn't seem like an unreasonable overhead (though now that I'm more awake I might make it 13 months rather than 12.)