What do you think about being able to field under an existing field, but not gaining MU?

For players under perma-bafs.

Comments

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    How about a new mechanic to help bring down a BAF from underneath. Such as the number of capture enemy portals drains the anchors faster at an exponential rate. Or simply change the scoring system to greatly reward more localized play over BAFs.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭

    Because the side metagame is BAFs.


    I feel for all those that do live and play, or unable to participate in events requiring fielding when under a mega BAF.


    Niantic have never in the last 7 years addressed this major problem, that satisfies the BIG game players over the Local/Urban, play.


    Many ideas floated, but nothing.

    Some ideas require the entire game to be overhauled, which is currently happening, at a relative, snails pace.


    A lot of effort goes into making those Mega BAFs, therefore any mechanic needs to reasonably, and justly, reward the people who made those Mega BAFs when they are are taken down by some new mechanic.

    Be it increased decay rate for every week the Mega BAF stays up (requires little effort on Niantic's part)

    Self destabilized field attribute for ULA and VRLA ( hate this idea)

    Portal caps matching, or exceeding the MU, causing the BAF to destabilize. ( difficult to mobilise enough players for it to happen)


    In any case, WHAT reward do the BAFfers get when it dies?

  • I agree, but changing gameplay mechanics might take a while.

    Until then, maybe something that temporarily lets you field (with no MU gained) under an existing field might work? They could be a paid store item like frackers.

  • I think not gaining MU from fielding under an existing field might work as a compromise. BAFs still get made, but players under them can still fully play the game.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭

    Disagree, making fields without MU is a major disincentive to me.

  • I think a lot of players would say the same, which is why this would only happen with fields made under an existing field. Fielding for MU would still work the same, but players stuck under permanent-BAFs could still fully play.

  • @Grogyan IMHO, the reward for involvement in a BAF (and I love the things, both creating and defending against ... best bit of the game) is the gameplay involved in the creation and associated battle, not having the field sit there for ages. Fields that prevent play for more than a short period are, in my opinion, one of the most boring game mechanics I've seen in any game bar none. If a BAF makes it to morning then awesome ... but if it's not gone by lunchtime it's just dull. As far as I'm concerned, the scoring system ought to reflect this - reward turnover at all levels, not just long standing drivers-only static fields that often only hang around due to player circumstance rather any particular "skill".

  • GoblinGranateGoblinGranate ✭✭✭✭

    How about thinking of a new gameplay feature that could be done within a Mind Field? Something new.

    Or, it could be just as easy as increase AP gain on certain actions taken within a field, like extra AP upon portal hack, deploys, upgrades, and even glyph hacking? Not much, but enough to notice it.

    I agree that a 0 MU field goes against game concept, also that being able to create links within a field sounds like problems. I would like the idea of allowing internal links/fields creation and then score only fields no contained by another field when the check ticks, but that would **** multilayer game and that solution would bring up a bigger problem.

    Perhaps some kind of Investigation Task could break through this?

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭
    edited February 7

    Depends on how the fields are being put up or if you are outnumbered.

    I'd vote for decay rate doubling every cycle end for the anchors.

    Or after 8 cycles field destabilises?

    Add qualifer that sides have to total a certain distance?

  • HydraulinskiHydraulinski ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 7

    Actions inside a field (large ones) could give extra AP for it's faction and less to the others. Will incentive players to destroy it faster.


    Other idea I had: larger fields would generated a weak point right in it's middle, generated automatically and by attacking this epicenter the damage would be distributed to the anchors, eventually destroying them. Or by destroying the epicenter it would cause the field to fall, but remaining the links causing ghosts.

  • KhatreKhatre ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 8
  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭

    Agree.

    How about then, just allowing fields to be made under fields?

    Scale the MU gained up for same faction fields in the field

    Scale the MU gained down for opposition fields in the field

    For multiple layer fields, allow. Bonus scaling of MU gained by up to 4



    So for example

    The Enlightened made a single layer BAF over a city

    Then all Enlightened fields under the BAF would gain, say 10% more MU, and Resistance would gain 10% less MU


    Example 2

    The Resistance make a 10 layer BAF over a city

    Then all Resistance fields under the BAF would gain a maximum of 40% increase in MU, and all Enlightened fields would gain 40% less MU


    Caveat

    Nested fields

    Enlightened make a 4 layer BAF, and under that, make a slightly smaller 4 layer BAF, and under that, make another slightly smaller 4 layer BAF. Presents an issue with this scaling suggestion


    The above examples do provide incentive to take down those big fields, while allowing local players to keep playing, and possibly make more MU than the BAF that covers them.

  • This would be blasphemy!

    #heextends

  • GoblinGranateGoblinGranate ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 11

    Clearest restricction to this is the Cell Game Scoring system. Perhaps a change on that matter could solve this and some other problems.

    For example, how about scoring fields that are not held within another field? The rest of the fields would be 0 MUs. This would mean that multilayering MegaFields would be of no use when it comes to cell scores, but I think that could be easily solved if nested fields are scored if they share 2 anchors with top field.

    This would change the metagame aswell without actually introducing new gameplay AND would also be more coherent with the Mind Control Field concept (I mean, is not very logical that multiple fields capture the same Minds and each one scores as if all minds where different).

    It would also help agents in OPs to be less punished if they mess up the layer order. Accidents happen and game malfunctions occasionally, we all know that.

  • Making links under a field is very game changing.

    Prefer enhanced decay or system removal.

  • GoblinGranateGoblinGranate ✭✭✭✭

    I don't see how! Cross-link restriction still applies.

    Can you please detail how much of a change would be? It is part of the target to change the meta game.

  • RostwoldRostwold ✭✭✭✭

    BAF = Big Area* Field.


    *or a ruder word, but the same meaning.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭

    Niantic referred to it as a Big Augmented Field


    But yeah, there is a ruder word for "A"

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭
    edited February 13

    Well, for instance, say you create a field under bigger field. No MU, what happens after the big field dies?

    Opposition could create multiple blocks for other usual fields.

    Big fields are sometimes used for clearing for even bigger fields, opposition being able to still link would break this.

    Those are just the first few that come to mind.

    You can keep gameplay the same, but get around perma BAFs by making them too costly to maintain, or **** them server side, (which has been done often if the past by Niantic) after a certain period.

    The biggest issue I see is identifying what constitutes a problem sized BAF and what doesn't. To be fair on everyone I think it would have to be purely physical size related, not MU related. Weird, " k i l l " is a censored word.

  • <eating popcorn gif>

  • HydraulinskiHydraulinski ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 24

    Will diminish the intelligence and strategy of the creation, since there will be no mistakes anymore. If you forgot a link, just go inside the field and make it. Also, complete lack of damage on the rival team, since they will steam be able to play normally.


    I prefer the removal of MU from layer system over allowing linking from the inside.

    Removing the MU layers will keep the score a constant. And no mather how bad someone linked, their links can still be used to fill the area and aquire the same MU. This way making multiple layer won't give extra MU score, but will still provide lots of AP to te player, and make it harder to destroy the zone.

    What about something like this instead:

    Like large fields covering something like only 100km (example) away from the links, creating a hole in the middle, where links and fields could still be created. It can still capture all MU, but wont block the creation of more link in the midle.

    Post edited by Hydraulinski on
  • There is currently exactly the same discussion in section "App feedback", perhaps moderators could merge the topics to have more people discussing and commenting ideas... I copy-paste my comment there (sorry for the duplicate) :

    We have the same problem in our city, a big town in France : one of the faction does not play anymore globally (hardcore agents all stopped).

    Inside the other faction, there are 2 types of players : some of them who like to do huge mega-fields, from more and more distance, difficult portals or areas, different original geometric forms etc... and score the max on MUs.

    And inside central town players who like to micro-multi-fields daily, link, battle with some local agents of other faction who still play.

    Those are very frustrated when big fields come, as they can stay for days, until decay. But recently, due to many Ops and BAFs, anger and opposition grew between the 2 "teams" of the same faction, and ambiance is bad - so sometimes agents who made the fields recharge the anchors, which makse the things worse etc...

    I prefer participating on big field Ops and don't play daily, but I can surely understand frustration of "insider" agents (in central town).

    My proposal to solve this :

    Allow agents to link and field normally under another field, but only if they are on the same faction than the current field.

    Give them normal AP for that, to help new agents continuing to progress in levels. Just not give MUs for Illuminator medal, as there is already a field above.

    But don't allow agents from the other faction to link nor field : in this case it still compels them to move to anchors and break the field (which is the way Ingress is designed), instead of obliging those who put the field to use a virus !

    Also, to avoid completely change habits and rules, perhaps (I don't know if it's easy to develop and code), only allow to field under same team bigger field if this one is larger than one score cell.

    I think this would not completely break the game and still preserve the spirit of opposition, without penalizing agents who are under their own team field, because other faction donesn't play...

Sign In or Register to comment.