Off shore portal requirements / Portal ruining gameplay
I read a post earlier on the theme "why is ingress losing players". I would like to partly answer with a question, "Do you have to buy a boat to play ingress?". This is the situation in Falkenberg, Sweden regarding the portal "Kummel på Marsten".
In the process of nominating portals, two of the most important questions asked is, "Is the portal accessible?" and "Is it safe to approach?" Somehow this portal seem to pass both of theese requirements, incorrectly according to me. We've had players going to the portal by padelboard as an only option if you don't own a boat. As you can see on the intel map, players in the area are not able to play without disproportionate effort. Neither green or blue due to the actions of a couple of players. In my consideration, special critera should apply for an off shore portal. The piece of land hosting the portal should be accessible by public transportation 365 days a year. I thought it was a game of capturing portals, not a game of not being able to capture portals.
I posted a respons to why ingress is loosing players, and one of the aspects is the inconsistent management by Niantic. I can see the point in letting the game have a dynamic and self regulating development but some rules must apply, consistently, setting a foundation for gameplay. Not just a wild experiment in how a game develops if you just let it go.
A game require balance if it's a game for many.
This is a result of not having enough players. Not the cause.
These portals and many like them, were regularly used when there were lots of players, and it wasn't a problem, because these fields would not last. These fields would not be easy, and they certainly would get a coordinated response to remove and block.
Damaging the game further will not bring players back. It'll only drive more away.
This is a *DRIVE UP* portal. Destroy it. Throw blockers. Play again.
Most of the links coming off the portal directly off the coast of Falkenberg are easily destroyed. Destroy them, throw blockers. Play again.
The best idea for adjusting to reduce this sort of thing: Stop Quantums duplicating keys.
The link you posted above is not linked to the portal I mentioned above.
This is the portal,
I don't see how making all portals accessible is damaging the game further? If that is your point above.
The portal may be legit to the criteria etc, but the average ingress player will and does not have a boat to go to such portals. I am also not a big fan of them but if they are valid because criteria says so i dont think u can do much until niantic decides to change this i guess ?
If you start making portals requiring full access 365, there goes all the tough mountains that can't be reached 4 months of a year due to snow, or lighthouses offshore islands, or areas that have limited 4WD access and closed over winter.
Hard to reach portals are good and create challenges. The main problem is the number of players willing to take them out quickly is reducing and thr owners refusing to let them decay for the betterment of the game. Permenent fields of impossible anchors is a detriment to the long term viability of the game. Agents give up if they can't play for months on end.
Well Gaskka if you start to play instead of whining as u do ( as usual) . Begin make Fields instead of your Spaggheti links. Put in more than two ressonaters and so on. Make the game Fields more exciting and stop the boring gamestyle. Most of the time you refuse us blue any AP, but that is your game style. You are a good reason to stop playing. When you had a portal in North owned by a froggy friend because he worked there everything was ok? What did we do.... we change tactics instead, was we crying in someones knee? Nooo, lay down and someone will stamp on you, whining and people stop listen to you. Play and make you self an opponents ,
then people will start see and listen to you.
It becomes a tech issue, but would it make sense to grade portals by accessibility? Tougher ones decay faster than portals that anyone can grab. What would be the criteria?
My thoughts would be anything that can be reached by car, foot and public transportation is easy no change to decay rate.
Limited Hours of Operation or physically not reachable without a boat or specific permission increases rate of decay by up to 33%. Make it if you want something that bad you have to pay for it.
Sturefarhaga, please stick to the subject. If you refer to the portal in the military area, I agree, It doesn't pass the criteria of accessibility and should be removed.
Personally I think access 365 is a good idea to make the game dynamic and alive. I cant see the point in having portals which can be reached by a few while having a big impact on the game in that area. I agree, some landmarks etc. are brilliant portals but the gameplay must go first, otherwise the game will turn into a museum.
I think the idea of changing the decrease factor or in other ways making these portals more temporary is interesting, as a minimum.
I'll echo the same argument I've seen in another thread: I live in southern USA. By your logic, all portals in Mexico (a few hour drive away) should be removed because I don't have a passport and thus those portals are inaccessible to me. Eh, all portals not in the USA should be removed because I don't have access to them. Eh, my phone provider's signal doesn't cover that area, those portals should be removed. Eh, portals in a zoo should be removed because I have to pay to reach them. Eh, portals in a free public park that's only open daylight hours should be removed because they're not accessible 24/7. Eh, all portals outside of a
10, 5, 0 minute walk from my house should be removed because I can't be bothered to put in any effort or forethought to reach them.
This logic flow just doesn't work. I could get a passport (or make friends with someone who has one and they can go) and you could get a boat (or make friends with someone who has one and you can both go)! It's time to move!
Every, manmade, unique object does not become a portal. Its a matter of definition. Your arguments are flooded, without definitions. Of course, every portal in south america cannot be removed due to the fact that I can't walk from Sweden to south america. Accessability must be defined.
Niantic has stated rules for an object or site to become a portal, among those safety and accessability. So how come they are applied to some portals and not to others? The problem can probably be found in the community consensus procedure, where portals occasionally are voted in favor of your team.