Linking under field event - THANK YOU

KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭
edited April 21 in General

"From Friday, April 23rd 4PM UTC to Friday, April 30th 4PM UTC, expect the unexpected — Linking and Fielding under Fields!"


SUPER excited to see this in code base... THANK YOU.

On the downside, it's going to happen while I'm going through finals with school. RIP.


My first concern is that portal link distance doens't seem to be limited while under field. That's one balancing feature I was hoping for in this type of change. I suppose for an event it doesn't matter as much. Don't let that overshadow my excitement for being able to play under fields though. :)

So, my recommended control to this sort of event/functionality:

Create a new datapoint for every portal. Measure the average link length for the closest XXX amount of portals and then make sure say.... the closest top XX portals can be reached by the weakened link distance. This will require some tinkering, but the idea is to make the effects not favor urban or rural play.

Tagged:
«13

Comments

  • On the downside, it's going to happen while I'm going through finals with school. RIP.

    The struggle is real.


    SUPER excited to see this in code base... THANK YOU.

    I'm excited to see the results of this event. It lets the team gauge how engagement differs under the status quo versus with under-field fielding. I'll be the first to say that there should be some sort of reward/punishment for fielding/being fielded over, but the current mechanic is pretty powerful in its ability to lock players out of significant portions of gameplay. For every veteran player that gets fielded over and springs into action to take down the field, there are multiple new players that sit under a perma-BAF for weeks until they give up and go find another game.

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭

    Yeah, it will help retain some newer folks who would otherwise leave. My chief balancing discussion while requesting the feature this whole time has been to limit link distances and scale it based on portal density in the surrounding area. Let players level and whatnot, but don't let them build long links/fields/MU/etc. under the fields.

  • Someone gotta make a HCF6 inside out @57Cell i know ur the master that gottatake on every challenges with it right?

  • ToxoplasmollyToxoplasmolly ✭✭✭✭✭

    Whereas I'm like, "keep it simple." I get the motivation behind wanting to limit link distances and MU and whatnot, but I fear that in practice, such restrictions would quickly become unintuitive and hard to explain to agents.

  • ZeroHecksGivenZeroHecksGiven ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm stoked on this. Not much else to add. I've had a number of apex boosts that will work out nicely.

  • Making fields under fields should be fun and spice up local activity for agents that otherwise can't get rid off big fields. I assume the 'no link crossing' still applies tho, righ?

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭

    I'd like to see it permanent, but with balancing restrictions. Don't let the MU game directly impact others' AP gains is the root issue.

  • ZeroHecksGivenZeroHecksGiven ✭✭✭✭✭

    I’d like to add that I’m excited to see how this looks in certain areas. We all might be surprised at how this changes things for the good.

    Also, I give two sh|ts about cycles and scores, so I’m kinda hoping this turns out favorable. I can only imagine how many people stopped playing because they were under some sort of mega field. Maybe this could be something they do one weekend a month or something. I dunno, just throwing out random thoughts. I’m going into this open minded and I’m super stoked to see Niantic try something a little “out there.”

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭

    Might make first saturdays more fun, that's for sure. Not to mention field art.

  • I definitely think there should be a drawback to playing under a field. I like that more people will be able to play but maybe limit or remove the mu contribution for fields created under a field. Im sure that would be difficult to implement but it would allow players to still earn ap.

  • KarM3LKarM3L ✭✭✭

    Yeah, short term it looks interesting..


    Long term, it disrupts so many strategies...



    How long before every portal is max linked and the servers crash....

  • edited April 22

    This temporary change opens up interesting possibilities

    1. It becomes possible to win a cycle even if the scoring cell is under a opposite-faction BAF
    2. BAFs can be created over areas with same-faction players, without preventing them from fielding and contributing to MU.

    Own-faction BAFs are much more of a problem than opposite-faction BAFs because you can't destroy them (without being an a-hole), and you can't even complain ;)

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 23

    This is a ok move short term.

    Long term, it should be limited to max link length of 5km or so?

    If its unlimited, it pretty much damages the game badly. It's called Mind "Control" field for a reason.

    We all get teal alignment otherwise.

    Post edited by SSSputnik on
  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭
    edited April 23

    His excitement is so fun! Thanks for sharing!

    I'd also mention this is why link distance limitations should matter if this becomes long term. I don't want to see planning go fully out the window, but yes to microfielding.

  • It's an interesting experiment. But please don't make it permanent without adopting measures that preserve important features of the megafielding game. As others have pointed out, being fielded over by the opposite faction should impact gameplay in some important but not crippling way; otherwise they're "uncontrolled" fields, not control fields.

    Two suggestions from other agents seem worth considering: Deny MU for fields thrown under a field of the opposite faction, and/or limit link length to 5km or 10km under an opposite-faction field. These would preserve the microfielding game without vitiating the strategic and teamwork elements of megafielding.

  • I can get on board with the idea of 0 MU and limited link length under an opposite faction field. I think the trickiest part is figuring out what that link length should be, since urban and rural players will probably have different ideas of what that number should be, but I think this can definitely be a framework for limits under an opposite faction field.

  • Yeah, limiting link length and MU gained would be great if this is made a permanent change.

    Being under a field already restricts your gameplay, so I think it would be more interesting if it was enhanced instead if the field is from your faction.

  • JorgeLocoJorgeLoco ✭✭✭

    I'm not sure how divided the general community is on having this be a permanent feature as there are many active players who are not actually in these forums (which is unfortunate).

    For my part, I think the reaction is a mixed bag. For those who are in areas dominated by one team (or by an obstreperous overfielder of either team), I can empathize with the situation. Hard portals suck, and dealing with large fields coming off them sucks. You work with a team to deal with it. Where BAFs/giga-fields/mega-fields (whatever the terminology you want to use) exist over an area with a small player base or a limited player base, this is going to suck more. On the other hand, more populous areas (like the SF Bay Area) with a strong team presence can easily dispatch of large field plans with some counter planning. It's not an easy problem to deal with. The key the benefit is to allow players who have constantly fielded over to engage in the fielding game (or at least make links and field) and not just do unique caps or missions/banners. However, that benefit also has the unintended consequence of frustrating the hard work of team players who are playing a sort-of cat-and-mouse game over regional fielding.

    I'd love to see the data on how well the Matryoshka event went (basically how many under-layer fields were made, how much MU was collected due to the event, etc.) I'm not going to lie, if this were a permanent feature, it would have to be under severe restrictions (0/limited MU count, limited link numbers from under-field portals, etc.) or it could cause active players who do engage in the active fielding game to stop playing altogether.

    However, I also further believe that a restriction like restricted MU is untenable:

    • If you layer under a field, and get 0 MU for it, would the MU count again when the over-field goes down?
    • Per the above scenario, would MU for the under-field stop being counted if the same over-field goes over it?
    • If the points were 0 MU if you build under an opposition field, would your points then start counting if a same-faction field was created over?
    • What about situations where a BAF is itself BAF'd, would the underlayer built initially start counting if it was a same-faction over-BAF?

    Maybe the answer should be a limited time VR mod that lets you link a portal under an existing field, but I would not make this a permanent feature that is so easily accessible.

    On a more positive note, I think the Matryoshka event is a good option for x-fac field art!

  • gazzas89gazzas89 ✭✭✭

    I would say, it's probably better to deny mu in general, because I've just seen that the team that dominates our area already used one of their bigger fields to just go and throw more fields underneath, making the domination even more pronounced. Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoyed being able to field under my own field, as it meant I could get the last field in then work backwards, creating my own defence and then seeing what could and couldn't make it back to the anchors, but I felt it was way op

  • sophielabsophielab ✭✭✭

    I am enjoying this event. I would love this to be permanent thing.

  • ToxoplasmollyToxoplasmolly ✭✭✭✭✭

    When I first started playing, I thought scoring worked something like this: For any given location, the geographically largest RES field over that point would count towards the score, and the geographically largest ENL field over that point would count towards the score. After all, if fields are about "mind control", can you really control a mind more than once?

    That's a simple take on "restricted MU"; the mechanics are easy to understand and explain. It nukes layers for running up the score, but that's a change that I'd be willing to give a good think about.

  • The bullet points you mention are interesting and important details to flesh out if this were to be implemented. On the question of if the MU would count if the larger field goes down, the idea of "unlocking" the MU does make a lot of sense to me. But it does lead down a complicated path as you point out in the subsequent question of if it should stop being counted if the larger field goes back up.

    Additionally, what would this look like for agent stats? Would MU stats be awarded to the agent at the time it is unlocked, or do you award it at the time the fields were made (under a field) while simultaneously not counting it towards the score? I can't imagine that MU then being taken away from the agent's stats when the larger field goes back up.

    For simplicity it seems like the easiest answer is just for the MU value to stay at 0 for the life of the fields. But I'm not sure that's the most desirable outcome either.

  • As a followup on those points, if MU had the potential to be unlocked from the larger field going down, it would make sense to have a stricter limit on link length.

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭

    I feel like allowing long links under fields shouldn't exist with the event. This removes a lot of the concerns with people nesting large mu fields, or the team with an existing fields bring able to build more. I feel like MU issues become a moot point if the only thing you can do under an existing field is create small microfields.

  • Smashingt0nSmashingt0n ✭✭✭

    Probably going to be an unpopular opinion but I think there should be no limitations to fielding under fields, and welcome it being a permanent change. It changes the strategy needed to win the cycle (for those that care about it) from who has the time/money/resources to go out to far off anchors to who is able to make the best use out of what is available to them in their area. BAFS still give lots of MU but doesn't diminish the play of others. People under the fields can still work on their illuminator, mind control, and connector badges. This change would encourage more people to actually get out and keep playing, which seems to be what Niantic has been going for lately.

    I feel changes like this need to happen if Ingress is going to continue in the future. I have seen a dramatic dip in active players over the years. Many new players that start and are always under a field quickly stop playing when they realize all they can do is capture a portal. Not everyone has the means to take a trip to bring down the field. I see this as a simpler solution to messing with decay rates and negating mu over time. Just let people play when, where, and how they want.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    Smashingt0n has some good points.

    My main concerns:

    Would it also drive hard core long link fielders from the game? (And might this be a good thing for the game overall?)

    Visibility in Prime is not the best, one of the hardest things I found with this event was seeing what was going on links wise, whilst covered. Here it's not too bad v, but in sunlight it's very difficult to see green vs blue. Complex microfielding especially.

    As a permanent feature it would not change anomaly play hugely, 'large fields will destabilise'.

Sign In or Register to comment.