Possible Matryoshka Uses
in General
So what do you guys think of these ideas for future use of mechanics from the Matryoshka event?
First Saturdays: Matryoshka links are enabled long enough for every time zone to have a full Saturday of use.
Scheduled events: Matryoshka links are enabled for a weekend (Friday to Monday) that was announced weeks if not months in advance to allow for things like field art planning.
Regular gameplay: If a field has been up for a week, Matryoshka links are enabled under that field. (With limited link length and reduced MU as others suggested?)
Tagged:
3
Comments
Allowing links to be created under fields with no MU reward would let all those players living under permafields to get to play more regularly, and would not break cell strategy.
I love the idea to have opportunities to make link in a field.
Make its an event related activities will be nice.
It would absolutely break strategy because it would allow players to put of blockers inside fields
an idea to counter these perma fields is that fields that holds alot of MU should cost alot to keep them up, so for example a big field worth 1 milion MU should cost alot more to keep up vs a smaller field only 100k MU. It should be dynamic the bigger MU value the higher cost to keep it up.
Alternatively, every day a field is up, it loses 15% of it's MU value, so after a week, the field doesn't help win the cell score.
Either method however will result in 'flicker fielding'. Essentially dropping a field only to replace it immediately, and refresh the timer.
MU "burnout" would be useful, which stays active per faction during a period of time. Overuse one geographic area too much, it stops giving you MU until it's uncovered for a certain period of time.
1) It sure would help first saturdays in person, make it more fun.
2) Field art events would be much better
3) Love the idea that you're considering only enabling matryoska links after a field is up for a certain amount of time. Wouldn't stop teams from allowing the outer field to decay and then rethrowing it though.
I think the idea of a geographic MU burnout is intriguing. I wonder if the same approach could be applied to fielding under fields, like an area being under a field long enough would enable Matryoshka links until it’s been uncovered for a while?
What would happen if the "top" field went down? Or, what would happen if a field was thrown over existing fields to become a new "top" field? Would there be a way for Niantic to differentiate between them?
I'm not asking because I disagree, just creating conversation about the logistics of the idea. I think some sort of option for people stuck under BAFs is much needed.
The possible resolution to flicker fielding could be an undisclosed "cooldown" on the timer at each anchor. Dropping the field causes the timer to go back down over a period of time, but doesn't automatically refresh it.
Using your 15% MU loss example, it could restore 30% of its MU per day, to prevent immediate refielding. The strategy for perma-BAFs would then probably shift to rotating though multiple anchors, though.
I've been thinking of an on/off light switch concept for MU values of fields thrown under fields. This would be based on the conditions at the time the field was created. Fields not created under existing fields have a certain MU value, and that value is counted toward the score for the life of the fields, no matter how big or small, and even if a larger field is thrown over them.
The on/off light switch concept would be triggered for any fields that are created under existing fields. So let's say a player is making fields under fields... we can credit their stats with the actual MU value of the fields as if they are normal fields but perhaps have some sort of visual indicator that they were created under an existing field. Perhaps "Field Created +100 MU by (Agent Name)" in the comms could be in grayed-out font to differentiate it from normal fields in white font. The grayed-out font would be an indicator of the "off switch," meaning that those fields don't currently count towards the score. If the larger field above it comes down, the light switch is turned "on" and the MU value counts toward the score. If the larger field goes back up, the light switch is back "off." The light switch turns on and off based on whether the larger field is up or down.
This might give players incentive to take down the larger field in order for their fields to count towards the score. Or not. For some, it will just be about the AP.
That said, the on/off light switch would be an element of the concept of limiting MU values under fields. That concept certainly has its flaws, and if that is the route taken, it should be done right. The more I think about it, the more a stricter limit on link length would make sense as probably the simplest balancing feature to limit MU.
EDIT for clarity: the on/off switch would pertain to fields made an under an existing opposite faction field. I would be in favor of fields made under a same faction field to count at all times under this concept.
I think if we started to want this sort of degradation of MU based on geographic area, it would be super important to introduce both a scanner layer and an intel map layer that showed heatmaps of MU burnout areas. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it would require some new devleopment for sure. Personally I still think the best solution is allow links all the time, but create limits on link distances to encourage some types of play under a field but discourage or disable others. The whole idea of linking under layers was something I complained about to Niantic based on players getting covered on purpose by other players to get them to stop playing Ingress. By removing the ability of others to do the basic functions of the game, we're not helping our population numbers. At the same time, I don't want to make layers easier nor do I want to see field planning go completely out the window.
I keep thinking about increasing the decay tick rate for portals holding fields up, and/or how much XM is taken on decay ticks. Turn it into a gear-sink for those that really want to keep their big fields up. Or decrease the recharge efficiency as time goes on.
How about we just leave things alone?
Strategy would change, not break.
And blockers inside fields are different than blockers outisde? Also, are those under some kind of invulnerability that prevents anyone from taking them down or even anticipate them and put inside blockers for thos new blockers?
I strongly disagree about that.
That may work for those not receiving daily maintenance, but I don't think that's a real solution.
Here is where it gets hot. The way I see it, these should be calculated the moment they were created, so if a field was created with 0 MU, it will remain 0 MU, no furhter calculations required and no effect on multilayering as you still need to get it right. This may imply some rework on backend, though.
And watch the game fade away as usual? Yeah, I totally support this.
And watch the game fade away as usual? Yeah, I totally support this.
Plenty of other changes to improve the community and rebuild numbers, which is the best fix for these fields, have been suggested that would not damage the game like this does.
Why are you wanting to change something that's worked for eight years?
The decline of the game might say otherwise, but I know there are a few other very important factors for that decline as well. I’ve only been playing for 3’ish years, but I’ll say that scores and cycles mean absolutely nothing to me and I know for a fact that if I was under a field constantly, I just wouldn’t play. They mean a lot to some of the people in the community I play with and I help them accordingly, but personally, I just don’t see the point, especially when you don’t actually win anything. I suppose I’m getting off topic here, but my point being that the game is pretty different than it was 5-8 years ago, some things should change or be updated or the game will eventually day. Niantic has to be willing to evolve and in many ways, they’ve done very little so far. This is great to see them at least beta testing the idea on a large scale.
Because if it was working the way Niantic wanted, they wouldn't be looking to make changes. Why would they continue to spend resources on a game with a diminishing playerbase. How is that profitable for them? May as well pull the plug and divert those resources to more lucrative efforts, as we have seen countless gaming companies do over the years with their online titles. Ingress is no different.
Niantic continues making game-play changes to both Pokemon Go and HPWU. This change to Ingress wouldn't break it, just change the strategies required to "win" while allowing more people to play when they want.
"What is best in life?"
"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women."
They've already taken away Guardian and Guardian Hunting. Now you're suggesting they take away the next best way to assert total dominance over your opponant.
Proof you're part of the problem. Your actions of linking 3 portals shouldn't disable others from core gameplay. If you want to stop people from fielding, you should go build up the areas they play in with shields and turrets and force amps.
Instead, people sit with keys in quantum capsules and run out to cover people like it's strategic. It's not, it's the laziest win scenario in the game. There isn't any AP payoff for the person trying to level driving 1hr+ to a hard anchor which is an issue because the person doing the covering no longer cares about AP.
The decline in the community can be traced to a few other things.
There's been a lot of work on Prime since then to improve it, adding things like long-press to hack, and cleaning up all the painful bugs and difficult UI elements (though there's still a fair way to go). But recovering old players won't happen if this change goes through, and as evidenced by many of the arguments on different threads "for" this, new players aren't concerned about the community any more.
Sadly, the community was what made Ingress a stand out game. Without that community, the game has declined because it isn't as good as PoGo for single player repetitive play, and isn't as good as PC/Console games for 'action/adventure' etc, and isn't as good as many of the exercise centric mobile games for encouraging movement.
Ingress was a game that stressed outdoor, competitive, group activities, with no real physical prowess requirements. The reasons for why the game used to be popular were all focused around the community. If it's to become an outdoor, single player, grind game, there are far better options in that niche.
Instead, people sit with keys in quantum capsules and run out to cover people like it's strategic.
And yet you object to stopping Quantums duping keys.
That's exactly why you link 3 portals. It's a game. Capture your opponants minds before they capture yours. If you're not playing to win, you're playing to lose. This isn't the NBA where tanking gives you an advantage in the off-season.
I was the one that introduced the idea on these forums??? Maybe you're mistaking that with my disagreeance that that particular change won't fix the problem of people getting covered over and over. Let's have (limited)Matryoshka AND the change to quantums. I'll take both.
The fact that there are players that find "fun" in watching other players quit is a problem itself. Hammer logic.
We have that issue here, a few of our team, just want to BAF the opposition forever basically. It's gotten so argumentative between those who just want to play local and those that want to dominate that new chats were made etc, splitting the community.
We lost people from community because they were fed up with the "BAFs are part of the game" vs "We just want to play, you are making everyone quit".
It's not helping that the opposition is basically not playing/purposefully not dropping fields. (Could be they have just given up fighting these few super active players). The odd time the opposition tries to **** the fields, the BAFers recharge like maniacs with every portal quad shielded. It's a recipe for destroying the game. (Yes we did suffer for most of Ingress history from opposition cheats, however, they all got banned and the opposition basically just collapsed when they lost their never ending gear).
That said, I would really hate for Ingress to become a Pokemon Go, no real strategy, just daily tasks and screen tapping.
Personally... I'll support the game and community as long as it lasts, Ingress has given me so much enjoyment over the years. Unfortunately I think all these changes are just like that old oncologist joke. "Why do they nail cancer patients coffins shut? To stop oncologists from giving another round of chemotherapy"
What about allowing links to be created but instead of 0 MU fields they generate a no-field?
-No extra AP for the field.
-No issue on field MU calculation.
-Allows players to extend their gameplay under a field by allowing the link creation only, allowing them to get extra AP for link creation (which is way lower than field AP) and also get to use local keys cluttering their inventory.
I don't personally like it very much, but mixed with a 75 % link distance reduction it may fulfill all requirements from both sides of the community?
Its not about seeing other players quit, it's about challenging the other team. Everyone is so hyperfocused on how cool it is to field under bags they don't see how game breaking it is to field under smaller fields. Field over a couple portals in a park by accident? No problem, you can still get all the ap you want from them by farming up a few keys and throwing the maximum fields from the inside out. With unlimited Matryoshka there is no need to plan and strategize links and fields.