Why are we so focused on size?

2»

Comments

  • Just imagine that it had always been possible to field under fields, and now someome comes along and proposes that the game would be improved if we cannot field under fields. I suppose that proposition would get more disagrees than likes.

    Just one thing: we need a stat & medal for MU destroyed.

  • kiloecholimakiloecholima ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm no longer in the permafield business, so this no longer effects me personally. The arguments for and against can be found in any number of the matryoshka threads. But basically, control over the area, winning the cycle, not wanting the other faction to use your lanes to replicate your field from within. For field destroyers it takes away the strategy of leaving up outer layers to make it more difficult to rethrow.

    Why do you think matryosha should have no limits? The best argument I've seen to allow it is so players can microfield areas so they can level up/get AP. I'm happy to support that. If that is the primary reason to allow it, why should link length be unlimited?

    Really though, for Niantic, those arguments take a back seat to money. They will do what they feel will make them the most money.

  • mortuusmortuus ✭✭✭✭✭

    yes strange we have badge for mu created but not destroyed ? it could help motivation in those areas where permfields are up nonstop to destroy them if u can get a badge otherwise it tends to make the game static and boring since its too easy keep fields up....

  • why should link length be unlimited?

    3 reasons:

    1. if link length is limited, it could be hard to gain enough MU to win a cycle when you are under a huge field.
    2. it would be harder to plan fields if you must be careful to respect the max. length.
    3. to build higher-level homogeneous fields (HCF7 and above), you would probably encounter situations where you need to throw a long link inside-out.

    I am not convinced that the gameplay would be less strategic if fielding under fields is allowed - the strategies would just change. None of the feared consequences actually happened during the Matryoshka event. In my experience, the old ways of creating multilayer fields are still the most efficient. I tried a couple of inside-out multis during Matryoshka and found myself running back and forth between the center and the outside.

  • edited June 2021

    I'm for big changes, little changes . . . anything that breathes a bit of life into the game.

    Change for the sake of change may have a temporary "curiosity" boost in activity, but bad changes will **** the game faster than no change. Fielding under fields is a fundamental break with the game as it has been since forever, and would seriously damage the motivation of many players.

    Ingress isn't gaining a lot of new players right now, not because the game loops are bad, but because the client has some significant issues and there aren't a lot of players in the community.

    This sort of change would **** off many of the remaining players long term motivation to continue being active, leaving new players with now community. And Ingress lives or dies on the strength of the community.

    Ingress at its heart is a competitive battle between two groups. Most players don't play 'just to make triangles'. They make triangles to out perform the 'opposition'. Removing one of the key control mechanisms of competition would devalue players efforts.

  • kiloecholimakiloecholima ✭✭✭✭✭

    1. Good. That's the consequence of allowing the BAF to stay up. You lose the cycle. I'm not convinced that you should be able to win a cycle by using the territory under the other team's BAF.

    2. Oh well, planning is part of the game. Better than the status quo. If there is to be unlimited link length, then the trade off should be that the fields count for 0 MU.

    3. Your fairest point. It still doesn't convince me to agree to permanent matryoshka with no limits. As events to shake things up once in a while, sure.

Sign In or Register to comment.