Factionless lands, baf, and ingress
Let's fac it there are fewer and fewer players everywhere.
The 1st consequence is that some area are just one faction with few to no opposition at all. Those area are usually controled by perma baf from one faction or the other.
And it's hard to begin under those as oppositon there.
Why not introduce simple elements to add more dynamics to ingress:
- the bigger the field the faster the decay.
- New players in the minority faction get an ap boost until l8 (real new players not recursed). Dynamic boost by cell, the more difference the more boost.
Is that a dumb idea ? I am pretty sure nia would not like the boost part as it would show the disparity though.
I would like other factors to be included into the "score" as a measure to discourage BAFs. Going to a local park and capturing and fielding all of the portals there should always merit a higher score than one BAF thrown over the entire cell. I also believe scores should be reset after every weekly checkpoint and only show points earned during the one week period. In short, those BAFs don't count for anything past the first week.
I have been pondering a bit over this issue, if one can categorize it as such.
What have stuck to my mind is that we (read; I) do want those rather large fields in my cell to stay up. I really like to see those fields brightening up the intel map and winning the cycle again and again.
But it do put a serious damper on gameplay for casual and new players stuck underneath it.
I have been putting some thought to what would be the impact if one allowed linking and fielding under fields. Perhaps with a restriction on level, that only those under lvl 10 or 12 can play beneath a field. And those over that lvl would need a VR "activation item to gain the ability. It should be possible, without breaking the game in any big way.
Just my 2cent
I'd have to disagree with the idea that smaller micro-fields should always count more than one giant BAF over a cell, mostly because it goes against the lore.
The whole idea of MU is that it is Mind Units, which is obtained by illiciting the minds of people underneath the field. The larger the field over a populated area, the more minds it should then cover, and thus the more MU and score it should contribute.
Not to mention outside of rural areas, it is extremely difficult to cast a BAF due to all the smaller links blocking the way. For a group of agents and the amount of time required to clear BAF link lanes to thow the BAF, it only makes sense their payoff should be greatly rewarded in score compared to the lone agent who decided to go to a local park with densely packed portals within meters of eachother and cast a ton of micro fields in just a few minutes time. It makes no sense to reward the minutes of effort of small scale fielding more points than the more time consuming effort of large scale fielding that can take hours, days, weeks, even months to achieve. Even in rural areas, it can still take hours to drive around the miles needed to throw a large field over a densely populated area.
People who BAF are already loosing out on both time as well as AP compared to the micro-fielder, the exception being the multi-layer micro-fielder who also sacrifices alot of time... but once again they net a ton of AP, some 100k+ a hour if in a good cluster unlike the agent that just spent hours to field a 10 mile area of a city and just gets a measly few thousand AP.
In this regard, I feel either BAFs or micro-fielding are already appropriately balanced in terms of both the perks and cons they both offer to an agent for successful completion.
I do agree with your idea though that scoring, or checkpoints, should be tracked and reset week to week.
Interesting - I've not looked into lore much - is there an explanation for how mind units can be counted more than once if they are under more than one layer of fields?
I wonder if a rule could be devised to allow fielding under BAFs, if the linking range of the portal is low. Perhaps a portal under a BAF could be allowed to function normally if it's link range wouldn't reach the links of the BAF? This might not just allow play for newbies stuck under a BAF, but it could make lower level resonators useful strategically.
I made a post regarding bafs in the make ingress more money thread that kinda applies here especially the first item.
I live in an area that is regularly Baf'ed. At a minimum it takes 2 agents going to separate places and a cell phone booster or sat phone to take down the BAF for more then 15 minutes. What I really want are few new items that make game play more dynamic and less static. Somethings like:
Item 1 Chaotic Matter injection. 5$ When in range of a portal or with use of a portal key this item blocks a portal from being recharged until it resets to neutral. This would limit the long term impact of Sat only anchors and other things that make the game unfriendly to newer players. But it would still allow Players to receive about a weeks worth of MU's for their faction for their efforts.
Item 2 Chaotic Matter Bomb. 10$ An explosion that destroys all links within the interaction radius of an Agent. This one I am torn on because it would be way easy to abuse. But I have gone out on at least 5 different occasions to **** an anchor or lane link just to find out after over an hour of driving I have no signal or the wrong carrier ect.
Item 3 Chaotic Matter Missile. 5$ + 25CMU for every KM over 5 that the target portal is from the agent. It would remotely reset the portal to neutral.
All of these kinds of items would reduce the long term impact of restricted access portals, sat phone only portals, and the incentive to spoof. While reducing the frustration of players that find themselves near a portal but not close enough to do anything about it. I have heard it said that Ingress is the most expensive F2P game available. Right now all that money is going to Fuel, Data plans(hotspots on other carriers, Bgan data), and equipment like antennas boosters. These types of items if balanced and priced right would allow players to give that money to Niantic not some Communication Corp.
The multi-fielding allowing multiple counting of the same Mind Units has never been explicitly explained in lore, though I'd argue that each subsequent field over the same area would in theory allow greater control over the minds underneath it, thus generating more Mind Units, but this would mean each person has the capcity for multiple Mind Units despite only having one physical brain.
I like the idea of being able to field beneath a field, maybe with a cavet that you generate a reduced number of AP and/or MU in return to the interferance generated by the larger over field.
Just had a discussion on this recently due to having a vet player maintaining a Perma BAF that is discouraging players. I have taken the agents BAF down only to have it go back up in record time, often right over the other low level agents.
A thought was having fields clear on either the checkpoint or septicycle.
Has there been any input from the creators?
No, the whole MU system needs a total rework imo, its so old and boring today, adds nothing really keeping fields up, whats the fun in longrun, u get no rewards anyways and u block many players under that.. so ofc nobody will play while covered under permfields and niantics playerbase will not grow as long those are up....
they could do that the longer fields are up the more it costs to keep them up, every checkpoint it costs more and more.
I've beat this subject to **** and nobody wants to acknowledge it. They just say "call someone or recruit a friend"
Matryoshka is a band-aid to the real solution which would include a modified matryoshka and / or introducing MU burnout over areas regularly layered. Feel free to go back through my previous posts to check out the ideas.
It's unfortunate that there is no reaction from the devs on something so obviously off balance. Fuels the belief that Ingress does not hold the value to Niantic as it once was when it's got it's new toys going. Honestly, I was shocked to find it still running when I came back.
I've always liked the idea of a link breaker mod. Place a mod on a portal on one side of a link then if you have a key to a portal on the other side of the link it would have a chance to break the link. The mod itself could have a chance to break and it does not always work (maybe ultra strike critical odds) this way at the very least you have to get out from under the field to try and this would de value some of those SAT only portals. At least gives options to some players in some of these perma baf areas.
dynamic decay should be the solution. it just logical that huge fields should consume more energy on portals
fully agree, and it cant be that hard to implement, a field worth 1 milion MU should cost more then a field worth 50k MU...
@NianticBrian any possibility you could join us in this discussion?
interesant as BAF is another game problem.
as a read before, solutions must be easy to implement.
BAF are promoted by the MUS score, so the main goal of the game is generating this problem, which is mostly suffered by low level agents.
i will give you my options:
Yes.. we all want to improve the game as we all love it.
I'd prefer links decay rather than the portals.
You need to visit two locations to close a field.
If two out of three portals are easy enough to reach to rethrow it, they are more likely to be easier for opposition to access.
The main discouragement is standing lines that last until a spoofer hits them, then get reinstated.
If the links decay, that would mean the owning factions going to have to run around a lot more to put it back.
(Before you attack this idea, our local faction has had lines up for over a year now, two islands and a BGAN portal).