Suggestion: Fields break after a given amount of time

I suggest having fields "break" if they've been up over a certain amount of time. Once a field breaks, then all links to the anchor portals of that field will be broken. The resonators on the anchor portals will be unaffected. So, the owning team will still hold those portals. However, the anchor portals will go on cooldown and cannot be linked to again by the same team for 24 hours. Although, if a portal on cooldown is captured by the other team, then the other team can link to the portal immediately.

The change would allow coordinated teams to show their power by creating large fields. However, it would also keep the game fresh by causing fields anchored on long defended / recharged portals to go down, essentially resetting the game for everyone under the field.

I suppose an exception could be made for fields primarily over the ocean, as doing that requires quite a bit of coordination, doesn't affect a lot of people, and is an amazing feat.

Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • GoblinGranateGoblinGranate ✭✭✭✭✭

    I guess permafields don't affect those who are holding them up :D

    Nested microfielding would be a better solution. Permafield is permafield for a reason, saying "just go destroy it" is trolling. Even EVE lets you play under the Imperium blade.

  • KhatreKhatre ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 10

    YES !


    Or maybe remove the multi layering system because even if it's fun 1 mind should be captured only once.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    Taking down hard portals turns into a process of attrition where the team with the most OCD players and deepest pockets wins.

    At the end, one faction will be the 'winner' when the other finally gives up, runs out of money or just cbf anymore.

    I'm not against fields within fields, but, maybe add a cooldown first? So nobody can field underneath for X amount of time, then you can.

    Unsure if that's able to be implemented.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Khatre Getting rid of the ability to layer fields over fields would be a dramatic change. It would mean that in order to throw a field you would have to clear not just the blocking links but also every single field under the to-be-thrown field. That would essentially **** any sort of fielding other than microfields.

  • KhatreKhatre ✭✭✭✭✭

    not getting rid of it just not adding virtual mu that are already captured

  • MoogModularMoogModular ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just because there's a logged stat doesn't mean it's integral to the game. The stat has been there since 2013 but nothing has been done with it - same with MU-days and holding a link. Holding a field can be a simple 1 MU out in BFE but it really doesn't bear so much on the overall gameplay.

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭

    TBH I'd like to see a modified matryoshka. Allow small stuff like microfielding while under a field. BUT, only after X hours of the field being up. We still need to retain the ability for a freshly laid field to box out areas prepping for ops.

  • No.It's not an easy quest to find hard-accessible anchors "from zero".We already have latency bug not helping to defend,we already have itoen- and nerfed shields(us is much easier to obtain than shield,and building is harder than destroying).

    Possibility#1: increased decay,the more fields or/and mu - the more percent.But,not more than 33(50)% as an example. As an countermeasure reduce decay for non-linked.

    Possibility#2: add matryoshka option as an modified linkamp(not SBUL)(maybe OG VRLA). Currently linkamp is the junkiest mod,so actually it can be modified but droprate shold be a bit nerfed.

  • jjavierjjavier ✭✭✭
    edited November 15

    Not a bad idea.. why if agents MUs count is resetting, cannot reset big fields? the game must be a permanent build & destroy. Like other games, and players must be incentivated to do that again and again.

    Other option is Matrioska but.. i still thinking the problem is having portals with difficult access in the game (so far from populations, private areas, etc..) cleaning portals should avoid BAFs. Portals should be visited often, if not.. is not a point of interest.

    Time to "go and destroy" and "dont change anything because i am fine or i am spoofer" trolls :)

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jjavier The marker at the top of a difficult mountain climb is absolutely a point of interest even if it doesn't get visited regularly by Ingress players. Things can be both interesting and difficult to reach.

    BAFs are one of the things that make Ingress interesting-- they make the game strategic rather than just tactical.

  • jjavierjjavier ✭✭✭

    @Hosette

    You mean agents with reduced mobility shouldn't play ingress?

    What do you think of the portals in military bases, do you also think they are valid?

    Strategy is to build a strong portal or be able to destroy it but not take advantage of privileges, like being a soldier or be able to climb a mountain.

  • KhatreKhatre ✭✭✭✭✭

    ninatic said strategy of being the only one to access a portal is valid even if lame

  • jjavierjjavier ✭✭✭

    @Khatre

    I know the rules, Niantic think agents with reduced mobility or without access to restringed areas shouldn't play Ingress (because of BAFs) but what do you think? It's is fair? or dont you mind because you are not suffering it? and so.. "go and destroy", "buy an helicopter", " get a soldier friend", "repeat the mission", etc..

  • KhatreKhatre ✭✭✭✭✭

    ingress isn't fair.

    like having a job and playing against those who have nothing else than ingress to do all day.


    but yes they should add somethign for perma field (i am so for dynamic decay, the more mu and the older the more it decays faster)

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jjavier I have never said that people with reduced mobility shouldn't play Ingress. I don't think it's necessary for 100% of Ingress players to have access to 100% of portals 100% of the time, and 99% or more of portals are readily available to people with reduced mobility. I also understand the frustration of not being able to get to a particular portal.

    I don't think portals on military bases should be allowed but my reasons for that are far more nuance than "because it's hard for me to get to them."

  • jjavierjjavier ✭✭✭

    @Hosette ..but sometimes one faction can use three of those portals to create a BAF. that situation appears if you are living in a town and have mountains around you with, of course, a military base or another building with restricted access.

    it's not a frustration of not being able to conquer a portal, it's about not being able to link or field. that's why BAF is a nowadays problem and it's the reason for lots of new players to abandon the game.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jjavier Yes. I've dealt with a lot of restricted access portals over the years. I take them as a challenge. Can I find a way to get to that portal legitimately? Can I recruit someone to my team who works there or otherwise has legitimate access? Can I find a way to get to the portals that doesn't require me to be on the ground? (I've flown over some VERY difficult-to-access portals in a Cessna.) Can I recruit a friend who loves hiking to go get the portals in mountains? Can I social engineer access to a facility that's closed to the public? Sometimes just asking nicely will get you access to something that would normally be off-limits.

    In my area, durable portals are treated as a fun and interesting meta game. It's really satisfying to take down something your opponents think they have a lock on.

  • Suggestion: Field breaks after someone destroys one of the anchors.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    Lol at last comment.

    Restricted or hard to get to portals are a key part of the game. Same with low signal or no signal portals.

    I really enjoy the challenge.

    That said, permanent BAFs are undesirable. I've been rather peeved even at own teams BAFs on many occasions.

    I'm for links decaying, but not the portals having increased decay.

    Matryoshka fields aren't bad, but blocking links and fields is quite important sometimes so I prefer link decay.

  • No. It only means that if you go over top of existing fields, that's good. Hinge fields with two anchors and a spine only score MU over the part of the spine that wasn't covered under the first field. Not going 25k, 26k, 27k and so on. It would go 25k, 1k, 1k.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Mirthmaker That would just make me turn my BAFs into onion fields that only pivoted off of a single anchor for each layer.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭
  • ShottixShottix ✭✭✭

    Unfortunately, with the cell score system that is in place, it almost encourages agents to create *Permafields* and use the anchors which are very hard (sometimes unaccessible) to ensure that the field keeps scoring to the total MU. Putting a baf up during the first half of the cycle makes almost no difference to the end score if its taken down after a few checkpoints.

  • An easier solution would be to only count MU made within the cycle count towards the faction score. Start of new cycle, then you need to make new fields to create that faction score.

    The purpose of a BAF is to win cycles. Making it only count for 1 cycle takes away most the incentive to keep the thing up/ constant recharging. Yes they could virus and rethrow every cycle, but that would get very draining for the agents involved over time. Imagine climbing a hard to reach mountain every week just to maintain a field....

    Stagnation and permanent fields are a problem with ingress, and a lot of agents quit because it because too boring to play.

Sign In or Register to comment.