Disincentivize BAFs

GorillaSapiensGorillaSapiens ✭✭✭✭✭

Another idea, along the lines of increasing play by reducing BAFs

Disincentivize BAFs.

Remove MU calculations (which are ill defined anyway). Make regional scoring based on the number of portals, links, and fields owned by a faction in the region.

Say there's a score per captured portal, a score per link, and a score per field in the region. Add 'em up for a total score. Depending on point values, a team covered by a BAF could still get ahead by knocking down and capturing enemy portals.

If a BAF will not necessarily win a Checkpoint or a Cycle, there will be less incentive to cripple play by throwing BAFs.

No game mechanic changes required, just change the way region scores are calculated.

Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • gazzas89gazzas89 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think you have a good idea with having links, captured portals, fields etc. Matter for the score as well rather this just mu, but I think making bafs matter less will have a detrimental effect

  • mortuusmortuus ✭✭✭✭✭

    those that are up all the time and block all players within it.

  • Large fields that block new players from being able to get involved, have always been a problem.

    However, in the past there's been sufficient players to prevent those from staying up and being replaced constantly. These days, there are few enough players that one person with an obsession for "winning" is enough in an area to dissuade any new players and drive away any existing players on both teams.

    It's not a problem with large fields per se, but rather a problem with players who believe that it's appropriate to push others out of the game entirely.

  • PangarbanPangarban ✭✭✭✭✭

    I understand the OPs frustration with large fields blocking play, but BAFs are one of the most fun aspects of the game: the coordination, planning and cooperation are what sets Ingress apart as a game.

    There have been suggestions in the past to mitigate the problems with BAFs. I'll summarize the ones I can remember:

    • Change scoring to include more than just MU captured (e.g. score for portals held)
    • Don't count fields from previous cycles in scoring. This just makes sense, and there would be less incentive to keep perma fields going.
    • Fields should cause their anchor portals to decay more quickly. The more links and MU a portal supports, the faster it should decay. This would make sense as a game mechanic anyway, since it should take more energy it should take to keep resonated. Of course players would just recharge more often, but it would make it just a bit more difficult to keep large fields going.
    • Make links possible under fields. I'm not 100% behind this one as a permanent feature, since I enjoy the challenge of linking and fielding properly when microfielding. But it has made the game playable for some players who otherwise rarely had the chance to throw a link. Perhaps it could be allowed under fields larger than a given minimum?


    There have probably been other suggestions as well, but these are the ones I can remember.

  • VenomousToadVenomousToad ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've been an advocate for adding new scoreboards for different metrics for years. Very few play for the scoreboard anymore. It's time to add other things like ap, portals captured, etc. Will give players something to strive for. Especially if they are covered by a permanent field.

  • MoogModularMoogModular ✭✭✭✭✭

    I thought the scoreboard for each cycle was already based on MU captured for that cycle? The checkpoints are the rough average of the MU captured since the start.

  • ToxoplasmollyToxoplasmolly ✭✭✭✭✭

    The Agent leaderboard is based on MU captured during the cycle.

    The cell score for the cycle is the average MU standing at each checkpoint during the cycle.

    It's possible to be #1 on the Agent leaderboard while contributing nothing to the cell score (e.g., all of your new fields get destroyed before the next checkpoint), and it's possible to win the cell score for the cycle without creating a single new field (e.g., with a perma-BAF thrown many cycles prior).

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    I still think a better leaderboard would be based on the differential from the previous septicycle. This would completely negate the value of standing fields that last more than a septicycle.

  • This would completely negate the value of standing fields that last more than a septicycle.

    or just cause flicker fields more.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Perringaiden If you flickered a 1M MU field once every septicycle only the first one would have value under my scheme.

  • You need far more explanation then. Because flickering a 1M MU field means you created a 1M MU field every septicycle. How do you account for the new field, or are you declaring that places go into negatives?

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    BAFs are integral part of the scoring system.

    Like em or hate em.


    Gives incentive to organize your team to take it down/create your own.


    Scoring though just needs to count any new fields created that Septicycle. IMO.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2022

    @Perringaiden My concept is that the septicycle winner is based on the change in difference between the teams' septicycle scores.

    Septicycle 1: Orange team has 800K, Purple team has 700K. Orange wins with a score of +100K, which becomes the new baseline.

    Septicycle 2: Orange team has 800K, Purple team has 750K. Purple team wins since they have gained 50K over the previous cycle. Orange +50K is the new baseline.

    Septicycle 3: Orange team has 820K, Purple team has 750K. Orange wins because they have increased from +50K to +70K. Orange +70K is the new baseline.

    Why do I think this is a superior scoring system? There are plenty of places where nobody cares about the cell score right now because one team is guaranteed to win every cycle. My proposal means that a team that is numerically dominated still has the ability to win. It means that every action that changes the MU differential contributes to the competition, which creates a much bigger motive for people to play for the win. Right now if one team has a standing BAF that the other team can't destroy there's zero incentive for the non-BAF team to even try since they have no possible path to victory.

  • Again, every example you just provided is the "Gained". Are you saying that the baseline will never go down? Your explanations are insufficient because you only show increases.

    What happens if Orange Team blows up all of Purple's fields, and Purple blows up half of Orange's fields? You keep saying "baseline" while presenting an offset.

    If Purple has 700k, loses 120k and gains a new 60k, what is the "baseline"?

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2022

    The baseline is the net difference at the end of the previous cycle. In other words, the winner is whoever makes the most progress (either creating their own MU and/or removing opponents' MU) from the previous septicycle.

    Septicycle 1: Orange has 800K, Purple has 700K. The baseline is Orange +100K

    Septicycle 2: Orange has 400K, Purple has 600K. Purple wins because they have increased by 300K from the previous baseline. The baseline is Purple +200K.

    Septicycle 3: Orange has 400K, Purple has 200K. Orange wins because they have gained 400K from the previous baseline. The new baseline is Orange +200K.

    In all of these cases I'm talking about the score at the end of the septicycle. The cycle scoring is done the same way it is now with an average of 35 checkpoints. The only changing I'm proposing is that the winner be based on deltas from the previous septicycle rather than absolutes. Here's another example:

    Septicycle 1: Orange has 800K, Purple has 0. The baseline is Orange + 800K.

    Septicycle 2: Orange has 800K, Purple has 1K. Purple wins. The baseline is Orange +799K.

    Septicycle 3: Orange has 800K, Purple has 0. Orange wins. The baseline is Orange +800K.

    In this scoring system, having a perpetual, untouchable 500K BAF only helps you once. Dropping it and rethrowing it doesn't help you.

  • Again, you're not addressing what happens when fields get destroyed. So my question is still, are you ignoring destroyed fields?

  • Septicycle 3: Orange has 800K, Purple has 0. Orange wins. The baseline is Orange +800K.

    Oh, you did once. This bit specifically. The way you're describing the "baseline" is confusing, but what you're saying is that the net difference is what matters.

    Glad we 'cleared that up' 😂

  • Neku69Neku69 ✭✭✭✭

    I think that system would be more challenging than we have right now, but also helps to balance a little between high and low density areas. Nice suggestion.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Perringaiden The only thing that would matter is the total score at the end of the septicycle. It doesn't matter how many fields were created, destroyed, or allowed to decay... the MU score at the end of the septicycle determines the winner, just like what we have now.

  • That would make the 34 CPs in-between worthless.

    Anything you make/destroy in the middle of the cycle can be undone at the last CP

  • ToxoplasmollyToxoplasmolly ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2022

    At the risk of confusing this discussion even further, I think @Hosette 's proposal can be equivalently described as follows:

    Definition: Final cell score = Exactly what we currently see in the scanner, i.e., the average of the MU standing at each of the 35 checkpoints for the cycle.

    Cycle N:

    • R = Final cell score for the Resistance
    • E = Final cell score for the Enlightened

    Cycle N+1:

    • R_new = Final cell score for the Resistance
    • E_new = Final cell score for the Enlightened

    Question: Who is the winner of Cycle N+1?

    Answer:

    • If (R_new - R) > (E_new - E), the answer is the Resistance.
    • If (R_new - R) < (E_new - E), the answer is the Enlightened.
    • Otherwise, it's a tie.

    Informally, the winner of a cycle is the faction that makes a greater "improvement" in their cell score compared to the previous cycle. Every checkpoint still matters in determining the winner but standing fields or other structural advantages no longer guarantee victory.

    ===

    Hosette's description above replaces

    If (R_new - R) > (E_new - E),…

    with

    If (R_new - E_new) > (R - E),…,

    which is mathematically equivalent. (R - E) is "the baseline."

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2022

    @XQlusioN I expressed myself poorly, my apologies. The end-of-septicycle total would be exactly what we have right now... I'm not proposing that it be changed in any way. The final score would still be affected by the 5-hour checkpoints, but throwing/destroying fields only matters insofar as the results make checkpoints. Blinking a big field down and back up wouldn't be any different than keeping it up the whole time, for example.

    My proposal is merely to change how those end-of-septicycle numbers determine a winner. Instead of using raw totals to determine the winner we use the progress since the end of the previous septicycle. Here's a real-world example that I just pulled off my scanner:

    • 2022.06: The baseline is RES +132K, (135K - 3K).
    • 2022.07: The score is RES+107K ( I'm rounding). ENL wins because the gap has narrowed.
    • 2022.08: The score is RES+140K. RES wins because they've widened the gap.
    • 2022.09: The score is RES+88K. ENL wins because they've narrowed the gap by creating a little bit of MU of their own and knocked down RES MU.

    This cell is actually a really good example of why I think my system is better. RES clearly dominates overall and thus wins every time under the current system, but ENL are active enough that they could win in a differential scoring system. Changing to differential scoring turns this cell from uncompetitive to competitive.



  • So all you have to do to win the next septicycle is tank your current cycle so that the gap is bigger and easier to narrow it.

  • Also, if you are in the lead, why would you want to make more fields and increase the gap, thereby making it easier for the opponents to narrow the gap?

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2022

    @XQlusioN Well, tanking one cycle gives your opponents a win and it doesn't guarantee that you'll win the next one. It becomes a bit more of a chess game. If your opponents only need to take down 1K or throw of MU to win the next cycle then adding to your own means they have to work harder if they want the win. It makes the game more dynamic by removing the value of standing MU.

    I believe that my proposal turns the scoring system into an interesting game rather than one of pure manpower. Your questions illustrate that point quite well, in fact.

    Post edited by Hosette on
  • The reason why 1 team wins more than the other is because they have a higher playtime as the others (ie. More agents or more active agents).

    Changing how the cycles are scored won't affect this. And the team with a higher playtime will continue to win.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    Which is why disincentivising BAFs is bad.

    But to count any new fields created in that Septicycle.

    This still enables BAFs, at a cost of using up, precious keys.


    And

    If Niantic drops the link distance under a field from 8km to 4km.

    Then both the Big game and local game can work together. Incentivises too taking down those BIG fields

Sign In or Register to comment.