New boost item: Temporary 100% link suppression (for field ops, make red fields on map)

KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭✭
edited May 14 in General

Now that we have linking under fields, there is a legitimate concern that a fringe use-case will occur where a short link could be created under a field during a major fielding op to block it.

To give an option to fix this, I propose a new boost item that injects chaotic XM into a portal. This one-time item is used at a portal, making all fields connected to it turn from green/blue to red. While under chaotic XM fields, no linking is allowed.

The timer for this boost would be approximately 5 minutes, with a dollar amount high enough that using it to stop players from playing would be prohibitively expensive.

This would also make it visible on intel that there is an active attempt at a fielding op, giving the other team a chance to start to respond (seeing red fields pop as a warning). Additionally, being covered by a red field in the scanner would make it visually differentiated, so you know there's full link suppression active.



Side bonus: Red fields! More options for the field-art people! Also, introduction of red-faction corrupting the portal network.

Comments

  • ToxoplasmollyToxoplasmolly ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 14

    This feels to me like a solution in search of a problem.

    A short link appearing at the last minute that blocks a planned field has always been a possibility.

    And as has always been the case, simply plan ahead for such possibilities.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    Fields can be used to vanguard other fields or to assist in clearing operations. Now not an option.

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 14

    This was a large talking point from the vocal opponents of the 500 meter under-field linking becoming permanent. This thread is me coming up with a potential solution for a VERY specific use-case. literally maybe 1 day out of 365 in a year it might be relevant. How often do people really run mega field ops? Not often at all.

    I'm willing to offer up flexible solutions, but generally speaking, i think those who were super vocal were just gatekeepers upset they couldn't grief others out of the game anymore.

  • ToxoplasmollyToxoplasmolly ✭✭✭✭✭

    To be clear, I have no problem with allowing links under 500m under fields. (Or, at this point, unrestricted links under fields, but that's a discussion for another day, I suppose.)

    If you want to throw a BAF, simply plan for blocking links. Under fields. Outside of fields. Wherever. Welcome to Ingress.

    😛🤷‍♂️

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @KonnTower How would a red field count toward a checkpoint if one was active?

    Also, you write:

    The timer for this boost would be approximately 5 minutes, with a dollar amount high enough that using it to stop players from playing would be prohibitively expensive.

    How do you draw the line for prohibitively expensive? How would you make it affordable for someone who makes $25,000/year and still make it prohibitively expensive for someone who makes $250,000/year to abuse them?

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭✭

    Great questions!

    1) Field would still count for the factions, just a visual indicator.

    2) There are many ways to balance use of items. Cost, time/use limits. I'm open to different methods. If you have constructive input on how to best handle this, add a suggestion! I could see burnout being a potential solution too.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 15

    To be clear. Blocking links for large ops is just one issue. The other is microfielding being dumbed down.

    I still argue that populations perma fielded over are an issue for a small minority and hence, a minor issue.

    We've had a BAF up for a week purely because local opposition sulking. (Anchors close, easy to access, single layer).


  • "Now that we've succeeded in this bad change, we've realized it's bad, so we need another bad change to try and fix (while failing to do so) the first bad change's issues."

    Can we stop doing this?

  • We've had a BAF up for a week purely because local opposition sulking. (Anchors close, easy to access, single layer).

    Locals here put a field up that required 10hrs of driving to the only accessible portal, and said things in local chats like "We'll see how long they refuse to field under fields".

    We still got the field down the day after the people at that anchor came home, and those of us objecting to linking under fields, didn't. The whole "problem" has always been about lazy players, or intra-faction arguments, and not about impossible fields. But now that they've realized there's new issues that everyone pointed out, suddenly we need a band-aid on the band-aid covering what wasn't even a scratch.

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 15

    I haven't said anything of the sort. It's not a bad change, you are being overly sensitive. This is a bad look for an XM Ambassador, you do not deserve the title. Please stop being offensive/negative on the forums.


    This was an idea to address concerns people stated while we discussed linking under fields. Work still needs to be done, but I'm willing to come up with compromises such as this to address small use cases that have legitimate concerns.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 17

    It's an overwrought solution for a problem caused by a poor solution for something that isn't a problem.

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yeah, I still can’t believe making fields/linking under fields permanent wasn’t an April fools joke.

    I mean, I’ll take it; the local RES player that is left can stop playing all together. He used to just destroy my inner fields, even in the micro-fan field… I can now endlessly rebuild.

    But it’s making the game so much easier. I don’t have to plan anything, any error can be fixed from within. Guess it makes keeping my link:field ratio high… I already have onyx mind controller, getting wings is a whole lot easier now.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    This ^

Sign In or Register to comment.