Global score is broken

2

Comments

  • NysyrNysyr ✭✭✭

    It's only been like 3 hours they would have been in the office, chillax a little

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    Seems like a feature change than a bug.

    One that was IMO long overdue to happen.


    @NianticBrian thanks for this change, it should help with getting new players interested in chasing the scoreboard.

    However I'd like to request that the faction that wins is rewarded appropriately at the conclusion of the septicycle.

  • justmeisterjustmeister ✭✭✭

    Scores are normally working again.

  • EvilSuperHerosEvilSuperHeros ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks like it's currently fixed. Showing correctly locally

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    What?

    No way.


    Well done stagnating the game.

    You had raised my hopes for more engagement. Dashed.

  • edited August 2

    I like it. Only benefiting the activity *in that cycle* is a great way to encourage change.

    @ElForesto How would "preventing rethrowing" change anything right now? People intentionally leave fields up for weeks to block anyone else playing the game. This change requires them to actually use new keys to rethrow if they want to maintain their score.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not just weeks.

    Months if not years.


    I personally support the change to scoring for the current cycle

  • Should be 2 tabs, one for MUs (the usual) & the activity meter (what seen in first 2 cp)

    Suppose theyre toying with expansion of scoring feature then?

  • Recovering scores from past checkpoints is likely a pain if even possible. I'm betting there's some fun meetings and conference calls deciding what to do.


  • 0 MU in several cells where lots of fields are made.


    Several cells with ENL scoring MU, but are on 0 MU on global leaderboards


    Checkpoints with legacy MU despite fields being taken down


    Also, this guy:

    "YeP tHiS dEfInItElY sEeMs LiKe MoRe FeAtUrE tHaN bUg"

  • I could probably get on board with only allowing new fields to score during a cycle. That would actually be interesting.

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭✭

    Interesting, however it provides a powerful mechanic for griefers to play the opposite faction and throw large fields covering play areas at the end of a checkpoint, forcing viruses to be used to rebuild that MU. Done correctly, it would allow the opposite team to slingshot the score at the end of a cycle. I'd rather see a MU burnout mechanic in which constantly fielded areas drop in MU value over time collectively, so neither team can utilize the area for scoring until the burnout lifts. Still allows for variety in fielding, but prevents manipulation.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    No, that is rather trolling to suggest.


    When this is what we should be expecting for the last 10 years.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    You're weird.

    We're all weirdos at the end of the day 😜

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    The mechanism that I have proposed a few times is that the scoring system be based on the difference from the last septicycle. For example:

    Septicycle 1: Orange 2000, Purple 1000, Orange wins.

    Septicycle 2: Orange 2000, Purple 1500, Purple wins because they have gained net 500 during that septicycle.

    Septicycle 3: Orange 2000, Purple 1300, Orange wins because they have gained net 200 during that septicycle.

    Why do I think this is better? It removes the incentives for standing fields and rethrowing the same fields over and over. A team can't rest on their laurels or rely on doing the same thing over and over... they have to keep improving in order to keep winning. It also makes the septicycle scoring game more competitive because even in a cell where one faction has significantly more people playing (or more person-hours available to play) the other faction has the ability to win cycles. There will be far fewer cells where one faction doesn't even try because there's no opportunity to win.

  • Only works if you can’t link under fields though. Otherwise the incentive is to leave Orange fields up.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 3

    @BoyPlankton I'm not following your logic. Leaving orange fields up is not problematic... it's just that orange isn't going to be rewarded for having that field up after the first septicycle in which it is counted. They also won't get rewarded for taking it down and rethrowing the same field.

    Allowing linking under fields actually makes this better because it means that purple can increase their score even if they're under an orange field. Without linking under fields the end state with a permanent field would be the field size for orange and zero for purple. Orange would kil... take down all of purple's fields and purple would kil... take down all of orange's except the big possibly-untouchable one. (I hate that the common four-letter word for destroying portals and fields is starred out on here.)

    Post edited by Hosette on
  • The beauty of this mechanism is that no action from Niantic is needed. All you need is a Google sheet to keep score of the delta, and the faction leaders in a scoring cell to agree that the higher delta counts as victory.

  • Purple will start to leave Orange fields standing in order to deny them MU. It’s an interesting change, but it turns big fields into a weapon against the faction that throws them if the opposing faction doesn’t have an incentive to drop them.

  • MuzzgoodMuzzgood ✭✭✭

    Good in so many ways Score is repaired.

  • gesegese ✭✭

    Imho your proposal is flawed, as it implies you have to lose a cycle every once in a while to reset your own factions score (and be able to improve your delta and therefore win again).

    This scoring mechanism would be okay for cells with permafields, where one faction doesn't have to play to always win. But only looking at the delta would be extremely discouraging for competitive cells where both factions play and (re)build lots of fields.

    You can build more and more fields and try to deny the opposing faction MUs, but eventually your MU will be so high you can't possibly improve your score (and thus won't have a positive delta), no matter how much you play and how hard you try. The opposing faction may build far less fields and still win, because they played less in the previous cycle. I believe that's not something competitive players would like to participate in (and competitive players are probably the only ones caring about Regionscores).

  • MJ78MJ78 ✭✭
    edited August 3

    Not just the score, the game is broken.

    I'm seeing ghost fields still standing, over 12 hours after they decayed.

    Yesterday evening was wasted due to this problem, yet not able to play again today, as still not resolved.

    I'm not able to rebuild fully due to the 500m links under fields.

    Previously, ghost fields resolved automatically. This time clearly not.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @gese You are correct, but I still think that a system in which one faction will "have to" lose the occasional cycle is better than one in which one faction can never win and the other faction wins without making an effort. I think that the game would be more interesting in competitive cells because factions would be strategizing to gain a slight advantage each septicycle. It would encourage both factions to compete because they would always have the opportunity to win.

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭✭

    Black screen at startup, 0 limit inventory (the new 'location inaccurate), sweeper issues, I guess they need to recharge after the anomaly.

    At least they're 'trying'. :(

Sign In or Register to comment.