Portal moves.

SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

So, these days, spoofed links can be reinstated, with cross links allowed.

Can Niantic now implement the movement of portals via Wayfarer, without dropping links?

Why? Portal movements are often done for malicious reasons to drop links. Implementing link retention would negate a lot of false move requests whilst preserving links.

The only negative I can see would be if there were many moves in portal dense areas. Usually however, dense areas are also high turnover.




  • ZeroHecksGivenZeroHecksGiven ✭✭✭✭✭

    This inadvertently happened over the summer and luckily, in my factions favor. Had been to a portal on the coast, it was pretty far off from where it should be, put in a very legit location edit and moved on. Months and months later, the portal is now being used as an anchor to a pretty large field and I get the email that the edit was approved. Boom, next day, fields down. Worked out pretty well, but it definitely felt a little cheap and I know I’d be annoyed if I were on the other side of it. I’d also probably assume it was done with ill intentions unfortunately.

    So yeah, I’m all for this!

  • MoogModularMoogModular ✭✭✭✭✭

    With lower activity, I feel like a move request should see if there's been recent activity at the portal

  • mortuusmortuus ✭✭✭✭✭

    portal move should not mess with links

  • NysyrNysyr ✭✭✭✭

    Probably too much work but portal moves should be queued up on non-neutral portals and only complete once portals gone neutral. Ingress isn't the dataset anymore so it wouldn't impact the other games since it's all stored in lightship

  • gazzas89gazzas89 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I mean, if edits do go through, 9 tines put of 10 it's because they were in the wrong place, that's usually why the edits get through. Not saying it isn't cheated through, that's why it's only 9 tines out of 10. As for keeping the links alive, sometimes the move will make it so some fields aren't possible on a spine, so im guessing that's why, plus, if the links were kept live where a portal was, it mught be hard to destroy correctly especially if the edit is a fair bit (such as a request to niantic through the wayfarer chat)

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    I had not thought about spine fields.

    That could be a spanner in the works.

  • gazzas89gazzas89 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Bot even spines, imagine if a portal had a link of it, the link passed within like a meter or 2 of another portal with a link coming from it, then an edit for the first portal goes through which would then intersect the second portals link, that's an illegal link, what would win, the first link that was moved or the second one?

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭
  • If Niantic changes the process to NOT drop links on edits, then both links will still exist until a portal on either end is dropped.

  • Niantic already queues pictures for Ingress, and look how that's going. They wait 6 months to a year between photo syncs. If location changes were also delayed - it would just add more mess to this big mess.

    Edits (including photos) should be implemented when they're approved. Being complicated is just not going to work.

  • InvestigateXMInvestigateXM ✭✭✭✭✭

    Make no mistake, the photos being delayed is not an intentional change, it is a bug thats over 2 years old at this point, I believe. They should sync daily if everything worked as it should.

  • gazzas89gazzas89 ✭✭✭✭✭

    But then there wpuld be an illegal lonl as they cross each other. Or, if you're saying the link stays where the portal was but the portal moves, then it would be really confusing

  • No, the link moves with the portal. It would then also cross any other links that may end up crossing its path.

    The portal reset process does the same. If a spoofed portal is reset with links, those links will cross any other links that may have been put up in the meantime.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, would still work then. @ofer2 Can you make it happen :)

Sign In or Register to comment.