Remote infections.

SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭
edited November 2022 in General

So - in Australia, we have a number of red outbreaks in remote areas.

Some of these are over 1000km from the nearest agent and would cost a lot to get to and remove, (driving, fuel/flights, accommodation etc).

Now - I'm all for this infection, its been super interesting and fun doing science on them.

But. If we need to continually travel huge distances to remove these, and if they spread to inaccessible mine sites*/BGAN areas etc, they will become a massive issue. No agent here is going to make multiple trips like that just to k ill them.

*For information - Western Australia has a lot of mines, these often have portals. Usually only staff and contractors have intermittent access to them, but if the mine closes, the areas basically inaccessible to anyone. They are mostly out in the middle of the desert, huge distances apart.

Also - Russia & Belarus - redfections should be removed from this region. Nobody will be able to link across the area at current spread rates and nobody can do anything about them,

Anyway - hopefully Niantic have already thought of these things and they won't be an issue.


  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't see an issue with those so much. If they are in recharge range... And if both factions have them.

    If you argue that, then all inaccessible portals should be removed. (I'm looking at private businesses, military bases).

    Which I fully support the removal of. 1 person having access in the whole city because they work there just sucks.

  • DrHydrosaurDrHydrosaur ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2022

    Back to the original post, a lot depends on the maximum link distance of these remote portals. If it’s anything like our remote areas here in Canada then these mine portals will grow and saturate the local area to a point where the nearest neutral portal is 50+ km away.

    We don’t yet know the machina’s maximum link distance. If it’s less than 10 km then this growth will be limited.

    I’ve also seen what looks like red portal decay on some portals (5% at a time, a level 3 red portal was at all resos 20% and I find it hard to believe someone attacked it that evenly). If these portals can decay, even if just randomly, it could allow them to reach a local equilibrium without.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    They do decay - but they recharge also - usually at level up time.

    I took one down to a single resonator that was a hair above 0 - it decayed and the portal went grey.

    Yes, link range will be critical.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    Red faction portals are still new, we are still learning about them.

    Once we know more. It may be that only an occasional visit to one is necessary to ward off the incursion/ingression

  • Might be an obvious answer, but if the mine closes, maybe the portal should be gone too? Assuming the portals are bound to the mine itself.

    While I can see it’s certainly annoying but it makes the game more interesting and more challenging. While having red blocking a lane indefinitely doesn’t sound fun, but maybe, no one else should have that lane indefinitely without putting more work into it? Besides, I guess if the new faction knows to avoid our pain points, then they are pretty much…not a faction .

    It also feels now is a bit too early to conclude that the red portals stays forever i.e. decay is a thing. Who knows, maybe when the first infected portal decay, everything else will die? Or if they have a certain kind of cycle?

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    Hard to tell though - sites can be mothballed - often you would have to directly contact the company running the minesite to tell if it was closed/mothballed etc. Re agent visits, sometimes contractors go in at commission, then never go back.

    Its part of the reason I think all corporate and military sites should go.

  • Even a 10m link can block fields. The link range is not the issue. The link in and of itself is. If these are spawning in remote areas with no players, then that's going to become a huge issue.

    Especially for Africa. A lot of COUNTRIES have portals but no players. If a red portal spawns there and links, that will stay indefinitely unless these things can decay.

  • VaskinCallVaskinCall ✭✭✭✭

    Option #1:

    - Get your team together and take down all the links to the Karelian portal you hate so much

    Option #2:

    Start whining for Niantic in RF to turn the game back on 😅

  • IMO let the spread. When they're near enough to people to matter, people can react. When they're not, they don't matter.

  • You forget a third scenario.

    When they're not near but matter. If we plan an Op to field Africa, and there's a red link that shows up in Malawi blocking our lanes, we're screwed. Malawi no longer has players. If these things don't decay we'll sit with eternal blockers.

    Same goes for the DRC, Gabon, Burundi, Zambia, Mozambique, Madagascar (this has red portals now), Somalia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Central African Republic... actually it would be easier to mention the countries that have active players. And even most of those would be limited to one city in that country.

  • GreenVamGreenVam ✭✭✭✭✭

    And since then it is forbidden to recruit agents in African countries ???

  • You would need to be IN the country to recruit them, right? If they don't install ingress and show up on comm, there's no way for us to recruit anyone.

  • GreenVamGreenVam ✭✭✭✭✭

    When we did not have enough agents to conduct the first Saturday, our resistance gained agents recruiting random people playing Pokemon. And you just need to get acquainted with people from other countries, give ads to local announcement boards and so on.

    Show creativity and agents will come themselves.

  • RebelDaveRebelDave ✭✭
    edited November 2022

    I like the new challenge of random red links that cause blocks. It will reduce the huge permafields that has kept new players from playing in those covered regions. If a player with disposable income is so inclined to k*ll a block. Then so be it. Back in the days of guardian hunters, a particular player would think nothing of hopping on a flight just to k*ll a guardian. If a particular portal is truly inaccessible, then it needs to be submitted to be removed. (apparently the word, k*ll = K I L L, is a bad word on this forum)

  • VenomousToadVenomousToad ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think people are giving more weight to ops than is deserved. If you have enough people for an op then consider yourself lucky. But in reality most places don't even bother anymore because there aren't enough players. Really this red faction is just another opponent to play against which is a good thing. Having activity will encourage more players. If links in inaccessible areas gets in the way then go around. If you have enough players it isn't an issue

  • I know it's not cut-and-dry, but here are some thoughts not mentioned yet.

    • Places that used to be able to throw 2000 and 4000 mile links now can't anymore, because red links get in the way.
    • Other places never could throw 2000 and 4000 mile links, because blue and green links get in the way.
    • Now people everywhere must clear faraway links, in order to make very long links. Or design a plan that goes around short links.

    Meanwhile, a in new agent a remote area...

    • will have something fun to do - deal with the red faction.
    • Hopefully, agents of their own faction will see their activity and reach out. They will be important, not obscure.

  • The form of spawns and deploy requires dense portals. Plan better links that don't pass through infected areas.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2022

    Clearing remote portals is OK. They are expensive and time consuming to get to, which limits the ability of opposing team to put blockers back in.

    Now we have automated blockers spawning at random locations, at 0 cost to any faction. Players are NOT going to continually travel at great expense to k ill blocks when a new one can just pop up randomly at the whim of an algorithm.

    I concur with Azhreia - as to recruiting agents - yeah that's very difficult as proven over the life of Ingress. Plus a lot of regions have very low populations to recruit from.

    It's easy for those in populous areas to deal with this. (Europe, Americas, Asia). Africa and Australia, especially Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory have immense empty distances.

    Western Australia ^ Total population 2.7 million. 75% of which are all in the lower southwest capital.

    Red spawns should be based around player activity in cells IMHO.

  • NysyrNysyr ✭✭✭✭

    I mean if were talking about mines...

    This sounds like a candidate that shouldn't exist since everything there is company owned

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2022

    Same as any number of Enl/Res factory/wharf/mines/military sites.

    They should ALL be removed.

    Being Res, we would lose MANY key sites, but it would be better for the game as a whole I believe. And this is OT.

  • How many red spawns in Tom Price? Wiluna? Laverton?

    Machina requires 40 portals within an S12 cell, based on current deployment, to have a single spawn. And links are limited in scope. All those places that are hard to get to are also very light on portals. As long as the current hypothesis holds, there won't be remote blockers in the middle of no-where, because anywhere with that many portals close together is far more likely to be a tourist resort or pass through town that can be identified, watched, and controlled.

    You want to ensure Exmouth doesn't have any red leading up to an Op? Deploy an R1 on each portal there, and keep them recharged.

    New landscape, new tactics, new gameplay.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2022

    Oh you found the one in Exmouth? ($700 return flight plus car hire n accommodation). There's a lot of towns out there with 40+ portals in a S12 cell... You're not seriously expecting us to store 100's extra keys?

    Post edited by SSSputnik on
  • KhatreKhatre ✭✭✭✭✭

    Or use the red portal to remove POI never used.

    if a POI is l8 for 4 or 5 full cycle the portal is destroyed by the infection?

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    Remote deployed portals are kept for strategic reasons like shards...

  • edited November 2022

    Nah, but I'd expect you to plan better than to try and send a link through an area that you know could have an outbreak at any cycle.

    Fail to plan, plan to fail.

    There's a lot of towns out there with 40+ portals in a S12 cell...

    In Western Australia? Uh, that's like throwing a tennis ball through an empty sqkm warehouse and trying to miss all the supports.

    It ain't that hard.

  • There will be cases where there just isn't another option but to link through an area with red portals.

    You can't justify that with "Plan better".

    Especially when you have red links come up around a remote anchor that's been standing for a couple of months/years.

    This issue may not occur often, but it will be a huge problem when it does.

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    What Azhreia says - Most targets are known strategics, the one's people have keys for etc.

    It could be quite tricky NOT using specific paths.

Sign In or Register to comment.