[Feature Request] MU Liberated Leaderboard (and others)

2»

Comments

  • Thus, what is required is incentivizing an army of builders to block and continually clog the lanes for those fields once they come down. Incentivizing their destruction alone is insufficient.

    From original post:

    Extension B: Other leaderboard types. I'm sure people have plenty of ideas for more leaderboards such as Resonators Deployed/Upgraded, Resonators Destroyed, Total Resonator Levels Destroyed, Links Created, Links Removed, XM Recharged, etc.

    I agree with you. But those other actions don't begin until after the fields come down.

    Moreover, a MU-destruction based leaderboard has the perverse incentive that you want those layered fields to keep going back up, so that you can keep taking them down and solidify your ranking on the leaderboard. It's the reverse of someone flip carding and re-throwing their fields to solidify their ranking on the current MU-creation leaderboard, except the flip card makes it so that they don't need anyone from the opposing faction to actually do anything.

    So what you're saying is, it's no worse. Regardless, right now only the singular action of capturing MU is lauded in the game. Without the variety of play, the game is devolving into "Push everyone out so you can field unimpeded" so additional leaderboards for destruction, link creation, even deploying resonators, would give people acknowledgement that their own play activities have merit.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would simplify what @Perringaiden said. An additional leaderboard for MU destruction would acknowledge that those who take fields down contribute as much to the MU score as those who put them up.

  • GobiasGobias ✭✭✭

    The underlying problem is stagnation, lack of motivation (particularly competitive motivations), and a scoring scheme which rewards a singular play-style.

    As an alternative approach to the same problem, I would like to see each cell just be measured By a different metric, chosen at random, for each septicycle.

    One week it's a number of resonators destroyed, the next it's link km-days, then a count of portals owned at each checkpoint, followed by a recharger score.

    If it's hard to succeed in one metric - because there aren't many portals around, the area is too heavily contested to maintain anything, whatever - then there'll be a more favourable one in a few weeks.

    Maybe reward top-10 for their faction in each cycle (Rare items? Points towards a badge?)

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Gobias Your proposal seems good, but I can see issues. Most of the metrics favor one of the two factions in a cell based on player count/activity. Imagine a cell where purple constantly dominates orange because of numbers. How do your games play out? (Note: When I say always I really mean most of the time, not 100% of the time.)

    Resos destroyed: Orange always wins because there are probably 100 purple portals for every orange one. I may see a loophole, though.

    Link km-days: That would depend on the geography of the area but it's likely that purple always wins because they have more manpower to take down orange links than orange has to take down purple ones.

    Portals owned: Purple always wins.

    Recharger: It depends on how you score this. Is it total XM recharged for portals in the cell? If so, purple always wins. Is it total XM recharged by players who are currently in the cell? If so, orange could theoretically compete by getting tons of keys to portals in other cells and aggressively recharging, but they're probably competing to recharge with the orange players in the other cell who also want to win. You could also buy this with frackers... make a bunch of portals decay 50% then recharge. Repeat.

    I've said this before, but I think the only way to have competitive cell scores in as many places as possible is for the winner of a cycle to be based not on raw numbers, but on the delta from the previous cycle. For example, let's think about portals owned. Imagine that for the previous cycle purple owned 100 portals and orange owned 13, on average. If in the next cycle purple owned 100 and orange owned 17, or purple owned 95 and orange owned 13, then orange would win because they'd improved their relative position from the previous cycle.

  • NysyrNysyr ✭✭✭✭

    Destruction based scoring is a silly idea, the effort required to take something down is a fraction of putting it up in the first place.

  • gazzas89gazzas89 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Depends, while putting up a set of fields does require more work, it could take a loooot of worm to take down a spine, depending on how well shielded it is and how many people recharge.

  • NysyrNysyr ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2022

    It takes zero effort for any agent that can glyph and has ito-. Even better get a friend to auto 7 farm everything. You're spending $20 on gas driving around, throw a fracker on and have hundreds of bursters and tens of ultrastrikes in 5 minutes. I recharge 4-8mil xm of portal attacks on MU holding fields a week, how much effort do you think I put in compared to someone who rolls up to a portal for 10 minutes and walks away with enough gear to do 2m of XM damage

  • Note that leaderboards are not what determines the cycle outcome. They're merely a ranking of different people's contributions during that cycle. I'm not proposing changing the way the cycles are scored etc.

  • gazzas89gazzas89 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As someone who rocked up with over a 800 l8 busters and 250 l8 ultra strikes, it took me nearly an hour and a half to take down a spine of .... I want to say it was 24 at that stage? 24 or 32, can't remember which. I finished the day with about 20 ultra strikes and 50 busters left because of the amount of charging that got done against me over the 2 hour period it took to take them down, only ro get put back up again the next day, whereas I do a 30ish set of fields most Weekends that takes about 3 hours, but thats mostly because I walk down the spine instead of driving as I use it as exercise (going down and back is nearly a 10k walk), if I drive I can have it done I about an hour and a bit depending on clearing blockers, so from that I tend to say feeling is easier than destroying

  • Plenty of simple changes, like the one the post is about, before we need to go for big development intensive changes though. Lots of small improvements that take far lesswork than randomized scoring methods, still exist.

  • ChamyraChamyra ✭✭✭

    In addition to that I'd like a "combined" graph for built and destroyed MU, quasi built minus destroyed.

  • ChamyraChamyra ✭✭✭

    Spinning that thought: For that score/leaderboard fields could get more value the older they are. But it shouldn't be a linear increase, rather it needs to be capped at a certain age, so it doesn't become useful to let enemy fields up for too long.

  • ShottixShottix ✭✭✭✭

    Not sure I like this idea. Kind of rewards someone for killing an anchor portal attatched to fields that took someone else hours to build?

  • mortuusmortuus ✭✭✭✭✭

    it doesnt take hours to throw some fields from anchors.

  • That is exactly the point. Right now there's no incentive for people to take down big fields. Even less now that you can just ignore them if you're willing to stay in a small area.

    Creation requires destruction. If fields stay up forever, people get bored and quit. Dynamism is the only real way to keep a game like Ingress active and well populated, and we've just had two years of really stagnant play that has become "The fields over me are too hard to stop, I'll just quit" declarations.

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    Denial of opportunity is exactly how Ingress is currently played. People don't build up or don't participate so people don't have the opportunity to play. Moreover, until recently, the goal was to make large fields over others with far spacing so they couldn't do anything until they quit.


    I'd much rather see some sort of rotating leaderboard or questing system that procedurally generated based on the current lack within the cell. Don't have lots of MU? Run a streak of "highest MU count this day/week gets XYZ bonus". Next turnover it'll be whoever makes the most fields. the next, whomever tears down the most fields, etc.

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Shottix There are two ways that I can contribute to the cell score-- throwing fields for my faction or taking down the other faction's fields. Each of those things contributes equally to the cell score, with the same conditions about making checkpoints. The people who create fields get their names in lights but the person who books it to an anchor and kills a big field two minutes before checkpoint gets no recognition for their contribution. I think it would make region scoring more dynamic if they did.

  • Far too complex and would cause players to be annoyed at being "forced" into gameplay styles they don't enjoy. Have all the leaderboards every time, and let people enjoy the parts they want, instead of continually trying to fit them into the box you define.

  • ChamyraChamyra ✭✭✭

    I like the rotation idea, makes it less stagnant / boring. And i don't see it as "forcing" people to play a certain style as @Perringaiden says. You play for the score or you don't. You aren't forced to do it. Same as it is right now.

  • ShottixShottix ✭✭✭✭

    Possibly, as a person who plays the cell score I'm not convinced that having a leader board for liberation would make anything change, the people who **** the fields would do so anyway, and they would still go back up the same. There's only so many times people will be bothered to **** a field. Sometimes the more you **** it the more MU you're gifting the opposite team. I don't see anything that would change people's gameplay. There is essentially 2 games in one and people play what they want to. I would rather see a much more dynamic cell scoring system.

  • ShottixShottix ✭✭✭✭

    No idea what word I said that the forum didn't like....

  • HosetteHosette ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Shottix That word you used is probably similar to "keel", and typically means taking a life but in this case you used it to mean destroying a field. I've had that one starred out so many times...

  • edited April 2022

    The ban list is so odd and very focused on "You can't say completely innocuous things if someone somewhere might take offense" because they didn't curate a list, they just grabbed one that's overly broad. Peppa **** and Jim Panzee the Grumpy **** get blacklisted.

  • ShottixShottix ✭✭✭✭

    Ridiculous isn't it. As if we are all 12 years old.

Sign In or Register to comment.