Using NIA Ops Approved Format Of Missions For An Event Competition
Using NIA Ops Approved Format Of Missions For An Event Competition
Something that we have encountered at Project Isthmus during the past year is a thing we have watched our friends at CLIME also experience… Both our groups have wanted to use Missions in a manner that is slightly different than Ingress intended. This also heavily applies to #FS #FirstSaturday events. After A LOT of thought on the topic, I have the following proposal/method that I’d like to release, both in hopes that it can solve the problem & also to gather community feedback, as many of you may have ideas to improve upon this idea!
Problem Statement: Ingress players who host events would sometimes like to use Missions for competitions at their events. As is, there is no way to either schedule a mission’s release date & time – nor is there the ability to “password protect” the start of a mission. This results in the inability to use Missions to gate a competition, because they must be published early and can then be started by a player prior to the actual event.
Proposed Solution: Publish a set of missions early, instead of just one mission. Have these missions meet NIA Ops criteria (IE no passwords, etc..) Then at the start of the event reveal the sequence in which the missions must appear on the agent profile to meet the win criteria. It would even be possible to have a mission that is used as a disqualifier. Because the sequence is not known ahead of time, it is impossible to complete them to win ahead of time.
Example: (See Graphic for alternate display of this section.)
A) In this example, a group known as EventHost wants to have an event that uses “Mission” to determine the winner of a competition. They have chosen to use missions that are Glyph names.
B) A week+ prior to the start of the event, the following 7 missions go live at an event site:
NATURE, CONFLICT, SHAPERS, ATTACK, CHAOS, LIBERATE, SEE
C) Each Mission has text that states “NOTE: This mission is part of an event set. Do NOT do this mission prior to the start of the event. Please visit EventHost G+ to learn more about the event.
D) At the start of the event, both at the physical location as well as on G+, the following information is given:
“Please complete the event missions in this sequence to qualify. Be the first to notify EventHost you have completed them to be verified as the winner.” (Be sure to specify notification method.)
CONFLICT, ATTACK, NATURE, SEE, SHAPERS, CHAOS
E) Optionally, also include this:
“If you have not heeded the warnings to avoid doing these missions until the start of the event, please know that if you have the following mission completed you will be disqualified from winning:”
LIBERATE
Known Shortcomings: This method does not really allow for any aspect of “mystery/trivia/unknown path of portals” to be leveraged, as all of these prompts could be flushed out early by attempting the missions prior to the start of the event. To me this seems a minor trade off.
Thoughts?
Andrew Krug Andrew Krug CLIME Divina Benitez Troche evil witch Charlie P Dionisi Linda Besh Anne Beuttenmüller NIA Ops Niantic Verity Seke Haerang Dong John Hanke Ingress
NIA needs to have in general more respect for player structure of missions.
ReplyDelete1) Stop worrying and love the Banners. Let players make any dumb thing they like, a 300 mission banner, whatever. Make it official: allow players to not have a set of missions approved until ALL of them are approved. Then, fix the mission interface (hide completed, and allow players to hide banner components, revealing only the start point.)
2) Allow players to have more control over mission release. Set a date for release in the control panel, and if the mission is approved by that date, it appears. Also, allow unpublish dates, at which point the mission automatically disappears from public view. Perhaps it can remain in a frozen preapproved state that allows it to be returned without re-approval if desired.
3) Allow missions to have prerequisites of other missions. Handy for protecting people from inadvertently doing banners they don't want to do. Also good for mystery missions like you describe. Prerequisites could be only things you made, for simplicity's sake.
4) Allow editing of minor attributes (visibility, prerequisites) without reapproval.
None of these things are harmful, and actively aid players in making the missions they want, and in fact even help players who don't want to participate.
Matt Stevenson I like it! :D
ReplyDeleteReally I like more the ítem E).
Ítem D) is a good idea, but it limite to the agents to make only one sequence and don't have others choises, in this way is very easy for one faction "block" to the other faction blocking one portal..
Maybe if there are more valid sequences it will be better x)
While we're suggesting mission changes, how about have a way that you can see what missions a portal is included on while using the scanner? If there is a long string of hack any order portals, say like on a trail and you are at the "end" of the trail you won't be able to see mission to be able to start it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, why aren't there loop or circle missions where you can start anywhere along the ring and continue either direction?
Ivan Russell the ability to have a mission chain that starts in either direction is something I've wanted for years
ReplyDeleteWould be fun. I like the idea😁
ReplyDeleteMatt Stevenson These are great proposals. I fully support them. What do you think John Hanke?
ReplyDelete