[14:22] <ccp_mimic> Hi guys. Sorry for the silence from all of us of late...it has been a bit manic here with patches, vacations, sickness and all that fun stuff. I ve been through all the logs and have the jist of your points. I have a few questions from you all though:
[14:24] <ccp_mimic> 1. What do you see being different about a "Freeport" Citadel as apposed to one that has been set to Public docking in the ACL? As each of the individual settings associated with the structure(s) can also be individually set I see no clear reason for a specific "All may pass, for free!" option, when this currently exists
[14:25] <ccp_mimic> ...on second thought, i'll leave the rest of the questions to after we have this answered so that the chat stays structured
[14:25] <ccp_mimic> @channel: ^ (sorry, I suck at slack) [cc: focusgrouplogbot]
[14:26] <querns> the gimmick behind the "freeport" idea is that you force public docking for all in a way that cannot be rescinded easily
[14:27] <querns> the worst-case scenario that proponents of freeport envision is accepting a courier contract, and then being denied the right to dock
[14:27] <kennethfeld> public access takes someone 2 seconds to rescind
[14:27] <querns> or that the hauler (important note: rarely if ever the contract accepter) just can't dock at all
[14:27] <kennethfeld> making a "Freeport" should involve something that is hard or complicated to revoke to give a sense of security to someone accepting or hauling a contract
[14:30] <kennethfeld> ccp_mimic: does that make sense? more so from the standpoint of hauling companies in particular - but in general people re contract couriers to alts to dodge wardecs etc, so not only do they have to be able to dock to pick it up, but also their hauler - who may well be in a NPC corp to avoid wardecs, but also dock in the destination
[14:30] <kennethfeld> it is helps, think of it as someone delivering a courier from jita to a nullsec outpost now, vs a lowsec station
[14:30] <kennethfeld> no one would assume they can dock in a nullsec outpost, but they can assume they can dock in a lowsec station
[14:31] <kennethfeld> but now, you essentially have citadels owned by hundreds of entities all over, all trying to be the next Jita and once contracts are enabled, Once we start making scam contracts, access is going to be a big deal
[14:38] <ccp_mimic> That makes perfect sense, but I (as Citadel Owner A, a true and upstanding member of society) see no advantage whatsoever to ever set that if its going to take me 7/14/30 days to change. If I deem the world to be trustworthy, I want to be able to change my mind as soon as someone messes with me. Yes this is a pain in the arse for haulers and Couriers Accepters alike, but its not really different from the current mechanic (until we get to scamming, which we will in a bit) so why spend dev time on something that already exists?
[14:42] <kennethfeld> It is exactly opposite of the current mechanic, which is everythign in high sec is dockable
[14:42] <ccp_mimic> And I'm thinking purely from the Citadel owner's perspective...we will look at it from hauler alts/acceptors/deliverers and outside postboxes in a bit. I just want to know if you guys would ever actually use that setting (as a citadel owner) and how you see it as different from what it currently is
[14:42] <ccp_mimic> no, only stations are dockable. Not all citadels are
[14:43] <kennethfeld> right, that is why i said today is 180 out from previous
[14:43] <kennethfeld> 6 months ago, there was no way to block docking for a high sec courier
[14:44] <steveronuken> Right now, contracts to outposts aren't so risky. Because there's a relatively limited number of them, and the people with the rights to change them are fairly restricted. Also, they're _all_ in nullsec, so the range of people delivering to them is also restricted. Citadels will be in highsec. There are evil scambags in high.
[14:44] <kennethfeld> As far as the "freeport" setting - we said from the beginning that it should come with the possibility of having wartargets on a acl, so WT couldn't benefit from the citadel - although that shouldn't hold up release, but should be forthcoming
[14:45] <kennethfeld> and iwould personallyuse it on my high sec alt citadels
[14:45] <kennethfeld> it gives a false sense of trust for a minimum number of days where you know someone can't deny you access
[14:46] <ccp_mimic> I agree @steveronuken :slightly_smiling_face: for now let's look at situations that aren't currently under the outpost situation (of risk being inherent and you may not be able to dock, etc) In HS its a bit tricky. @kennethfeld I agree on the WT/benefit front too
[14:47] <kennethfeld> in nullsec, if someone is in local and is docked from the owning corp- there is a chance they can change outpost cofiguration
[14:48] <ccp_mimic> yes. Let's keep this to the problem of HS for now
[14:48] <kennethfeld> citadels that doesn't apply, i can login an alt in stain and change the setting for a ACL that cover 10 citadels from amarr to jita to maila, to Saranen simultaneously, with no owning member in local
[14:48] <kennethfeld> I was keepign it highsec, just had to add the second thought
[14:48] <ccp_mimic> :slightly_smiling_face:
[14:48] <kennethfeld> once it is added to crest, i don't even have to login to look at it
[14:49] <kennethfeld> I can look and see when a contract is accepted via crest and revoke access via crest - using a script, i don't even have to be by the computer
[14:49] <ccp_mimic> ok...so If I want to build a budding market hub, Jita 2.0, then it is in my best interest to keep the doors open (WTs excluded) yes?
[14:49] <kennethfeld> yes
[14:49] <kennethfeld> look at this
[14:50] <kennethfeld> how many people place buy orders 1 jump from jita to avoid taxes KNOWING they will be filled in jita
[14:50] <kennethfeld> vs
[14:50] <kennethfeld> how many sell 1 jump out of jita knowing they can lose access even though they save on taxes?
[14:52] <steveronuken> The problem I see isn't deliveries to Jita/jita 2. It's the deliveries elsewhere, for 'manufacturers'. Is it a real delivery? Is it a scam? :slightly_smiling_face: Now, if you could look at the contract history for someone... :wink:
[14:52] <ccp_mimic> I know what you are saying, and I am not trying to brush this off, but that is actually a different question all together, and not what I am asking
[14:53] <steveronuken> shuts his gob for now :smile:
[14:53] <ccp_mimic> I am asking why a whole new timed version of the ACL is better than any other option
[14:54] <kennethfeld> ccp_mimic: this may be semantics, but technically,we are asking for a timed profile
[14:54] <ccp_mimic> :slightly_smiling_face: and we might find that it uis...I'm not saying its a bad idea...but we keep going in circles, so lets find out what we actually don't know...
[14:55] <ccp_mimic> ok. So we have Option A: a timed ACL. Good. Now for the next questions I had for you guys ... :slightly_smiling_face:
[14:55] <ccp_mimic> The Hauler alts/Acceptor Alts question...
[14:55] <steveronuken> What would be nice is if you could get time limited keys for structures. just 'bearer can dock'. But I suspect that's hellish to do.
[14:55] <kennethfeld> the problem with keys is ripe for abuse
[14:56] <ccp_mimic> ^^ this :confused:
[14:56] <kennethfeld> we are a seedy crowd
[14:56] <ccp_mimic> lol indeed.
[14:56] <ccp_mimic> Okay. so on to acceptors vs haulers...
[14:57] <ccp_mimic> Do you not currently need your Accepter and Hauler Alt to be in the smae location at one point in order to pass over the oackage that needs to be hauled?
[14:57] <ccp_mimic> excuse typos...getting coffee now to fix this...
[14:58] <kennethfeld> ONLY if the courier contains an assembled container
[14:58] <kennethfeld> which is also a scam tactic
[14:59] <steveronuken> You can't put contracts with containers into other contracts. If you didn't know :slightly_smiling_face:
[14:59] <steveronuken> (you probably did. but assumptions can be dangerous)
[14:59] <kennethfeld> assembled containers
[14:59] <kennethfeld> packaged ones are fine
[14:59] <steveronuken> :stuck_out_tongue:
[15:00] <steveronuken> Been a while since I checked. that would include ships, right? or not?
[15:00] <kennethfeld> I was just thinking to myself about that, never tried to recontract an assembled ship since bowheads came out and I can't remember
[15:04] <ccp_mimic> Okay...so how about this ""CRAZY""" statement....how about if we stop letting you put assembled containers (except ships ofc) into contracts...?
[15:04] <kennethfeld> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoo
[15:04] <ccp_mimic> lol
[15:04] <kennethfeld> that was a personal plea
[15:05] <ccp_mimic> why? you just said they cause all these problems
[15:05] <kennethfeld> I have literally hundreds of freight containers that i rotate between alts due to the inability to have shared hangar access among alts
[15:05] <kennethfeld> I may NOT be the norm and I understand, but i have 3 facades
[15:06] <kennethfeld> Kenneth the PL guy
[15:06] <kennethfeld> Kenneth the highsec JF corp and industryguy
[15:06] <kennethfeld> Kenneth the nullsec under constant wardec Titan builder and industry guy
[15:07] <kennethfeld> Keeping stuff straight between those 3 entities would be horribly difficult without being able to contract containers
[15:08] <kennethfeld> that being said, because they are all me, i don't have the need to re courier stuff to myself
[15:08] <kennethfeld> I trust myself implicitly
[15:10] <ccp_mimic> you sure that's a good idea?
[15:11] <kennethfeld> ouch
[15:12] <ccp_mimic> okay...so would a shared inventory not be better? (please note that I shall now be beheaded by my team for suggesting such a thing)...Would you own internal space in a structure, that you can grant ACL access to (to your alts, and george the cat if you so wish) be easier to manage?
[15:13] <kennethfeld> OK, backstory, i was basically one of the first people in structures slack and that was the very FIRST question posed to Nullarbor roughly 18 months ago
[15:13] <ccp_mimic> ok sorry
[15:13] <ccp_mimic> I take it back then
[15:13] <kennethfeld> Also, i typically do my transfers in lowsec stations, soit wouldn't help memuch there :disappointed:
[15:14] <kennethfeld> he said it was some sort of legacy code assets thing and then he cried a little
[15:14] <ccp_mimic> It also doesn't solve the problem of Kenneth the Hauler moving things for multiple people all in one go...filling up the whole container tanker rather than just a single contract at a time
[15:14] <kennethfeld> correct
[15:15] <kennethfeld> the hauling companies have tons of crap fromall sorts of people and keeping it straight would be a nightmare i would imagine
[15:15] <cassie_helio> >ccp_mimic [10:04 AM]
[15:15] <cassie_helio> Okay...so how about this ""CRAZY""" statement....how about if we stop letting you put assembled containers (except ships ofc) into contracts...?
[15:15] <cassie_helio> Instead of this, a suggestion was made to show when courier contracts have a container in them BEFORE accepting the contract because the contents of courier contract can not be seen before accepting it and putting up the collateral.
[15:16] <ccp_mimic> yup. That was going to be the compromise on that front. I just wanted to see if there was a way to solve the reason why people put containers in there in the first place
[15:17] <kennethfeld> I'll give you one other reason i use containers personally - I got tired of getting to nullsec and realizing I left a ship in highsec cause I forgot to load it from the my ship hangar into a JF and then had to make an extra trip to get it
[15:23] <cassie_helio> Also, to add to the conversation, the idea of the "Timed ACL" was because for citadels to have a reasonable expectation of having people deliver courier contracts to them, people have to know they can dock or else no one will take contracts to them. The idea was that if a citadel owner was trying to make a "trade" focused citadel they could have the option to turn on the freeport mode to have people reliably deliver to the citadel by knowing they can dock.
[15:23] <cassie_helio> Of course if the citadel owner does not want this, they do not have to use that option.
[15:26] <ccp_mimic> which in my mind is still not different to the current situation. It is in the owner's best interests to keep access open if they want to grow their business. They take a risk of who they let in, but the couriers also take a risk that they will be able to get it. The trust must therefore be on both sides
[15:26] <ccp_mimic> couriers already risk delivery to outposts...this is the same (in my mind)
[15:27] <cassie_helio> The difference is if haulers have no guarantee to dock, it negates from the success of making the citadel a "trade" citadel. There is no mechanic in citadels to support the reliability that stations provide.
[15:27] <ccp_mimic> yes
[15:27] <ccp_mimic> except for the promise of profit
[15:28] <cassie_helio> Well, citadels are different than outposts in a few ways
[15:28] <cassie_helio> 1. They do not require sov
[15:28] <cassie_helio> 2. Many factors cheaper
[15:28] <cassie_helio> 3. Can be placed in any space, not only null
[15:28] <cassie_helio> Any individual can now own a citadel with many times less effort than puting up an outpost in null
[15:29] <ccp_mimic> yes. but that is not what we are talking about :slightly_smiling_face: we are simply discussing the risk/reward of being able to haul something to an outpost and deliver it.
[15:30] <ccp_mimic> Expecting to be able to run a profitable and attractive trade hub from the get go is a bit of a stretch...these things take time and reputation, and strategic planning on placement and all sorts of things
[15:30] <ccp_mimic> This is not a "place citadel, get bacon" situation if you want it to work properly
[15:30] <kennethfeld> also, there is no mechanism to tell if you can dock in a citadel outside of a region
[15:30] <kennethfeld> without going there
[15:30] <ccp_mimic> ^now that is a problem that can be solved
[15:31] <kennethfeld> we proposed adding a drop down to the structure browser like the contract window with a list of all regions
[15:32] <ccp_mimic> *scribbles more notes coz she missed that one*
[15:35] <kennethfeld> on a personal note, i proposed this months ago....when we found out about buy and sell order visibility on citadels, that when you launch a citadel, you could check a box and make it a public citadel no matter what (except WT's) and there would be only 2 ways to make it stop - unanchor or explode. BUT - this would add your market to the api/crest engine
[15:35] <kennethfeld> but, i think that became to involved as well
[15:35] <kennethfeld> at the time, we were trying to solves way to make a citadel a viable jita trade hub replacementand without order visibility it is very hard
[15:43] <cassie_helio> CCP Mimic, to continue on our conversation above, it depends on the direction CCP wants to go with citadels. If it is desirable to have mechanic support trade at citadels in a new way that encourages trade, the "Timed ACL" is something that we think is reasonable. Otherwise, citadels will be treated much like outpost are now which if that is the desired effect that is fine also. :slightly_smiling_face:
[15:43] <steveronuken> (adding /universe/location to the list of public endpoints would also be needed. so you can resolve name and system)
[15:43] <steveronuken> (citadels IDs are huge)
[15:43] <cassie_helio> guid?
[15:45] <kennethfeld> To what cassie_helio said, we were persuing this from a most inclusive point of view, but closing them off and making hauling companies persue diplomatic relations with all the owners is the flip side
[15:46] <kennethfeld> also, an ACL owner cannot see where their ACL is being used ie - if I owned a hauling company and provide an ACL to a citadel owner for docking rights, i have no idea if they are using my ACL or not
[15:47] <kennethfeld> we won't get into the HORRIFIC security concerns with using someone else's acl...
[15:47] <steveronuken> Just large numbers :slightly_smiling_face: Broke my market app when the buy orders started showing up.
[16:04] <nasantha> Just caught up guys (and girls). As to people who use containers. If they have over 200 items that they need shipping, they either need to be in a container or the contract needs splitting which can be a PITA for some individuals.
[16:05] <ccp_mimic> argh...I forgot about that part of it
[16:05] <kennethfeld> LOL
[16:06] <ccp_mimic> and if we magically made the amount of items that can be in the contract bigger...
[16:06] <kennethfeld> I can't count the number of time i cussed cause i couldn't contract an archon - either for line limit due to drone or drugs in cargo
[16:06] <ccp_mimic> as long as volume is not exceeded...
[16:07] <nasantha> that would probably be a big help for some
[16:07] <nasantha> We get contracts from a salvager once a week and he regularly needs to split the contract into 4 or 5 because of the item limit
[16:08] <kennethfeld> seeing a container before accepting would help a TON - like you can with an item exchange contract - even if it is a pop up saying assembeld container
[16:08] <nasantha> True, that and an increased item number would be super :slightly_smiling_face:
[16:09] <ccp_mimic> kk, added to notes
[16:10] <kennethfeld> that only solves the problem for handoffs
[16:10] <kennethfeld> although,it does open the door for some sort of remote pickup/delivery
[16:14] <ccp_mimic> Okay...next big question: I am Hauler Alt A. I have a contract package and am merrily flying along about to deliver it. I am only concerned with delivering it to the person/alt/supreme overlord that I accepted it from and therefore have a contract with. But when I arrive at the destination...it is a smoking pile of rubble. Are you all okay with the fact that I now have to deliver to the Asset Safety location that was auto-picked when the Citadel went boom?
[16:18] <nasantha> As long as there is an alert to indicate the change of location then typically that would not be a big issue. Worst would be if you got there before noticing the change of destination only to land in the middle of a fleet of ships (for example)
[16:18] <nasantha> not much you can do if you have have already entered warp and it blows up but even a minute or two's warning and it would generally be ok
[16:19] <steveronuken> I'd suggest, if possible, automatic extension by 5 days or so?
[16:19] <steveronuken> So you don't have to deliver, until the things would be delivered by asset safety?
[16:19] <kennethfeld> in all but a few cases in high sec the delivery would be in the system
[16:20] <kennethfeld> if in low or null, the cyno would let you know there isn't a structure
[16:20] <steveronuken> more for dealing with deep null. When it could be several cynos back
[16:20] <nasantha> actually steve has a point, the contract delivery time would need to be extended
[16:21] <kennethfeld> well, if it is RF'd, you either deliver quickly or wait for the explosion - takes 7 days
[16:21] <nasantha> unless courier contracts became instantaneously able to be delivered from the asset safety station
[16:22] <kennethfeld> oh, yeah, i was assuming they would be - but nothing really is until they decide to put up another citadel and re coup - that can be up to 20 days
[16:22] <kennethfeld> actual forced asset safety doesn't happen for 20 days
[16:22] <kennethfeld> anything from 1-19 is manual only
[16:23] <kennethfeld> if you anchor on 18.5 days in the system, you can get allyour stuff back in system for free
[16:27] <ccp_mimic> The chances of this happening are very small (and mean you have terribly bad timing and so probably annoyed the gods in some way anyway and therefore deserve having to make the extra jumps) so can we take this as a yes? Just for this question?
[16:28] <kennethfeld> well, assuming the citadel explodes before you deliver, can you deliver to asset safety station immediately,or only after asset safety is invoked?
[16:28] <kennethfeld> if you can deliver immediately - then I don't see a problem
[16:28] <ccp_mimic> that makes no sense...
[16:28] <kennethfeld> then if they do put up another citadel, they have to move the stuff from that lowsec station to nullsec again
[16:29] <ccp_mimic> yes...they should have been better at guarding their citadel...
[16:29] <kennethfeld> ccp_mimic: you question was: Are you all okay with the fact that I now have to deliver to the Asset Safety location that was auto-picked when the Citadel went boom?
[16:29] <ccp_mimic> yes
[16:29] <kennethfeld> I was under the impression asset safety station was AUTO picked for 20 days
[16:30] <kennethfeld> you have 20 days to recover your items before the automatically go to asset safety
[16:31] <ccp_mimic> yes, but the location is picked as soon as it goes boom...unless you (as the asset owner) build a citadel in the same system
[16:31] <ccp_mimic> You as a courier need be unconcerned and just want to deliver the package
[16:31] <kennethfeld> which predicted my second question, if you can deliver immediately, that is fine
[16:32] <kennethfeld> andif you can deliver and the owner builds a new citadel, they have to get their crap from the lowsec station to their citadel as the courier was delivered to the auto asset safety station
[16:33] <nasantha> seems reasonable to me as, like you say mimic, they should have defended their citadel better if they didn't want the hassle of moving their goods from the asset recovery station
[16:34] <cassie_helio> Catching up here. Mimic, some things about containers in couriers. Maybe some things to add to your notes.
[16:34] <cassie_helio> - Assembled containers and other Plastic wraps act the same. They both can not be re-contracted or scanned with a cargo scanner.
[16:34] <cassie_helio> - Assembled ships DO NOT cause an issue. As long as an assembled ship does not have items in the cargo besides ammunition or charges, it can transfer just fine. Since assembled ships can not be placed into a contract if it has anything besides ammunition/charges in the cargo, the former issue is moot.
[16:36] <steveronuken> (huh. TIL)
[16:37] <ccp_mimic> :slightly_smiling_face: I know, but was wondering if there was a way to change this behavior of constantly double-wrapping and all that goes along with it. If there was an underlying issue there that could be solved a different way, or if leaving that in place was the way it should be. It just always seemed like such a complete waste of time, and always caused issues when trying to solve Lost Items cases
[16:38] <ccp_mimic> "having" to do a thing is never best. Its just a grind. Can it be better? Can it be easier? Can it be more intuitive?
[16:38] <cassie_helio> ^^lol! That soooo happened to me when the server hardware was upgraded and the server was restarted several times unexpectedly throughout the day.
[16:39] <ccp_mimic> and then you just end up with stuff scattered everywhere :slightly_smiling_face:
[16:39] <querns> the double wrap thing is because of wardecs
[16:39] <querns> every hauler in highsec uses NPC corp alts to do their hauling because they cannot be wardecced
[16:39] <querns> well, "every" -- the ones who live do
[16:39] <ccp_mimic> :slightly_smiling_face:
[16:40] <querns> without essentially removing the wardec system this is a behavior that will take priority over things like "accepting courier contracts that terminate in a citadel"
[16:40] <cassie_helio> Actually querns, that's not quite double wrapping. That's re-contracting. Double wrapping (containers or other plastic wraps in a courier) is the issue when recontracting.
[16:41] <querns> i honestly liked the idea of being able to deliver the courier while in "tether range" of the citadel
[16:41] <querns> regardless of whether you tether (lol)
[16:41] <querns> (rhymes)
[16:42] <cassie_helio> Another reason we re-contract is it protects the identity of who the hauler is. This is protection against the issuer on the contract from hunting down the hauler that is carrying the contract.
[16:52] <kennethfeld> scam contracts rely on identifying items in the courier which can't be double wrapped, so when you scan and find them, you know which freighter to hit
[16:54] <cassie_helio> I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying if someone wants to do a scam contract they wouldn't use a container?
[16:58] <kennethfeld> no, they use an assembled container to prevent double wrapping and allow identification of items not in the container
[16:59] <cassie_helio> Ah I see.
[16:59] <cassie_helio> Yes, that is a technique I have seen before.
[16:59] <kennethfeld> like the contract will contain an assembled container and then 3 marines, 2 janitors and 4 exotic dancers that way the freighter is easily identified
[16:59] <cassie_helio> 8 strippers in this package an a container ??? :slightly_smiling_face:
[16:59] <kennethfeld> exactly
[17:00] <kennethfeld> bam, free collateral and tears
[17:00] <cassie_helio> Excuse me, Exotic Dancers. I forgot they don't like to be called "strippers".
[17:05] <nasantha> Yeh they generally have an assembled container and then a few items outside that show on a cargo scan
[17:07] <nasantha> The only real reason for double wrapping is to stop you being an easy target when cargo scanned to be honest. Having a contractor and a hauler does not preclude you from doing an item exchange contract at both ends thereby not double wrapping
[17:07] <nasantha> that does however mean having to go through the contracting system again at the destination which can be a pain
[17:07] <cassie_helio> As for legitimate reasons to use containers in a courier, it's for getting past the 200 items limit (as mentioned earlier) and also to keep item organized. As for ideas o how to improve that system, I'm sure we have some ideas but they may not be pretty from a dev's perspective.
[17:08] <cassie_helio> Nasantha, if the courier already does have a container/plastic wrap in it though, it does preclude doing an item exchange. It comes pre-double wrapped.
[17:09] <nasantha> true I was meaning generically where there was not a container but people double wrapped anyway while hauling
[17:10] <kennethfeld> Double wrapping also preclude gankers from running an evepraisal on the contents.
[17:11] <kennethfeld> which goes back to ganking101
[17:11] <cassie_helio> so they usually just kill it :stuck_out_tongue:
[17:11] <nasantha> bingo, it makes it pot luck instead of a guarantee return
[17:11] <nasantha> for a freighter, yes they would usually kill it anyway
[17:11] <nasantha> DST they would probably leave it though
[17:11] <kennethfeld> I am glad you guys don't know my gank pilots name - no, i am not globby
[17:12] <cassie_helio> what makes you think we don't? :wink:
[17:12] <kennethfeld> You may, but i highly doubt it
[17:15] <nasantha> but yes, that is another point maybe for Mimic to consider, that a container contract is generally riskier to move purely due to "ooh a wrapped present... for me? How nice, now give me it!" I'm not sure that is exactly relevant to citadels though
[17:18] <cassie_helio> The warning about containers in couriers before accepting would be awesome.
[17:18] <kennethfeld> it is relevant for the purpose of having to trade it to the hauler, rather than rewrapping in another courier and whether or not we can pick up and deliver from range
[17:18] <kennethfeld> and obviously trade requires docking access
[17:19] <nasantha> makes sense to me
[17:19] <nasantha> I guess it all depends how CCP can clean the problem up really
[17:20] <cpt_patrick_archer> yea
[17:57] <kennethfeld> That was the biggest thing in this group - we had many ideas, but with no real feedback we didn't know if we were chasing our tail or what. Now that we have some dialogue, hopefully we get some feedback soon on what is feasible
[18:16] <cpt_patrick_archer> like i proposed initially. can some1 make a spreadsheet or something, we throw ideas in there.
[18:16] <cpt_patrick_archer> and ccp has a column next to it where they can say. not included in current scope, not doable ever, we will look into
[18:16] <cpt_patrick_archer> etc
[18:16] <cpt_patrick_archer> give them a number, so ccp can say here "hey, about case number 3: is it ok if we change this, will that be good enough"
[18:16] <cpt_patrick_archer> every1 else, "yay" or "nay"
[18:16] <cpt_patrick_archer> unless the devs think this way is fine, i guess we'll go with that
[18:16] <cpt_patrick_archer> but structure is good :slightly_smiling_face:
[18:27] <ccphabakuk> i like structure
[18:28] <ccphabakuk> and sorry for the inactivity here so far. Vacations and similar are paying their tolls
[18:29] <cpt_patrick_archer> it's all good, we're all here to help.
[18:33] <ccphabakuk> To iterate on the question about killed (or unanchored) citadels, which should be the destination of a courier contract: Is it necessary to send a notification through the notification about changing the destination to the asset safety location or would it be enough to do it silently (as it should not happen as often anyway)?
[18:34] <ccphabakuk> *through the notification system
[18:36] <nasantha> Would be very much preferred if it could be through the notification system if possible. even if it is just a mail or something. Just some kind of alert.
[18:36] <ccphabakuk> And unrelated to this question: Citadel contracts are currently enabled on Singularity (but without all the solutions for edge cases)
[18:36] <nasantha> I'll check that out later
[18:36] <ccphabakuk> (and they are probably full of bugs)
[18:37] <nasantha> yummy
[18:38] <ccphabakuk> Searching for destination citadels for courier contracts is not enabled (but already coded), but dragging in a citadel link should work.
[18:47] <ccphabakuk> Another question: What filter options should we have for searching for (public) contracts? Is the current option to exclude "Unreachable" enough or are more detailed options needed? Which?
[18:56] <cassie_helio> Maybe we should invite Rita Jita in here. He would be the expert on public courier contracts. I believe most of us in here are affiliated with hauling corporations which have some different considerations for courer contracts.
[18:57] <cassie_helio> About the destination changing to Asset Safety, I agree with Nasantha that a notification will be helpful.
[18:58] <nasantha> Only filter I think would be needed is citadel (yes/no). That way if they allow citadel contract then they should know what they are getting themselves into
[18:59] <nasantha> same goes for unreachable and thera
[19:03] <cassie_helio> I will diverge on what Nasantha said and suggest that the filters are workable how they are now with exclude unreachable but instead a new column for the results list would be helpful. "Destination Type" or something like that. It would display Station, Fortizar, Keepstar, Outpost, etc.
[19:04] <nasantha> That works too :slightly_smiling_face:
[19:04] <nasantha> I guess it depends which is easier to code for