[09:46] <ccp_mimic> Hi guys. Hope you all had a good weekend. @cpt_patrick_archer your spreadsheet idea sounds perfect. You got something on a Google Drive already, or do you want me to make something? Or does someone else have one...
[09:47] <ccp_mimic> And let us know what you think about the no-frills no-special cases contracts currently on Sisi. It will help narrow down the exact pain points for Citadels.
[10:19] <exooki> SiSi only has outbound courier contracts so far right?
[10:28] <nasantha> I've made contracts to and from a citadel on Sisi
[10:28] <exooki> gotcha, ill have to check
[10:29] <nasantha> it sort of works but it really needs an easier way to be able to make them rather than having to drag and drop the citadel into the destination field.
[10:29] <nasantha> I know it was mentioned it was coded already
[10:30] <cpt_patrick_archer> @ccp_mimic: I can make one after lunch. It's like 2 seconds work. Problem is, this channel has public logs, so making an edit link is recipe for disaster. Should I mail ppl in game or add everyone using the email they use on slack?
[10:33] <nasantha> I'm fairly ok with either. I guess some individuals would prefer email and the others evemail though
[10:36] <cpt_patrick_archer> If y'all are bad and have old API keys spais can get in. This is eve remember
[10:40] <ccp_mimic> lol. Please email them @cpt_patrick_archer , and thanks
[10:41] <ccp_mimic> @nasantha: yes it is coded, just waiting on being integrated into the next Sisi build
[10:41] <nasantha> \o/
[11:15] <cpt_patrick_archer> @channel Check your mail on the account you used for slack. Spreadsheets in space simulator is go!
[11:15] <cpt_patrick_archer> Please add ongoing discussions to the sheet so we can keep track. [cc: focusgrouplogbot]
[11:17] <exooki> I tossed something that came up today in my chats with WH groups
[11:17] <exooki> if its beyond what we are looking at thats the only feedback needed, but felt it was a decent time to bring it up. ( Editing contracts without needing to cancel and re-up)
[11:23] <ccp_mimic> Added the notes I had from Friday. Please add/comment as you see fit. However, keeping the discussion here is probably best to preserve logs for those players not in the room, but wanting to follow the development of the discussions
[11:24] <cpt_patrick_archer> For transparency, here is the view only link for everyone who wishes to follow every aspect of this focusgroup.
[11:24] <cpt_patrick_archer> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tXpGq7KQY7n_UKO9rUWlOvx1ltVUeqfmkDacSljXST4/edit?usp=sharing
[11:30] <kennethfeld> cpt_patrick_archer: what about pickup and deliver in tether range, but not neccesarily tethered?
[11:31] <kennethfeld> or are we just listing pain points?
[11:31] <cpt_patrick_archer> I didnt make the list, I just made the sheet.
[11:31] <cpt_patrick_archer> If i forgot anything, just add them
[11:31] <kennethfeld> ok, I will have to make a google accoutn with my eve email addy
[11:32] <cpt_patrick_archer> Before I sent the mail it said everyone without google account could edit using their private link. Maybe that bugged out.
[11:32] <cpt_patrick_archer> If you want you can send me your gmail privately. Or just create a new one :slightly_smiling_face:
[11:33] <kennethfeld> no worries, it seems to have worked, didn't know you could do that with links, that is nice
[11:33] <cpt_patrick_archer> Aye
[11:38] <kennethfeld> hmm, do you want solution as OUR solution or CCP solution ie final resolution?
[11:41] <exooki> i was going to leave that for CCP to fill
[11:41] <exooki> unless some of them are "done"
[11:42] <kennethfeld> k, I'll swap mine back
[11:42] <exooki> up to the group of course, just my 2 cents on the sheet
[11:43] <kennethfeld> I am just not big on "Here is a problem" figure it the fuck out
[11:43] <kennethfeld> I would absolutely destroy one of my guys if they pulled that shit on me, i want thinkers
[11:44] <kennethfeld> would you tell me you have a problem, have a solution ready - and i try and do the same
[11:45] <cpt_patrick_archer> You can potentially write a suggested solution there, and we can change it as we go?
[11:46] <kennethfeld> I just wrote the proposed solution in the description block, if it is good, it can be copy/pasted over easy enough
[11:55] <exooki> oh yeah i was thinking solution would go in the desc, just figured " resolution" sounds like something thats decided on to me
[12:20] <nasantha> I had to stick post offices back in there as I hear a lot of support for the idea. It is a lot of work though for CCP
[12:22] <kennethfeld> post offices are a better long term solution, but like fozzie said, just no time for it now
[13:09] <steveronuken> drops nuclear waste through peoples post office. :wink:
[14:37] <ccp_mimic> If we talked about it, add it to the list. Its better that its there and the engineer's can take a gander at it
[15:36] <cassie_helio> FILTERS: A new column for the results list would be helpful. "Destination Type" or something like that. It would display Station, Fortizar, Keepstar, Outpost, etc.
[15:36] <cassie_helio> ^^ Can someone add that to the spreadsheet for me? I am not able to edit.
[15:51] <cpt_patrick_archer> Out of curiosity, why does it matter where you are delivering to? Freighters can dock anywhere right. If they have the rights ofc
[15:52] <querns> the idea being that there's risk of the freighter pilot being unable to dock at a citadel
[15:52] <querns> so accepting a contract that goes to a citadel (or other structure) inherently has a higher risk of inconvenience/fuckery
[15:53] <cassie_helio> It was a response to this. https://ccpfocusgroups.slack.com/archives/contracts/p1468003654001444 and the few replies after.
[15:53] <querns> right now due to the way eve handles names (dunno if it's consistent across all types of stations) you can name a citadel, e.g., Jita IV - Moon 4 - Caldari Navy Assembly Plant and it won't be distinguishable from the actual station unless you show info
[15:54] <cassie_helio> But I've just realized it would need pickup and destination type to be useful.
[15:55] <querns> yeah, that's reasonable
[15:55] <querns> basically, for either side, have some way of indicating that it's not an NPC station
[15:55] <querns> maybe use the overview bracket?
[15:55] <querns> as an icon next to the name
[15:55] <querns> with a mouseover
[15:55] <cassie_helio> I like that.
[15:56] <sullen> damn that's a good one...
[15:56] <querns> unobtrusive, consistent, color blind friendly
[15:56] <querns> background: i am a programmer, so UI is something i've had to design in the past :V
[15:57] <cassie_helio> If you can add that to the spreadsheet please do. That's too good to forget.
[15:57] <sullen> something simple like a star or () around the name to distinguish player owned.
[15:59] <sullen> although there would need to be a guide to let players know that. which of course can be checked to "not show again"
[15:59] <querns> added
[16:01] <sullen> just so i can confirm, there is currently no way to know of docking rights to a citadel short of flying to it correct?
[16:01] <sullen> i don't remember seeing a way to remotely see if you can dock somewhere
[16:01] <kennethfeld> that is somewhat wrong
[16:01] <kennethfeld> structure browser tells you if you can dock
[16:01] <kennethfeld> and one suggestion was to move that to select any region, if that goes in, you can see if you can dock anywhere in the game
[16:02] <querns> can't see structures outside of the region you're in
[16:02] <sullen> right
[16:02] <kennethfeld> querns: as i said, but adding a requinal menu to structure browser was something they said was "easy" to do
[16:02] <kennethfeld> but either way, you don't have to fly there no matter what
[16:03] <kennethfeld> only to the region currently
[16:04] <kennethfeld> see #4 on the spreadsheet
[16:04] <sullen> yeah i think that should be much more accessible. esp since you could just set up 2 cits on opposite sides of hs and then bait people to accept couriers only to find out they can't dock in the other
[16:05] <sullen> course could always just set up the contracts to have something to tell you in bold red "you cannot dock at either the pickup/destination stations. are you sure you want to accept this?"
[16:05] <cpt_patrick_archer> If you can rightclick on the target or pickup citadel on the contracts page, basically "show in structure browser" you can then figure out if you can dock
[16:05] <kennethfeld> sullen: that red etxt doesn't mean shit
[16:06] <cpt_patrick_archer> Cause right now it doesnt show if you can dock in a 0.0 station either
[16:06] <kennethfeld> if the contract says you are fine, i can revoke your access before you undock from jita
[16:06] <cpt_patrick_archer> I think that's a different discussion, but yeah, true
[16:06] <sullen> kennethfeld: yes i know, which is why there would need to be a hard docking of some sort that allows them to deliver
[16:07] <sullen> and cpt_patrick_archer yes it doesn't show that in 0.0 but those are generally people in alliance who know they can or can't dock somewhere
[16:07] <sullen> hs citadels are just anyone
[16:07] <sullen> willing to move shit
[16:07] <querns> i think the general consensus was to punt the idea of public couriers to anywhere but highsec
[16:08] <sullen> ^
[16:08] <sullen> there really is no reason to have public couriers in ns short of baiting a courier victim
[16:08] <kennethfeld> same for WH and LS
[16:09] <querns> yeah, diplomacy is required there
[16:09] <kennethfeld> afaik, we are only working on HS and public contracts currently
[16:09] <querns> that is the only real point of contention yeah
[16:09] <kennethfeld> everythign else is relatively simple compared to that shit show
[16:09] <querns> where No Good Solution really exists so far
[16:10] <exooki> is extending the duration of WTS and WTB contracts doable? their limit of 2 weeks would be a QOL improvement for WHers
[16:10] <exooki> currently theyre limited to 2 weeks
[16:10] <sullen> good god that's short
[16:11] <querns> the idea of a courier into a WH is funny to me
[16:11] <querns> i guess with enough scanners you could eventually make it work
[16:12] <cpt_patrick_archer> @exooki I think thats a QOL improvement for everyone, not just Wspace
[16:12] <exooki> well, we are selfish and want all the quality to ourselves
[16:12] <querns> finally, one of you admits it :sun:
[16:12] <querns> (i kid)
[16:14] <cpt_patrick_archer> If it means calling them improvements for Wspace to get them done, I'm all for it :slightly_smiling_face:
[16:14] <querns> while we're being honest -- my intention is to try and find the best compromise for public couriers in highsec that we can so that the stuff being held back (couriers to nullsec citadels in particular) can be free from that particular ball of wax
[16:14] <querns> while i do hail from an alliance famous for its highsec ganking, i actually have a vested interest in maintaining public couriers, as I use them personally extensively
[16:15] <querns> i have no desire for a courier to a highsec citadel to be just a flat out death trap for whoever hauls it
[16:24] <steveronuken> I'd _think_ a keepstar should be less risky to deliver to than a astrahus. Mostly because it's harder to have anchored. So _less_ likely to have fuckery
[16:26] <querns> it doesn't really matter in highsec
[16:26] <querns> highsec is permanently safety green
[16:26] <querns> so the only risk is getting bumped and ganked in the traditional way
[16:26] <querns> if you're wardecced and trying to deliver to a citadel then "lol"
[17:50] <kennethfeld> stupid shall be punished if that happens