[00:03] <ccp_snowedin> @kennethfeld: https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/
[00:03] <kennethfeld> Thanks, i got what i needed :slightly_smiling_face:
[09:44] <ccp_mimic> Morning everyone :slightly_smiling_face: Thanks for the addition to the document
[09:45] <ccp_mimic> #12 Increase contract duration: Will talk to the team to see if there are any issues with this
[09:49] <ccp_mimic> #13 View Contents: This ability already exists once a contract has been accepted, including the person it is from. I understand the points you raised above @cpt_patrick_archer but this edge case opens all sorts of metal containers full of all sorts of non-anthropod invertebrates
[09:50] <ccp_mimic> #14 Edit destination: This is also out of scope, and has just as many slimy friends as the point above
[09:54] <ccp_mimic> #15 Anyone able to Complete: This is an option we are looking at, but there currently is the ability to Deliver To... in a Citadel, which does not require the person to be there. Therefore, the Hauler is able to deliver to the person they received the contract from, who can then remote Complete to fulfill the contract. Not perfect, but possible with "deliver from docking range". We're talking about it still though
[09:55] <ccp_mimic> Edit: ^^There is more to this point that @ccphabakuk just pointed out. We're talking on this more
[09:57] <ccp_mimic> #16 Ability to recontract Assembled Containers: We're looking into this, but its not as straight forward as we had hoped
[09:59] <ccp_mimic> #17 Expanded contract size: as with item numbers, the exact details will need to be determined, but this will hopefully not cause any issues
[10:00] <ccp_mimic> #18: Increase number of contracts: We spoke about this within the team yesterday. As this is currently tied to skills we will need to do a bit more investigation. It is being discussed
[11:02] <kennethfeld> ccp_mimic: #18 - Personally, i would start at doubling current skill level - I think this gets you to 161
[11:04] <kennethfeld> as far as containers - I thought we used to be able to make 3+ plastic wraps, it got limited to 2 a few years ago, not sure why. Maybe I am just old and can't remember
[11:04] <kennethfeld> I am talking layers here, not actual wraps
[11:05] <kennethfeld> as far as #18 - any chance we can allow people to put up a contract to an alliance that isn't theirs?
[11:06] <cpt_patrick_archer> #18 - I would make the personal contract skill get you to like 51 (10 contracts per skill + 1 base).
[11:06] <cpt_patrick_archer> And for corp contracts per character like 150 maximum, so a total of 201 contracts.
[11:06] <cpt_patrick_archer> Total possible corp contracts over all characters should be unlimited in my opinion, I don't get why there is a limit to that. If that's not possible, make it like 2000.
[11:07] <cpt_patrick_archer> I think is a good idea, maybe add it as a different point. Because it's not quite the same as 18?
[11:07] <cpt_patrick_archer> [July 13th, 2016 1:05 PM] kennethfeld: as far as #18 - any chance we can allow people to put up a contract to an alliance that isn't theirs?
[11:08] <exooki> id say thats a seperate issue, make it 19?
[11:08] <exooki> although id worry about abuse
[11:08] <cpt_patrick_archer> Or be a rebel and go for #20
[11:08] <exooki> its all fun and games until my allaince is getting spammed stupid contracts from ppl in places we cant even get to
[11:09] <exooki> as is my assets is full of like 8 citadels im not allowed to dock in
[11:09] <exooki> but you cant remote trash stuff either
[11:09] <cpt_patrick_archer> @exooki: Isn't taht the same for corps right now? Do people actually bother with that?
[11:10] <exooki> true true, i forgot you can do that to another corp cant ya. would be fine I spose
[11:10] <exooki> they may say that they need to code allainces first though, since theyre not "real"
[11:10] <exooki> someone on reddit asked me
[11:10] <exooki> do people see a use in shorter term contracts?
[11:10] <exooki> thinking "rush order"
[11:11] <exooki> like the time to complete could be a magnitude of hours once accepted ( id imagine theyd have to pay well to be worth it)
[11:11] <cpt_patrick_archer> Yeah, he asked me too. I don't think that's needed.
[11:11] <cpt_patrick_archer> A contract with 2 hour completion etc..
[11:11] <exooki> well, assu,ng it doesnt break anything, i cant imagine its much work
[11:11] <cpt_patrick_archer> https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4sflbl/ccpls_select_200_items_contract_option/d59a7rh
[11:12] <cpt_patrick_archer> Thats the guy
[11:12] <exooki> yup, i responded to his points this morning
[11:14] <exooki> someone thinks it could be useful, and assuming its very little time ( barring some weird special case, it should be as trivial as another option, with just 1 int changed)
[11:14] <cpt_patrick_archer> True up to a point I guess. But I don't think CCP has the devtime to throw around because one person thinks it's a good idea.
[11:15] <ccp_mimic> :slightly_smiling_face: You know what I wish...that one day, something to do with a change in Eve IS actually just a single integer
[11:16] <kennethfeld> ccp_mimic: Tabs for overview - corp bookmarks - karkur and Punkturis tweeted they changed a number
[11:16] <cpt_patrick_archer> Maybe if you add 2 hour contracts, it will magically break/fix the svipul :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:16] <cpt_patrick_archer> :legacy code:
[11:17] <ccp_mimic> yes, and then the testers looked, and numbers got tweeked again and so on and so forth...its never just one ;(
[11:17] <kennethfeld> LOL
[11:19] <ccp_mimic> following the reddit conversation: 1) Why not make it so that containers don't cause any problems in contracts? This is what we are talking about internally and trying to work out rather tyhan just chalk it up to "legacy code". If we can, we want to fix this being in an issue that you need a warning about. But this is not a single integer
[11:24] <exooki> oh i know that one sint :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:24] <exooki> thats probably out of the scope here though, thus the warning plan
[11:43] <cpt_patrick_archer> @ccp_mimic: Sorry, I thought we closed this as "out of scope" and were gonna go with a warning only.
[11:43] <cpt_patrick_archer> I will just refer people to the focusgroup logs next time.
[11:44] <ccp_mimic> It might still be. We just don't want it to be :slightly_smiling_face:
[11:45] <ccp_mimic> but it might have to
[13:26] <steveronuken> !logs
[13:26] <slackbot> https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/
[13:30] <steveronuken> tada :wink:
[13:32] <kennethfeld> hmm, i guess i didn't have the magic touch :slightly_smiling_face:
[13:32] <steveronuken> :smile: I just slipped it into slackbot's list
[13:35] <steveronuken> For people who've not worked with the asset system in code, a little explanation of why (probably) containers in plastic wrap cause problems: It's recursion. Everything in Eve exists in a big table of assets. Each asset has a location. If that location is a container, it exists inside something else. So, to list the contents of something, you have to first get it's contents. Then get the contents of those. If you allow for arbitrary levels of containers, you have to _keep_ looping round until you have the full list. For one person, that wouldn't be too bad. For 30k people, it's not good.
[13:35] <steveronuken> (Of course, I'm not a software engineer. And I don't work at CCP. So I may be missing something. It's just not quite as simple as some people seem to think it is)
[13:36] <exooki> that lines up with quant's description at ff
[13:39] <steveronuken> As a side note, the various corp hangars (and cargo bays) aren't different locations. They're just a flag on the item in the list. Which is why you can't have arbitrary numbers of hangars. things in Corp hangar 3, in a station, is just the things with an owner of that corp, in that station, with the 'hangar 3' flag on them.
[13:40] <steveronuken> (unless the XML api isn't mapping accurately any more. It's possible things got changed behind the scenes, and the api was just written to mask that. I doubt it though)