[00:37] <exooki> Hi guys, safe assumption I should read everything before talking?
[00:44] <querns> it's a bunch of armchair dev stuff, not very relevant (i was as guilty of this as everyone else)
[00:49] <kennethfeld> was all spitball stuff, we still have no idea on ccp stance yet
[01:11] <exooki> Ok, all caught up
[01:13] <exooki> I think the post office concept might be easiest way. Have a setting that you can make a citadel public, perhaps permanently, and only allow public contracts from such citadela
[01:13] <exooki> If any group wants public contracting that badly paying for a astrahus seems trivial
[01:14] <exooki> Freighters and jfs can dock. Only thing missing is capitals
[01:14] <exooki> And I'm not a null guy, but I doubt any null sob group is selling capitals publicly
[01:15] <querns> not that many people do courier contracts in a carrier, dread, or fax :V
[01:15] <exooki> I'll double check with wh space, but I don't think we even need to think about public contracts for us
[01:15] <exooki> I can't see a use for them, none of my citadels are ever going to be public
[01:15] <querns> yeah, that would seem like a pretty insane thing to try to do
[01:15] <exooki> Yeah that's my thought, a medium citadel pennies for a sov group of they want a central public post office
[01:16] <querns> like a courier with an expiration time into something like a C6? :V
[01:16] <exooki> And we avoid all these config, keys, etc
[01:16] <querns> though the post office idea still breaks down if the citadel is decommissioned or destroyed
[01:17] <querns> in that scenario a courier would get screwed
[01:17] <querns> that is why i like no/low-fault returns
[01:28] <exooki> If it dies, stuff in it goes to asset safety, contracts to it can be returned to their origin
[01:29] <exooki> Not perfect, but the key thing seems like a pita, so many parts or conditions
[01:29] <querns> yeah -- i mean, like, contractor accepts contract, destination citadel gets destroyed, so the contractor needs to be able to do something
[01:30] <querns> that is why i was thinking return to source for like (numbers pulled straight from ass) 95% of the collateral (5% being paid to NPC rather than contract maker)
[01:30] <querns> or in the case of the source being a citadel that is ALSO undockable, to whatever system asset safety would teleport their shit to, for like 92.5% of collateral or something
[01:30] <querns> i am not sure the penalty needs to be there
[01:31] <querns> idea being to discourage folks from just sitting on contracts then going "lol" and returning them to source
[01:45] <kennethfeld> The biggest thing is what happens to fee and collateral
[01:56] <kennethfeld> yeah, but how does that help the acceptor, they do all the work and get nothing
[01:56] <kennethfeld> I guess maybe the reward, but still lots of headache for them
[03:56] <cassie_helio> Also, what if the pickup and destination are both citadels and they both get decommissioned or destroyed?
[03:58] <kennethfeld> decommision takes a week, i would venture you probably shouldn't be able to use one in decomission to make a contract or to use as a destination
[04:07] <cassie_helio> Couriers can be set for two weeks so it could still happen. Edge cases are the worse. :disappointed:
[10:42] <nasantha> If decommissioning is enacted and it is a pickup then the contract gets moved to the nearest NPC Station for pickup if it has not already been accepted. There could even be a delay related to how far the contract needs to be moved. If it has been accepted then the contractor gets an alert saying they have a week to pick it up. If it is not picked up then it just goes back to the individual who created the contract. If it is a drop off then the delivery should be re-directed to the nearest NPC station if it has not been accepted. If it has then again the contractor gets a notification saying they have a week in which to deliver it.
[10:42] <nasantha> To cover the problem of destruction, I like querns idea of a no fault return. To be entirely honest I think just getting no reward for the work would be the most fair while still providing a disincentive to haulers to be dicks to individuals who create contracts. I'm not all that keen on collateral getting shaved off as the contents of the package are still safe.
[10:42] <nasantha> Any other edge cases, can probably be resolved with a short discussion between the individual who made the contract and the hauler to agree on a different destination and then exchange the contract for the collateral. This does rely on the individual making the contract being reasonable but this is already a risk at the current time when doing freighter moves in highsec for example. Citadels will always have more risk than standard stations and there is not really any way around that given it is a part of the game mechanics.
[11:04] <querns> yeah -- the shaving off collateral thing wasn't something i spent much time refining in my head
[11:04] <querns> sort of off the cuff
[11:04] <querns> would be fine to go live without it, and withhold it as an option for the future if courier trolling becomes a problem
[11:10] <cpt_patrick_archer> I think we cant discuss anything atm really.
[11:10] <cpt_patrick_archer> We need some spreadsheet or something from CCP. Outlining problems they are facing and what restrictions are tied to it.
[11:10] <cpt_patrick_archer> Give em a number or something and we stick to talking to that case for x amount of time. Then we tl;dr it and put in on the spreadsheet.
[11:10] <cpt_patrick_archer> Otherwise this isnt gonna be productive in any way.
[11:10] <cpt_patrick_archer> Unless some1 has a better idea ofc :slightly_smiling_face:
[11:10] <cpt_patrick_archer> @here: ^ [cc: focusgrouplogbot]
[11:19] <exooki> I agree with that
[11:19] <exooki> Some more direction would steer this to where they need, rather than us spitballing
[11:20] <exooki> I'll be home till Sunday after later tonight. Got 115 eve players and 2 ccp devs coming over for a 4day party :)
[11:39] <kennethfeld> cpt_patrick_archer: yeah, fozzie said he was busy but would write a primer for us soon - also gave people more time to join
[11:40] <cpt_patrick_archer> alright, we'll hang tight
[12:34] <ccp_fozzie> Ok folks I’ll give you some background.
[12:34] <ccp_fozzie> We are currently aiming to get contracts in citadels released in early August. We have some of the basic code completed already (there’s a slightly buggy version of contracts in citadels working on internal test servers now) but there’s still a lot of work to do. Unfortunately, our resources are a bit constrained as usual. This means that huge reworks of the contract system will probably be out of scope at this time. We may be able to get some small things in (like increasing the max courier volume for instance) but I can’t promise massive rewrites. This also means that suggestions like adding a post-office in every system, although intriguing, probably won’t be doable at this time.
[12:34] <ccp_fozzie> Some of the challenges around contracts in citadels are fairly simple. For instance, we can filter public contract visibility by whether the viewing character can dock in the citadel, and the asset safety system will do a good job of handling the items in open auction or item exchange contracts when a citadel explodes.
[12:34] <ccp_fozzie> Some other challenges might be surprising. For instance, our server-side search system doesn’t have a very good way to handle citadels right now (and even if it did, you can have two citadels with the same name in the same solar system). Our current workaround plan for picking the destination of courier contracts is allowing people to drag and drop the name of a citadel from the structure browser, or chat or anywhere else where it might be.
[12:34] <ccp_fozzie> We are also pretty sure there will be more challenges that will emerge as we get closer to release. That’s a big part of where we think you folks can help, by finding potential issues that we might have missed.
[12:34] <ccp_fozzie> We also have some obvious design challenges that we’re working through now.
[12:37] <ccp_fozzie> For courier contracts where the destination explodes, our current plan is for the contract to change its destination to the “fallback” asset safety location from that citadel. So for an empire citadel that would usually be a NPC station nearby, and for a nullsec citadel it would be the closest lowsec NPC station. This provides us a location that we know won’t explode so you’ll still be able to complete the contract. One major reason we’re not fans of returning the contract to the starting location is that the starting location might also be a citadel that exploded (in the worst case).
[12:41] <ccp_fozzie> Dealing with access loss is a more complicated issue. The baseline “worst case” here would be for us to match outpost risk (where if you don’t have access you’re just out of luck). That would be far from ideal but would at least allow private courier services so it would be better than nothing. We think we can almost definitely do better though.
[12:43] <cpt_patrick_archer> I think it works fine with outposts because everybody knows you need access by now. And I'm pretty sure it gives a popup before you accept it.
[12:43] <cpt_patrick_archer> The easiest way to prevent fuckloads of scams appearing on public contracts like that, is to simply remove public couriers from Citadels.
[12:43] <cpt_patrick_archer> It doesn't hurt my gameplay to much, but I don't know how many people are out there doing Public couriers for a living.
[12:44] <cpt_patrick_archer> Then when you get fucked on private couriers, it's the same gameplay we currently have.
[12:45] <ccp_fozzie> One option we’re investigating would be to allow pilots in space in the same solar system as a citadel to manually place courier wrappers into the asset safety system for their rightful owner (using the right click menu). This would then take 5 days to deliver to the citadel (but wouldn’t cost any isk). If the courier contract has at least 5 days left in its duration the contract would then be completed successfully. The 5 day delay is less than ideal, but it would ideally only used as a fallback for situations where the courier pilot has lost access to the citadel between accepting and arriving.
[12:45] <ccp_fozzie> Public couriers wouldn't be visible to characters unless they have access. We'd also need warning that you might lose access of course.
[12:46] <ccp_fozzie> Private couriers would be visible no matter what, but would display clearly whether you have access.
[12:50] <ccp_fozzie> One other thing to let you all know. I'm leaving on vacation for a few weeks starting today. I'll still be around a bit because I don't have a healthy work-life balance, but Larrakin will be your other main point of contact here from the team.
[12:51] <cpt_patrick_archer> When you said you were working late again last night, I thought you were a really hard worker.
[12:51] <cpt_patrick_archer> Now I understand why :stuck_out_tongue:
[13:08] <querns> hrm, one challenge with regards to how to pick a destination: it's going to be difficult to pick a citadel as a destination if it's not one you own and/or it's not in your current region
[13:08] <querns> where "you" being "your corporation"
[13:09] <cpt_patrick_archer> How so?
[13:09] <querns> because you can't see other citadels from that far away
[13:20] <cpt_patrick_archer> fair enough, forgot about that
[14:14] <kennethfeld> yeah, structure browser search would have to be like contract search - include all of new eden UGGH - or at least let you select a region other than the one you are in
[14:15] <kennethfeld> even typing int he name won't work if the game can't differentiate between several with the same name - even in the same system
[14:16] <kennethfeld> having public contracts filter by whether you have access - as long as that filter applies to both origination and destination i think it probably best case scenario for that feature - even if more limiting than we may desire
[14:16] <kennethfeld> ccp_fozzie: along with max cargo increase - any chance we can get remote delivery of courier?
[14:19] <kennethfeld> as far as placing the courier into asset safety, that could be a double edged sword as couriers are re wrapped and although the person who accepts the contract may be able to dock, they may not be the one ultimately delivering it - so if they get there and can't dock, then deliver the 2nd wrap, the original acceptore now has 5 days to wait to get the contract back, but still can't deliver to the citadel due to wardecs etc
[14:21] <kennethfeld> also, in general, other than being in system in space and seeing if there is a citadel on overview, is there a way we can get to tell if you have access to a citadel?
[14:22] <kennethfeld> I think you can use structure browser for regional stuff, again, if that was expanded to all regions, would be easier I think
[15:35] <lynfel> Red Frog doesn't move any contracts with the same character that accepts the contract (and moves over 300 couriers a day). So having the contract acceptor told they can dock doesn't really mean anything. There has to be a way to know if the actual freighter pilot can dock who is not the character accepting the contract. And if docking rights can be revoked at a heartbeat it still means contracts to/from 'trusted' entitie's citadels would be the only ones accepted which will limit viable trade hubs.
[15:35] <lynfel> hisec Ken
[15:36] <lynfel> :slightly_smiling_face:
[15:36] <lynfel> I don't necessarily think that the same rules should apply to hisec as low/null.
[15:39] <lynfel> I think hisec citadels should have a freeport option with a minimum time to remove freeport status. This would allow them to be more safely used as trade hubs, manufacturing sites, etc.
[15:40] <lynfel> Tbh they could all have the option but anyone who doesn't want randoms docking should never click it.
[15:41] <lynfel> Being able to revoke docking rights in an instant means people will be less willing to use them as such.
[15:41] <nasantha> Having the 5 day fallback is also going to be ripe for abuse given what will happen is people will make 3 day delivery contracts and then not allow docking after it has been accepted. If they overcollateralled the items it would be a good way to make isk for the scammers too
[15:42] <cpt_patrick_archer> Well if ppl trade contracts it's on them. But there should definitely be some sort of warning.
[15:43] <lynfel> I am assuming CCP doesn't want Jita 2.0, that they want more trade hubs. I am just saying its less likely to happen without some safeguards.
[15:43] <nasantha> I can also imagine people making citadels named similar to a standard station so that it doesn't instantly flag to someone that its a citadel not a station
[15:43] <lynfel> other than assets moving in a week
[15:44] <nasantha> unless the contract text appears in bright orange or something
[15:45] <nasantha> lynfel: I think you would be right in that CCP would like a devolution of trade from the trade hubs (at least to some extent)
[15:46] <nasantha> as you say it is going to have to rely on getting the goods to those citadels safely and effectively however, not the pot luck or slow system that is currently being thought of
[15:47] <lynfel> I know the list of citadel owners we would be willing to accept contracts to/from would be severely limited if we have to sort out guaranteed docking rights with every one of them individually for our freighter pilots who are in 300 different corps having to worry about those rights being removed en route.
[15:49] <nasantha> the other problem though would be that, if you can have citadels named the same in the same system, how would you know which one is the trusted one?
[15:50] <cassie_helio> It will be in your structure browser, yeah?
[15:51] <nasantha> If it is a delivery to someone elses citadel?
[15:53] <cassie_helio> I believe so. You're suppose to be able to check if you have access rights to a citadel remotely.
[15:53] <nasantha> on a huler?
[15:53] <cassie_helio> If the hauler had rights to it.
[15:56] <nasantha> I don't think it is the rights necessarily that LynFel was getting at. More if it was one owned by someone who is trusted not to screw over the haulers by changing the rights after acceptance. Checking each and every contract's source or destination (as appropriate) citadel info would be a right ballache
[15:57] <nasantha> especially if it was not obvious in the name of the citadel or the system it is in
[16:19] <cassie_helio> >I know the list of citadel owners we would be willing to accept contracts to/from would be severely limited if we have to sort out guaranteed docking rights with every one of them individually for our freighter pilots who are in 300 different corps having to worry about those rights being removed en route.
[16:19] <cassie_helio> This can be solved by the Citadel owner making someone in RFF a manager of an Access List, then RFF can add whoever they want to that list.
[16:19] <cassie_helio> So the citadel owner would just have to add 1 access list.
[16:20] <cassie_helio> The citadel owner obviously could still revoke that list at any time, but point being, the citadel owner doesn't have to manage all the pilots individually themselves.
[16:21] <steveronuken> If you can drop structure links into eve mail and notepad, that may take care of a chunk of the issue or not seeing in the browser? (not sure how viable that is).
[16:42] <lynfel> cassie, I mean without a mechanic that guarantees we can complete the contract the number of people we would be willing to trust enough not to pull rights would be limited. So less citadels serviced and less trade hubs.
[16:45] <lynfel> I do all the diplomacy for Black Frog's limited sov service and trying to do it for Red Frog in hisec will be a nightmare. What's would happen if its all left to 'trust' is very few citadels will get service.
[16:46] <lynfel> Red Frog also turns over 20-40 members, often with multiple freighter piltos, or so a month so there will be constant updates to access lists.
[17:09] <cassie_helio> Same, there would be few I would trust also. I suppose that is the point of owning a citadel and diplomacy. I like you're idea about the minimum time to remove free port mode. that way, at any given time, we would know which citadels could be serviced without having docking issues or having to do diplomacy.
[17:19] <kennethfeld> lynfel: you said exactly what i said, you just made it 2 paragraphs
[17:20] <kennethfeld> that being said if you re contract to a freighter alt - it goes to the same place, so the freighter CAN see if they can dock prior to accepting - not that does you much good at that point
[17:20] <kennethfeld> also, having the structure browser go new eden wide means you can search with your freighter pilot if you have dockign rights prior to accepting
[17:21] <kennethfeld> all you have to do is look at the icons, if you can refit - you can dock - all the same permissions
[18:33] <lynfel> At that moment. But without a mechanic that guarantees those permissions don't change as soon as you click accept it will severely limit the number of citadels we are willing to service and therefore the number of viable trade hubs.
[18:35] <lynfel> That's the part you keep leaving out because it doesn't concern nullsec since diplomacy is already a foregone conclusion there
[18:37] <querns> that is why having some method of redress when the destination is inaccessible is required
[18:37] <querns> it solves all the stupid diplomacy problems for highsec
[18:37] <querns> without having to make some sort of rube goldberg permissions/key nightmare
[18:38] <lynfel> It doesn't if docking rights can change with the click of a button.
[18:39] <querns> can't dock? then alternate destination
[18:39] <querns> done
[18:39] <querns> asset safety system selection formula to decide where it goes
[18:41] <lynfel> How does it work when rights are revoked from the freighter pilot but not the contract alt that originally accepted the contract
[18:44] <cassie_helio> >But without a mechanic that guarantees those permissions don't change as soon as you click accept it will severely limit the number of citadels we are willing to service and therefore the number of viable trade hubs.
[18:44] <cassie_helio> If the citadels wants to be trade hubs then they should be freeports. If they don't want to be freeport but still want high market activity there, I don't see that happening. I think pilots should be not be guaranteed to be able to dock anywhere that is not in freeport mode. That's the citadel owners right to deny people. That's why I think your idea of minimum time to exit freeport mode works well because then pilots will know where they can dock.
[18:44] <querns> having some sort of "freeport mode" is probably not in scope for the upcoming release
[18:44] <lynfel> Well... It should be
[18:45] <cassie_helio> I thought citadels already could allow anyone to dock?
[18:45] <querns> they can
[18:45] <querns> but their worry is that they'll accept a contract, and in between accepting and driving out to the system, docking rights will be removed
[18:46] <kennethfeld> yeah, that was kind of my point, i have argued for a butan that can be pressed by the owner locking it into freeport until destroyed or unanchored - i don't see it coming anytime soon
[18:46] <querns> so the idea here is that you could have some sort of toggle that locks the citadel into a "freeport" mode that can't be trivially removed
[18:47] <kennethfeld> short of that, there isn't much you can do for the freighetr services as you can't assume something is and will always be accesable to your freighter pilot
[18:47] <kennethfeld> querns: exactly
[19:01] <cassie_helio> If a change like that isn't in scope for this release then it is what it is but then that leaves us with the "worst case" as Fozzie laid out earlier.
[19:01] <cassie_helio> >The baseline “worst case” here would be for us to match outpost risk (where if you don’t have access you’re just out of luck). That would be far from ideal but would at least allow private courier services so it would be better than nothing. We think we can almost definitely do better though.
[19:06] <nasantha> I wonder how many people for highsec would have an issue with "no ability to change docking rights if there is an in progress contract"? If you don't want randomers making contracts to your station then don't allow them access. If they don't have access then they cannot accept the contract or if they do it will be to the "backup station" with the 5 day delay.
[19:07] <nasantha> I know it wouldn't work for low/null/wh as you could then use it to freeze the rights deliberately
[19:08] <nasantha> it could be a way of not getting trolled by a citadel owner in highsec though
[19:08] <lynfel> Seems a lot easier to implement than temporary keys and other ideas brought up.
[19:08] <kennethfeld> nasantha: fozzie already said no to that
[19:09] <nasantha> was fozzie thinking it would be universal though?
[19:09] <lynfel> It doesn't pose a security risk because if you don't click it it doesn't happen
[19:09] <kennethfeld> remember, if you are talking a citadel, it is managed by a profile, if that profile is on 10 citadels, then you locked all 10 citadels
[19:10] <kennethfeld> you can't just seperate a citadel from the profile
[19:10] <kennethfeld> and the way you lock a citadel would be to lock a profile
[19:10] <lynfel> Can't you have multiple prfiles
[19:10] <nasantha> unless there was some way of creating a temporary profile for that citadel that lasts as long as the delivery time for the contract upon acceptance
[19:11] <kennethfeld> yes, but the main selling point of citadels is to make one profile and make it work on many structures, that way you don't have to make a new one for each structure
[19:11] <nasantha> then the temporary gets deleted at the timeout or on delivery
[19:11] <kennethfeld> eventually, you can push profile via crest
[19:11] <lynfel> I would assume most people who wanted to freeport a citadel wouldn't mind having 2
[19:12] <lynfel> One for private and one for freeport
[19:12] <cassie_helio> What you said there nasantha is the same idea for the keys I had, except yours is profiles.
[19:12] <kennethfeld> You were complaining about managing opne single acl, now you want someone to manage 2 seperate profiles and keep track of which one goes to which citadel
[19:13] <kennethfeld> I highly doubt locking profiles is on the table based on his comment, but VoV
[19:13] <lynfel> I don't want to manage any acls
[19:13] <lynfel> I want citadel owners to be able to choose to freeport it for a time
[19:14] <cassie_helio> ^ i like that idea too.
[19:14] <lynfel> So they can be used as trade hubs and manufacturing
[19:14] <kennethfeld> so, you are back to my idea from 12 months ago
[19:14] <lynfel> And I want it ti take longer than 2 seconds to remove freeport status
[19:15] <kennethfeld> make the owner push a butan to freeport it and make it extremely difficult if not impossible to un free port it
[19:15] <nasantha> I think we also need to think further than just citadels but to the future structures as well as making the contracting system robust enough for those now would help later
[19:15] <lynfel> Doesn't have to be forever but definitely a timer
[19:16] <lynfel> If we have to negotiate with every citadel owner in hisec there will not be many we service
[19:17] <nasantha> I can see that though creating some fun havoc in nullsec with an inside spy who can control the freeport status
[19:17] <kennethfeld> only director and ceo and station manager can access the prifle
[19:18] <kennethfeld> so, thwey can cause no more trouble than they can if they owned an outpost
[19:18] <lynfel> And being able to move the delivery location to the asset reclamation system does not solve the problem due to the fact that most of us use contract alts.
[19:18] <kennethfeld> it is one of the few things that is controlled by roles when talkign about citadels
[19:18] <lynfel> Let the alt still dock but remove the freighter pilots' access
[19:20] <kennethfeld> it comes down to either or - Either the owner of the citadel takes risk and allows people to dock and do contracts OR the hauling people assume the risk they can dock when they get there
[19:20] <kennethfeld> we need to answer that question first, then solve for how
[19:21] <lynfel> In general we would not. Few cases we may but that will limit trade hubs.
[19:24] <lynfel> And if Fozzie already said no freeport he should rethink it because everything else that will provide haulers with a modest amount of security will be even harder to implement correctly.
[19:25] <nasantha> To be honest. I think querns idea for a no fault return would be something haulers could work with for the risk of not being able to dock. The delivery cost could always be higher and that provides an insurance to cover the lost payment to the hauler. That is something hauling corps could probably work with. Pratting around with ACLs would be impractical to keep them up to date (at least for highsec). Low/null would have to be through diplomacy I would guess.
[19:27] <lynfel> The problem comes when both the pick up and drop off locations ar both citadels
[19:27] <lynfel> If they both change access
[19:28] <nasantha> which is why the temporary access change freeze for the citadels involved would be super.
[19:28] <kennethfeld> which he said won't happen
[19:29] <nasantha> I know :disappointed:
[19:29] <lynfel> I play Eve Online... I am noy very trusting.
[19:29] <cassie_helio> Lynfel, if you send me 20m I can double it for you.
[19:30] <nasantha> Fozzie also said the post office idea was probably off the cards too which does leave us basically at outpotsts in highsec and lowsec where there wasn't anything as restrictive previously
[19:31] <nasantha> It turns most citadels (at least in highsec) into a vanity project in that case
[19:32] <lynfel> Rerouting after losing access is problematic due to the contract alt and freighter pilot being different
[19:32] <nasantha> true unless you could create a contract with two destinations
[19:32] <nasantha> and you could pick either the primary or the reserve
[19:33] <querns> as a contract maker i don't want my goods to be delivered to the reserve unless there's no other options
[19:33] <nasantha> or you could work around it by item exchanging at both ends
[19:33] <lynfel> Only if both can still dock
[19:34] <nasantha> they should both be able to dock at the reserve location if not the primary given it would be an npc station
[19:35] <nasantha> querns. Yeh I feel the same that the reserve would essentially be a safety net in case things go really wrong
[19:35] <lynfel> Like querns said though. Customer's wouldn't want there items in the reserve because someone messed with the settings
[19:35] <querns> yeah
[19:36] <querns> i don't want to have to haul it from the reserve to where i really want it
[19:36] <nasantha> question is, what safety net is there for getting the shit delivered to the primary?
[19:36] <lynfel> And only blocked 1 freghter pilot
[19:37] <nasantha> Actually, interesting question. Should it be the citadel owners problem or should it be the contract creators problem?
[19:37] <lynfel> I think most likely it will be the contract carrier's problem
[19:37] <lynfel> Which I obviously don't want
[19:38] <nasantha> I don't think anyone wants that, theres enough scams already with contracting as it is
[19:41] <nasantha> I also think its something of a lazy way out. Its like putting an address of a house that has been bulldozed on a letter and then putting it in the mailbox. Is it the posties fault that he cannot deliver it to a pile of rubble or the letter senders fault for putting a levelled address?
[19:42] <lynfel> Postman doesn't care because he didn't put up 1 billion collateral when he accepted the package.
[19:43] <nasantha> True but generally the letter gets returned to sender if at all possible
[19:44] <nasantha> if not possible (due to a change of access rights at the pickup for example) then I guess the individual who took the courier becomes the custodian and it comes down to negociation with the contract creator to get it back to them
[19:45] <lynfel> which is where 1000 contracts full of empty containers with 1b collateral each get made.
[19:45] <nasantha> very much agreed
[19:45] <lynfel> to/from citadels owned by the same person
[19:46] <nasantha> which is why this loophole needs closing one way or another.
[19:46] <kennethfeld> nasantha [3:37 PM]
[19:46] <kennethfeld> Actually, interesting question. Should it be the citadel owners problem or should it be the contract creators problem?
[19:47] <kennethfeld> that is the same question as
[19:47] <kennethfeld> kennethfeld [3:20 PM]
[19:47] <kennethfeld> it comes down to either or - Either the owner of the citadel takes risk and allows people to dock and do contracts OR the hauling people assume the risk they can dock when they get there
[19:47] <kennethfeld> just re qorded
[19:47] <nasantha> not quite, the hauling person and the contract creator are different people
[19:47] <kennethfeld> risk and problem are the same thing
[19:48] <kennethfeld> contract creator represent the owner in that case
[19:48] <nasantha> if it is a "freeport" then anyone could be the contract creator and not just the citadel owner
[19:48] <lynfel> or anyone the owner allows to dock
[19:49] <lynfel> or even not
[19:50] <nasantha> Unless some other ideas come to the table then either ccp are going to have to put more resources onto the task and possibly stretch the timeline out to october or whenever. Some of the dissenting nos about access freezing on active contracts are to have to back down or we are going to have to try and make keys work
[19:52] <nasantha> that is unless I am missing something?
[19:52] <kennethfeld> I mean the butan to make it a freeport would solve a shit ton of problems, we just don't know if it is viable and anyone who wants a freeport will have no problem pushing it
[19:53] <kennethfeld> short of that, there is going to be a hack somewhere in the process
[19:53] <kennethfeld> just figuring out how to hack in the least intrusive way
[19:53] <lynfel> More likely release without any complete safeguards which will mean we just don't bother until the next release where they get implemented. Sorry, I am a pessimist. :slightly_smiling_face:
[19:53] <nasantha> It wouldn't solve any of the issues for access to low/null for private contracts though unless through diplomacy all over
[19:54] <kennethfeld> low and null are going to be diplomacy - period
[19:54] <kennethfeld> although, if someone wanted to push the freeport butan - that is up to them
[19:54] <lynfel> obviously for most. there are a few nullsec freeports now though
[19:56] <lynfel> I'm not saying there shouldn't be diplomacy. I am just saying there should be a mechanic that allows citadel owners the option to make it easy.
[19:56] <dune.barphsaq> yeah, I can see where someone wants to start a market in low or npc null with a freeport citadel, why not
[19:57] <lynfel> If people can freeport a citadel and it takes a week to undo it, I can service it without spending time talking to them to work out everything and having to decide if its worth the risk or not (aka is it Chribba?).
[20:02] <lynfel> which would allow more new markets instead of limiting it to a select few.
[20:04] <kennethfeld> a week isn't nearly enough - month minimum if not permanent
[20:04] <kennethfeld> also, perisists thru xfers
[20:05] <nasantha> say you are delivering to a freeport and it gets popped, I guess the package then has to go to the alternative destination?
[20:06] <lynfel> That works because then it doesn't matter that contractor and pilot are separate
[20:06] <kennethfeld> yeah, can't help destruction
[20:06] <nasantha> I guess that would limit the appeal of freeported citadels in nullsec if they are not close to lowsec
[20:06] <kennethfeld> no one can dock if it explodes
[20:07] <lynfel> Black frog can redirect to nearest lowsec np.
[20:07] <lynfel> If its gone
[20:08] <lynfel> But we'll still have private customer's in nullsec we do sort docking rights with yoo of course. Locked freeports would just be a bonus we don't have now.
[20:09] <lynfel> We don't service freeports now because it can change too quickly
[20:16] <kennethfeld> right
[20:16] <kennethfeld> that is one thing we can change with citadels, you want to make a freeport - awesome - then press this butan
[20:19] <lynfel> Actually, as long as we're talking about nullsec couriers a warning on the contract window if the system is cyno jammed (incursion or otherwise) would be sweet so I don't have to open my map and look for incursions before accepting every contract.
[20:19] <lynfel> But that's not strictly related to citadels
[20:28] <cpt_patrick_archer> im not sure that easy to do.
[20:28] <kennethfeld> they will never tell if it is jammed by a jammer...the intel factor alone would be prohibitive
[20:28] <cpt_patrick_archer> cyno jammer isnt public knowledge
[20:28] <cpt_patrick_archer> yeah i agree
[20:29] <cpt_patrick_archer> cause you can just setup a courier from an alt
[20:29] <cpt_patrick_archer> and accept it, then it tells you if its jamme dor not
[20:29] <lynfel> incursion warning then
[20:29] <lynfel> shouldn't be too hard
[20:29] <lynfel> saves me looking at the map
[20:29] <cpt_patrick_archer> is that a huge deal?
[20:29] <lynfel> actually, that's the only time I ever open the map
[20:30] <lynfel> when accepting a black frog contract.
[20:30] <kennethfeld> incursion is crest driven, you could have your fancy web interface know if it is incursion before someone makes the contract
[20:30] <cpt_patrick_archer> ^
[20:30] <kennethfeld> that is how dotlan gets that data
[20:30] <lynfel> people forget to check though. if there was a warning on the contract would make that less likely though
[20:30] <lynfel> and there is a bit of delay on dotlan
[20:31] <kennethfeld> no, make it a thing on your website when people make the courier to say there is an incursion, make it a 7 day scontract or whatever instead of a 3 day
[20:31] <kennethfeld> if the system or mids are in an incursion
[20:32] <lynfel> ya, will have to talk to our IT guy about adding an incursion warning. We just go around incursed mids.
[20:32] <lynfel> we're going to miss the in game browser. we use it a lot for our contract checking/accepting
[20:33] <lynfel> can still use it for checking accuracy but will need to go out of game, find contract you want, then go back in and search for the right one
[20:33] <lynfel> instead of just clicking to open it on the in game browser
[20:51] <dune.barphsaq> in game warning on system having an incursion wouldn't help you on the high sec islands served by one low sec entry though. But it could be added to your tool, find those systems and have the tool check the entries for incursions.
[20:56] <lynfel> ya, I should be able to get that on there too.
[20:56] <lynfel> if its one of these 3 systems check such and such for incursion.