[17:49] <kennethfeld> anyone alive in here....
[17:49] <kennethfeld> is my computer broken
[17:49] <kennethfeld> ccp_larrikin: any viability on some sort of mechanism available to owners to make their citadel a freeport with very very very limited ability to reverse that decision?
[17:50] <kennethfeld> or reversing take a significant amount of time?
[17:50] <kennethfeld> 7 days has been bounced around, but i think 17 days is max courier isn't it - 14 day contract and 3 day delivery....
[17:53] <dune.barphsaq> you can make delivery time as high as 365 days
[17:54] <dune.barphsaq> but I don't think it should take that long to unfreeport a citadel, obviously. 7 days makes sense to me
[17:57] <cpt_patrick_archer> @kennethfeld: yes, time to complete can be at least 365 days. Possibly more but I have never tested that.
[17:57] <cpt_patrick_archer> I agree that a limited freeport option would be interesting, but as fozzie said a couple days ago. It cause a lot of new issues
[17:57] <kennethfeld> OK, well, 7 days would be the absolute minimum
[17:58] <kennethfeld> where did fozzie say it would cause problems...i must have missed that
[17:58] <kennethfeld> he said keys would cause problems
[17:59] <kennethfeld> or locking the ACL upon contract start
[18:00] <cpt_patrick_archer> Srry, he didn't exactly say that. But this was his reply when I proposed to "lock" a Public ACL in the Citadel when there is a public courier up from/to it.
[18:00] <cpt_patrick_archer> [June 22nd, 2016 7:03 PM] ccp_fozzie: @cpt_patrick_archer: having open contracts lock the ACL would be a giant bag of worms. For instance any player would be able to use contracts to an alt to prevent the ACL from ever changing
[18:00] <kennethfeld> He was talking about a system where making a contract "Locked" the profile
[18:00] <kennethfeld> but, i am talking the owner pressing a butan to enable this "Feature" on the citadel - how long it lasts or how long it takes to uncheck the box is what we are really talking about here...
[18:00] <cpt_patrick_archer> It would probably have to be done in that way, using a locked public ACL
[18:00] <kennethfeld> no
[18:01] <kennethfeld> do you understand the relation ship between ACL, Profile and multiple citadels?
[18:01] <kennethfeld> that is what fozzie was talking about
[18:01] <cpt_patrick_archer> If that is possible, add some sort of "freeport button" to individual citadels. It could solve the public courier problem.
[18:01] <cpt_patrick_archer> For a fixed amount of time, like you said.
[18:02] <kennethfeld> the public ACL is locked by default it is a butan in the profile
[18:02] <kennethfeld> cpt_patrick_archer: see my question to ccp_larrikin that is EXACTLY what i was asking - is this possible
[18:02] <kennethfeld> ccp_larrikin: any viability on some sort of mechanism available to owners to make their citadel a freeport with very very very limited ability to reverse that decision?
[18:02] <kennethfeld> [
[18:03] <kennethfeld> I would like to see it take 30 days minimum to reverse the decsion - ultimately, i would like to see it permanent - But I realize that will probably never happen - so to me 30 days is fine
[18:03] <kennethfeld> however, i think most people think 7 days is enough
[18:04] <kennethfeld> so, if that is a viable option - then it really comes down to hashing out the timeframe
[18:04] <kennethfeld> after that - it is basically if you don't free port - no public contracts type thing - or the hauling companies hashing out individual deals
[18:07] <cpt_patrick_archer> Sounds like a good idea if it's possible.
[18:07] <cpt_patrick_archer> I never do public contracts, I think the redfrog / pushx boys have more experience with that?
[18:07] <cpt_patrick_archer> Any of you can shed a light on the timefrime kenneth was talking about?
[19:02] <cassie_helio> timeframe for what?
[19:03] <kennethfeld> cassie_helio: between undoing what the citadel owner does to make the citadel a freeport - until it is no longer a freeport
[19:03] <kennethfeld> basically the time between when a citadel owner says "No more freeport" until access is restricted
[19:03] <nasantha> I was discussing this with the NEE management this morning and we reckoned we could actually work with 24 hours provided there was a no fault returns solution
[19:04] <cassie_helio> I think 7-14 days, anywhere in there, is good.
[19:05] <kennethfeld> nasantha: thwere is more than just you, we are aso talking public contracts - which don't have near the sophistication of a haulign company
[19:05] <nasantha> Yeh true
[19:05] <kennethfeld> 7 days needs to be the absolute minimum
[19:05] <nasantha> agreed for the sake of pubs
[19:06] <kennethfeld> which due to the hauling company effeciency and web tools etc, is generally enough time for you guys no issues
[19:06] <cassie_helio> Yeah, I kind of like the idea of a month. It really puts the pressure on to decide how you want your citadel to work. Possibly it even encourages owning multiple citadels.
[19:06] <kennethfeld> BUT - you guys aren't dealing with public contracts much either - so there is a whole nother can of worms there, but I think that is easy
[19:07] <cassie_helio> I think citadel owners might not like that much though. the middle ground, 14 days, sounds about right.
[19:07] <kennethfeld> if a citadel owners wants a freeport and market, that is what eh wants - period
[19:07] <kennethfeld> I don't really see a large portion - even a medium portion being wishy washy
[19:07] <cassie_helio> yeah, that's probably true
[19:12] <cassie_helio> I suppose the option to choose freeport or not is needed when anchoring it.
[19:24] <querns> you may want to temper your expectations with regards to getting "freeport" citadel mode
[19:24] <querns> a modification like that seems pretty out of scope
[19:31] <kennethfeld> querns: yeah, which is why i have been asking if it is even possible - no sense discussing it much more if it isn't possible
[19:47] <ccphabakuk> Just a question: What would be your expectation of a freeport citadel? Would the owner still be allowed to define an exclusion list?
[19:48] <querns> i doubt that is what they'd want
[19:48] <cpt_patrick_archer> That would define the purpose. Cause then you can quickly blacklist the freighter pilot
[19:48] <querns> the idea being that you cannot revoke access to anyone without significant warning, or potentially ever
[19:49] <ccphabakuk> So no way to deny war targets for example?
[19:49] <cpt_patrick_archer> Fair point
[19:49] <dune.barphsaq> *defeat the purpose
[19:49] <cpt_patrick_archer> Sorry, yeah
[19:49] <cpt_patrick_archer> Autocorrect
[19:49] <querns> i think it's a lot of work that doesn't need to be done, when a system for no-fault alternate delivery in the case of being locked out is possible
[19:49] <cassie_helio> An exclusion list not editable after freeport mode? Interesting question but no in my opinion. Freeport would be open to all.
[19:51] <cpt_patrick_archer> I mean if we want the "Freeport button" to be a fix for losing docking when doing a jf run, it can't have any exclusions
[19:52] <cpt_patrick_archer> Well, I guess you could use a neutral jf alt. But only if you can contract packages with more assembled containers/ships/mtus etc in it.
[19:52] <dune.barphsaq> 'no fault return' is a good fail safe, but making a trip all the way out to a citadel to find out you've then been locked out and having to return would suck.
[19:53] <querns> i think the proposal ccp_fozzie floated was that the return would actually occur in the natural asset safety system of the destination
[19:53] <querns> which, granted, would suck for nullsec
[19:53] <querns> but i am not inclined to believe that a public courier service to random bits of nullsec is an edge case that would ever happen in reality
[20:02] <kennethfeld> ccphabakuk: what difference in high sec would wartargets make if they could dock - that being said - the wartargets are at war with the citadel itself and maybe freeport could auto exclude wartargets - we don't know, that is why we are asking
[20:03] <kennethfeld> querns: the problem for alternate delivery is 2 fold - the acceptor could be able to dock, but unable to deliver the package - the freighter pilot can deliver, but may not be able to dock
[20:04] <kennethfeld> basically, make a DEFAULT unchangable profile labeled Freeport, which defines all things as public, but excludes all wartargets
[20:05] <kennethfeld> by default I mean in the list, still make the corp profile the default when erecting a citadel
[20:05] <kennethfeld> not sure if you can define a acl entry as a wartarget, as they change, but maybe you can do some CCP sorcery
[20:07] <ccphabakuk> Well, docking and tethering are currently linked together. I assume it would be not optimal for many if wartargets can tether (and be repaired by the citadel). Excluding wartargets (and maybe more as we find more edge cases?) might become a can of worms.
[20:07] <querns> yeah -- a solution allowing for returns would need to be irrespective of who accepted the package
[20:08] <kennethfeld> is it even possible, can you guys figure out how to make a default profile that we can't mess with and assign it all public and exclude wartargets
[20:08] <querns> since the current design for the game requires you to use an NPC corp alt to do hauling, full stop, period
[20:08] <kennethfeld> if that is the case, then every package would be dropped off that way, why bother with the extra step
[20:09] <ccphabakuk> I assume a lot is theoretical possible - but if it becomes complicated then it will take very long, and our time is quite busy.
[20:10] <kennethfeld> sure, we understand the dev time on this is limited - so quick fix - no worries - 6 weeks of coding - aint gonna happen
[20:10] <querns> yeah, the default option would have to be restricted somehow to make it not the optimal choice
[20:11] <kennethfeld> but somethign has to be locked in to guarantee docking when contracts will be publically available
[20:11] <kennethfeld> or it is just a scam fest for collateral
[20:11] <querns> naw, there just has to be an option to default if you're locked out or the citadel is destroyed
[20:12] <kennethfeld> who is locked out, freighter pilot or acceptor?
[20:12] <querns> freighter pilot
[20:12] <querns> the accepter doesn't matter in this scenario
[20:12] <kennethfeld> if accetor isn't locked out and needs to complete and can just complete from anywhere, then EVERY courier will be delivered that way
[20:12] <querns> not if there's a disincentive
[20:12] <kennethfeld> then no public contracts will be accepted
[20:13] <kennethfeld> can have cake and eat it too
[20:13] <querns> the risk of incurring the disincentive should be lower than the collateral ding for failing the contract
[20:13] <querns> er the penalty, not the risk
[20:13] <kennethfeld> huh
[20:14] <querns> so think of it in terms of reward and punishment
[20:14] <querns> maximum reward: contract delivered to citadel
[20:14] <kennethfeld> except you can't deliver
[20:14] <querns> i'm not finished explaining
[20:14] <kennethfeld> Imma go make dinner and read when i get abck then
[20:15] <querns> less than maximum reward, or some other minor censure: contract delivered to fallback, after attempt is made to do it right
[20:15] <querns> maximum spank: no attempt made to deliver
[20:27] <kennethfeld> so, then i set up my own contracts from station to citadel and try to deliver, then just don't and it defaults and moves it to the citadel for me?
[20:27] <kennethfeld> make 1 isk collateral and 1 isk rewards, so there is no changce of negative side effects
[20:28] <kennethfeld> same thing when i have to move stuff to industrial arrays from drilling platforms (refineries) i setup a dummt courier to an alt i know can't dock, he accepts, tries and then just voila, it moves itself
[20:40] <querns> no, no auto delivery from fallback to citadel i'd say
[20:40] <querns> if fallback occurs it needs to be for a necessary reason and not just the whim of the hauler
[20:52] <kennethfeld> well, if the hauler doesn't have access - it isn't a whim
[20:52] <kennethfeld> what about if the hauler can't access it to pick up the package?
[20:55] <querns> that seems trivially avoidable by flying to the source first
[20:56] <querns> would be interesting to get some stats though
[20:56] <querns> my gut feeling is that the vast majority of public couriers start, finish, or both in a major trade hub
[21:18] <kennethfeld> but if you are trying to game te system, you wouldn't fly there first, that is my point
[21:19] <lynfel> ccphabakuk: it seems to me that locking docking rights open until contracts are completed when you have to take into consideration that both the freighter pilot and possible contract alt have to be able to dock and anyone can make a courier contract, or having an alternate delivery station if the docking rights are revoked en route when you have to have that effective even if only the freighter pilot becomes locked out even if the contract alt still can, would be much harder to implement than a button on the acl profile that allows you to freeport your citadel and a 7 day timer when you uncheck it.
[21:20] <lynfel> the freeport option seems easier.
[21:21] <querns> what's easier is to just use the contemporary outpost rules
[21:21] <querns> :v:
[21:21] <lynfel> just lengthen the timer on removing freeport status
[21:21] <lynfel> so I don't have to talk to people
[21:21] <lynfel> :slightly_smiling_face:
[21:22] <kennethfeld> I like regular nullsec outposts rules, but i do admit dealing with literally hundreds of different corps and docking rights in high sec would drive people to suicide
[21:22] <querns> and you're misclassifying the work
[21:23] <querns> when i say "work," i mean actual coding
[21:23] <querns> the work you've described is game design
[21:26] <lynfel> well, the only idea I have seen fozzie mentioned was rerouting the contract if docking rights are removed, but that doesn't take into consideration the fact that the contract acceptor is often not the pilot moving the contract. docking rights can be left on for the contract alt but not the freighter pilot so then I assume the rerouting option would not be made available. You would have to always allow for the alternate destination option to be used even if the contract alt can still dock, but contract creators would not like that I'm sure.
[21:27] <querns> yeah, any solution has to work for the freighter pilot
[21:27] <querns> due to the realities of eve
[21:28] <lynfel> the freeport idea lets you just do contracts to and from citadels without having to negotiate with every single citadel owner in eve first.
[21:28] <lynfel> to citadel owners that want to allow freeport anyway
[21:28] <lynfel> obviously not everyone would
[21:28] <querns> my resistance to the freeport idea is mostly that of the time it'd take
[21:28] <lynfel> well, I assume PL and Goonswarm would never check that button.
[21:29] <kennethfeld> what time?
[21:29] <lynfel> I'm thinking more for hisec trade
[21:29] <querns> the time it'd take to develop a freeport mode
[21:29] <lynfel> more trade hubs
[21:29] <kennethfeld> we don't knw what that time is yet
[21:29] <kennethfeld> could be 2 hours
[21:29] <kennethfeld> could be 2 months
[21:29] <querns> i don't want private contracts to get bogged down with a very real concern, but one that doesn't impact privates at all
[21:29] <kennethfeld> I asked ccp_larrikin nothing, and ccphabakuk also hasn't answered
[21:29] <querns> and, believe it or not, i actually use the hell out of public contracts in empire
[21:29] <querns> i highly value people doing the hauling for me
[21:29] <kennethfeld> same here
[21:30] <querns> i'm very much motivated to not screw public haulers
[21:30] <lynfel> saranen was black frog's busiest destination last month. :wink:
[21:30] <querns> yeah, cfcdot moved there, largely
[21:30] <querns> they use black frog a lot
[21:30] <kennethfeld> querns: if it is just a profile, that is default - like the corp one, but locked and makes everythign public, and excludes wartargets - what else would be needed?
[21:30] <kennethfeld> we just don't know if CCP can make a exclusion based on WT that change for every owner or not
[21:31] <kennethfeld> once that profile is applied, there is a countdown between removign that profile and putting in a different one of 7, 14, 30 days
[21:33] <dune.barphsaq> i wouldn't let the WT thing be a deal breaker, it would be nice to block access to them, sure, but I wouldn't want that to hold up the whole idea of a freeport.
[21:33] <kennethfeld> yes, same here
[21:33] <kennethfeld> that would be icing on the cake so to speak
[21:33] <querns> the problem is that wartargets being able to dock means they can tether
[21:33] <kennethfeld> ok
[21:33] <kennethfeld> so
[21:33] <querns> which means the defender is denied a massive defense advantage that he'd normally have
[21:34] <kennethfeld> how?
[21:34] <querns> WTs tether, align off, shoot warp
[21:34] <kennethfeld> ok
[21:34] <querns> can't kill WTs with your citadel if they are tethered, because you can't lock them
[21:34] <kennethfeld> umm, also, as soon as you start to lock, you break tether
[21:35] <kennethfeld> if they shoot the citadel or anythign else, they can't tether for 60 seconds
[21:35] <kennethfeld> they could never rf the citadel
[21:35] <querns> hence why they warp off
[21:35] <kennethfeld> and i would assume no person in the owning corp would be around, these would be under holding corps
[21:36] <querns> the defender has a right to defend their citadel
[21:36] <querns> you can't just throw it away because "they'll be in holding corps"
[21:36] <kennethfeld> you still lost me
[21:36] <kennethfeld> so, you are worried about someone warping in and warpinf out once a minute and taking a single plink at the citadel, which would auto repair long before going into RF>?
[21:37] <dune.barphsaq> yeah, I'm missing the issue as well
[21:37] <kennethfeld> actually, several oplinks because they would be auto pointed, which means the citadel could point them then and they are stuck
[21:37] <querns> it'd afford them a significant advantage against a fleet formed up to defend the citadel
[21:37] <kennethfeld> they can NEVER rf the citadel unless they stay, are you not familiar with the 15 min auto repair function
[21:38] <kennethfeld> there is no way they can warp in/out and rf it
[21:38] <querns> they can, because it's trivial to out-rep the damage a single citadel does against a sig/speed tanking subcap gang
[21:38] <kennethfeld> and if they take a plink, they are stuck for 20 seconds, in which time the citadel can lock and point them
[21:38] <querns> if they can use tethering mechanics to thin out a defense fleet, they can RF the citadel with impunity
[21:38] <querns> this is in highsec, where there are no bombs
[21:38] <kennethfeld> no
[21:39] <kennethfeld> defense fleet tetehrs and isn't lockable either
[21:39] <kennethfeld> someone has to untether first and as son as they shoot the citadel, they are pointed
[21:39] <kennethfeld> then defense fleet picks them off one at a time
[21:39] <querns> third party
[21:40] <kennethfeld> unless they don't warp out, in which case, you got a regular old fight and we are back to square one
[21:40] <kennethfeld> and i still dont' understand your point
[21:40] <kennethfeld> what about a third p[arty?
[21:40] <querns> the point is that wartargets shouldn't be able to be safe on the defender's citadel
[21:40] <kennethfeld> sure, agreed, but it isn't a dealbreaker in my eyes
[21:41] <dune.barphsaq> 3rd party could be there anyway because they are not excluded from the freeport if they are not WTs
[21:41] <kennethfeld> yup
[21:41] <querns> they have to be wardecced to shoot the citadel havers
[21:41] <querns> or hell not even a third party, just split your fleet
[21:41] <querns> into a small group of people who can meet the DPS cap and a gank squad
[21:42] <querns> the gank squad can completely avoid shooting the citadel, avoid the reflex point, and abuse tethering to pop defenders
[21:42] <kennethfeld> no offense, but I think you are out there in tin foil hat land - I am not saying WT should have carte blanche and it is soemthing they could work on, but for initial implentation, it shouldn't be a show stopper
[21:42] <kennethfeld> a gank squad can be used on either side
[21:43] <querns> it's not really as unlikely as you think -- there's a whole language of highsec pvp, laughable as you may find it, that is gone through
[21:43] <kennethfeld> ganking shouldn't factor into whether or not XXX can tether
[21:43] <querns> i learned this watching the geras affair play out
[21:43] <querns> https://www.themittani.com/news/crius-factories-and-racketeering the reference
[21:43] <kennethfeld> well, at some point, the attacker have to shoot the citadel, at that point they can't tether
[21:43] <kennethfeld> then you have a brawl
[21:44] <querns> the whole of the attacker doesn't have to, a portion of them can remain uninvolved with the citadel shooting
[21:44] <kennethfeld> huh
[21:44] <kennethfeld> so, basically, you have an overwhelming force then and are going to RF no matter what
[21:44] <kennethfeld> then again, who cares?
[21:44] <querns> you don't need that many people to do this
[21:44] <kennethfeld> then you need to explain it better
[21:45] <querns> you can use this mechanic to shield the majority of your fleet from being attacked by the citadel
[21:45] <kennethfeld> I still dont' understand how in any way what you are referencing is affected by both sides tethering
[21:45] <querns> it is not a difficult concept
[21:45] <kennethfeld> then the citadel repairs itself
[21:45] <querns> you don't need to use your entire fleet to prevent the repair
[21:45] <kennethfeld> the thing with ciatdels is you must do damage or it repairs, specifically designed to stop the anics you seem to be referenceing
[21:46] <kennethfeld> OK, say it is 10 v 10
[21:46] <querns> what part of "your entire fleet doesn't have to shoot the citadel to prevent the repair" am i failing to convey
[21:46] <kennethfeld> how many of the attacking 10 aren't going to attack?
[21:46] <querns> depends on the size of the citadel
[21:46] <kennethfeld> large
[21:46] <kennethfeld> or 20 v 20
[21:46] <querns> that's a pretty crappy example, also
[21:46] <querns> depends what ships they are in
[21:46] <kennethfeld> you can choose the size as long as it is EQUAL
[21:47] <kennethfeld> you can choose ships, as long as they are roughly equal
[21:47] <querns> i'm not particularly interested in digging that deeply into hypotheticals
[21:47] <querns> the issue is simple
[21:47] <querns> wartargets tethering is bad
[21:47] <kennethfeld> I never said it wasn't
[21:47] <kennethfeld> I said it was ACCEPTABLE at first
[21:47] <cassie_helio> >your entire fleet doesn't have to shoot the citadel to prevent the repair
[21:47] <cassie_helio> If they attack the citadel to prevent it from repairing, then they won't tether and someone can shoot and kill them, right?
[21:47] <kennethfeld> yes
[21:48] <kennethfeld> a fact he overlooks every time
[21:48] <querns> no, then those people can be picked off by the bulk of the rest of the forces
[21:48] <querns> in perfect safety
[21:48] <kennethfeld> he seems to have 6 attacking fleets and only one defense fleet, in which case they are fucked no matter what
[21:48] <querns> and the citadel cannot do anything to stop that force
[21:48] <querns> it's not separate fleets
[21:48] <querns> it's one fleet
[21:48] <querns> squad 1 puts pressure on the citadel, squads 2 and 3 stay tethered
[21:48] <querns> e.g.
[21:49] <kennethfeld> with equal numbers, if some attackers are tethered, then the rest are outnumbered by that same amount and will prolly eat shit
[21:49] <kennethfeld> ok, then defense fleet squad 1/2/3 all shoot squad 1
[21:49] <kennethfeld> squad 1 dies
[21:51] <cassie_helio> >
[21:51] <cassie_helio> squad 1 puts pressure on the citadel, squads 2 and 3 stay tethered
[21:51] <cassie_helio> if squads 2 or 3 attack someone they become untethered too. Are you saying if they instapop the defenders?
[21:51] <querns> they'd be set up to, yes
[21:51] <kennethfeld> then they are screwed for 60 seconds
[21:51] <querns> attacker squad 2 and 3 can be high alpha, lightly tanked since they are aligning, shooting, and warping
[21:51] <kennethfeld> so, while an entire squad eats shit, they kill 1 guy
[21:51] <querns> who says the entire squad 1 eats shit
[21:52] <kennethfeld> you did
[21:52] <querns> no i didn't
[21:52] <kennethfeld> so, you are saying with equal ships, if you have 30 v 10, the 10 wins?
[21:52] <querns> i'm saying that denying the citadel havers a defensive advantage is stupid
[21:53] <querns> like i said, not interested in trying to drill down the topic into some bizarre vignette where it might not matter
[21:53] <kennethfeld> but you still haven't come out with an even remotely realistic scenario where it matter greatly and you still are under the assumption this is for all time
[21:53] <kennethfeld> ccp_fozzie: is on vacation and is only talking in AT channel LOL :slightly_smiling_face:
[21:54] <querns> i guess i'm just not capable of communicating why allowing wartargets the ability to tether isn't worth whatever peace of mind it affords couriers, in the minds of the citadel owner
[21:55] <kennethfeld> we are also only talking about getting it out the door, not forever
[21:56] <dune.barphsaq> we all agree it would be nice if WTs could not dock, I just said if that was holding up the entire idea of a freeport, thats bad. I mean there will of course be some risk if you make your citadel open to the public, its a question of risk vs reward. and yeah, ideally they could implement that later.
[21:57] <querns> so the risk increasing for the citadel haver is acceptable but not for the courier? :V
[21:58] <querns> having no/low-fault returns in the case of fuckery reduces the risk to the courier quite a bit, the way i see it
[21:59] <kennethfeld> what does the courier have to do with a WT?
[21:59] <kennethfeld> they gonna wardec every freighter in a npc corp?
[22:00] <dune.barphsaq> i don't see what low fault return to sender gets you that just depositing it into the safety system doesn't
[22:00] <querns> roughly, it's the same thing
[22:00] <querns> very roughly but yeah
[22:00] <cassie_helio> >what does the courier have to do with a WT?
[22:00] <cassie_helio> He's saying we're moving risk to the citadels and removing it from couriers and he is not sure if he agrees with that.
[22:00] <cassie_helio> citadel owners*
[22:00] <querns> idea being if you get screwed by not being able to dock or by the citadel exploding, you can deliver it to the destination's asset safety target
[22:01] <dune.barphsaq> either way you're going to have to have that built in to the system, because if the origin is a citadel that also gets destroyed, you need somewhere to take it
[22:02] <querns> yeah, that is why i said destination
[22:02] <querns> well, i think ccp_fozzie said it initially
[22:02] <querns> or whoever did, i agree
[22:02] <querns> that way if the source also blows up/denies you post-facto, then who cares
[22:02] <kennethfeld> and WT target is assumed to only be for a short while while the kinks are worked out, but allowed (Kinda like bumpin is allowed) to get the feature out the door
[22:02] <querns> don't need to put a bunch of rules in place for source if you can deliver to destination in case of fuckery
[22:03] <kennethfeld> imo source needs to same rules
[22:03] <kennethfeld> neut freigheytr may not be able to dock there also
[22:04] <querns> well in that case you wouldn't be able to pick up the package
[22:04] <querns> which seems like it'd be easy enough to detect
[22:04] <querns> "easy"
[22:04] <kennethfeld> but you alt already accepted and got the reward and paid the collateral
[22:04] <dune.barphsaq> yeah, i was just meaning why implement a "return to origin" feature if you'll also have the "deliver to safety" feauture
[22:05] <querns> ah yeah, i wasn't suggesting return to origin
[22:05] <dune.barphsaq> oh, ok, missed that sorry
[22:05] <querns> if you pick up the courier, it is assumed you can make it to either the true destination, or as a last resort, the fallback
[22:05] <querns> you can avoid getting screwed by being locked out of the source by docking before you accept the contract
[22:05] <querns> this is not ideal, i realize
[22:06] <querns> but it'd be a mechanical way to prevent fuckery in this regard with no change needed
[22:06] <querns> ccp_fozzie: talking to some of the other folks in goonswarm, they had a decent idea regarding selecting a courier destination
[22:06] <querns> make citadel names necessarily contain both the solar system name and a hash of the coordinates or itemid or something
[22:07] <querns> this would allow text search to function
[22:19] <kennethfeld> I think the drag/drop thing was how they were going to differentiate
[22:20] <querns> yeah but that requires a buildout of the structure browser, or flying to the region where your destination is
[22:20] <querns> if you are trying to courier to a citadel that you don't own
[22:21] <kennethfeld> gonna have to buildout the structure browser no matter what probably
[22:21] <querns> long-term perhaps
[22:21] <querns> but modifying text search in the way i've described is very easy
[22:22] <querns> but hey drag and drop could also work
[22:26] <kennethfeld> drag/drop is coming tuesday