[09:37] <steveronuken> get bumped into a citadel you can't dock in, have someone reship repeatedly and gank you?
[12:46] <kennethfeld> 3min warp and can't dock or reship with gcc or weapons timer
[12:47] <kennethfeld> in lowsec, they will just kill you, in HS hyperdunking wont' really work as they can only board 3 ships before you warp off
[13:10] <exooki> yeah but as long as one of those ships warp disrupts them it resets the 3 min warp timer doesnt it?
[13:31] <ccp_mimic> @channel: Google docs page updated with points from CCP. Please bring up any discussions here (for logging) and we can amend the sheet if anything changes [cc: focusgrouplogbot]
[13:32] <kennethfeld> ccp_mimic: you put WT being able to tether in HS is by design, you mean if you use a public profile, that is by design to not be able to easily exclude WT?
[13:33] <kennethfeld> also, for #9 - if the hauler must retrieve from asset safety, that takes a minimum of 5 days, so a contract extension is probably needed in almost all cases
[13:34] <ccp_mimic> It is easy to exclude them...you get a notification 24hrs before a war starts and are able to have an ACL as Public except XYZ (insert corp/alliance the war is with) This, added with the offensive module breaks tethering is deemed the choice of the Citadel owner to manage
[13:35] <kennethfeld> hmm, all that was based on the previous discussion about having some sort of locked profile or acl.....this gets complicated quickly...
[13:35] <ccp_mimic> as for #9, this is a risk of the hauler, and does then directly feed into #11 (being able to see if source/destination is a citadel) but still a risk/reward question for the hauler
[13:36] <kennethfeld> right, but if hauler accepts a 3 days contract and the source explodes and it takes 5 days to get his stuff from asset safety to deliver it...does that warrant the contract failing
[13:36] <kennethfeld> plus, who pays the tax on the item from asset safety
[13:37] <querns> same system is free
[13:37] <kennethfeld> agreed
[13:37] <querns> if it has to teleport then lol 21 days
[13:37] <querns> no i mean
[13:37] <querns> same system is just free
[13:37] <kennethfeld> stationless system is NOT free
[13:37] <querns> for asset safety
[13:37] <querns> it's also not 5d
[13:37] <kennethfeld> yes
[13:37] <kennethfeld> 5 days you can manually say go to asset safety
[13:37] <kennethfeld> 21days it is FORCED to asset safety
[13:37] <kennethfeld> there is a ginormous difference
[13:38] <kennethfeld> you can't even put down a citadel and get your stuff for free in <5 days
[13:39] <kennethfeld> the teleport time can take anywhere from 1 day to 15 days (on top of the 5 day minimum wait), to make 6 to 21 days for a MANUAL asset safety, if you wait for it to automagically move, you start at the 21st day and add travel time to that
[13:41] <ccp_mimic> and this is a choice that a hauler must make...if they choose to accept a contract before being in the location. If they deem it worth the chance of not being able to dock (or for the citadel to explode) before they collect it, then that is part of the risk equation they need to evaluate. Adding additional constraints on to what you as a player deem to be a good risk or a bad risk is not what this is about
[13:42] <kennethfeld> If that is CCP stance, that is fine
[13:45] <ccp_mimic> :slightly_smiling_face: You are allowed to argue with us...but do you not think that the choice should be yours? That the risk should be calculated by the one who is moving the items?
[13:48] <cpt_patrick_archer> I doubt anyone will accept couriers a couple days before picking it up. So I think it's fair to ask of the hauler dude that he knows where he's going, before saying yes.
[13:49] <cpt_patrick_archer> The only situation where it could happen is when it's an alliance evacing when it's in final timer or something. But then every JF pilot will know that shit is going down.
[13:50] <cpt_patrick_archer> The biggest problem is #8 and if that is solved, in my opinion that tackles the biggest problem.
[13:51] <kennethfeld> ccp_mimic: Yeah, arguing is fine, but it falls under pick your battles, it is minor, so save ammo for the important stuff
[14:00] <kennethfeld> Yeah #7 and #8 are huge (even if #7 is only delivery) that makes 80% of the use cases right there
[14:01] <kennethfeld> maybe more
[14:05] <ccp_mimic> ^ for reading ease #8: If contract accepted and picked up, contract destination switches to asset safety location via notification and you can deliver there
[14:06] <ccp_mimic> #7: Pick up and deliver to a citadel from tethering range, but not neccesarily tethered - Answer from CCP: Not for pick-up (that will require a player to be able to dock to retrieve goods through the inverntory system). However, delivery from docking range is possible.
[14:38] <cpt_patrick_archer> @ccp_mimic: I put a "view only link" in this chat earlier for the people reading the logs, they can see that too. And that same link is also in the MOTD of this channel, or whatever they call that on slack.
[14:39] <ccp_mimic> Ah yes, thanks :slightly_smiling_face:
[14:56] <kennethfeld> yeah, frocing someone to be able to dock and not accepting contract until they verify the acceptor and/or hauler can dock is a pain, but not end of the world, but removing docking rights and not being able to deliver is a much bigger issue in my mind and beign able to deliver from docking range is a huge QOL improvement
[16:18] <lynfel> That's what tripling pricing is for.
[16:21] <lynfel> Delivering the contract from docking range is good, but I don't see the solution for when the hauling pilot is not the original character that accepted the contract (as in most cases).
[16:22] <cpt_patrick_archer> I have added #13 after talking to a guy on reddit.
[16:22] <cpt_patrick_archer> "Ability to view contents of courier contracts (potentially only after accepting).
[16:22] <cpt_patrick_archer> For instance: When I fail two courier contracts to the same station with the exact same size (due to being to late for instance), it is impossible to figure out which one belonged to which customer."
[16:22] <cpt_patrick_archer> Do you guys see this as a "problem" or is this trivial? I know I've had these issues :slightly_smiling_face:
[16:37] <cpt_patrick_archer> Whoever is adding #15.
[16:37] <cpt_patrick_archer> That's a good point, but it's probably no doable with current technology? Dunno
[16:39] <lynfel> completing the contract without docking is pretty worthless without it
[16:43] <cassie_helio> I'm not sure what case 313 is talking about. You can see the contents. Either by looking at the package in station or in the Assets Windows->Search for "Container"->Right click->View contents.
[16:44] <cassie_helio> Unless I am missing the point?
[16:44] <lynfel> I think he means after you've been ganked and lost multiple contracts at once
[16:45] <cassie_helio> Ah, solely from Courier Contract itself. I see.
[16:45] <lynfel> Or he means say he rerouted them to another station. Then failed them both to re-contract the items back to different people. But if that's the case just do one at a time.
[16:55] <cpt_patrick_archer> Yes I mean I have 2 couriers of the same size of 2 different people, destination is the same station on both.
[16:55] <cpt_patrick_archer> I accept them and arrive to late to complete. Now I have 2 identical packages and I can't figure out which ones belongs to what guy.
[16:55] <cpt_patrick_archer> [July 12th, 2016 6:45 PM] lynfel: Or he means say he rerouted them to another station. Then failed them both to re-contract the items back to different people. But if that's the case just do one at a time.
[16:55] <cpt_patrick_archer> Or am I missing a feature here?
[16:56] <lynfel> You can still right click the contract itself at that point and view it even if it is expired/failed tbh. Its only after you break it you can't
[16:57] <cpt_patrick_archer> No I'm saying, I know for a fact 2 couriers with the same size to the same station have both expired. I still want to give the guys their stuff, so I need to figure out what package i contract to what guy.
[16:58] <cpt_patrick_archer> I mean if it's a trivial thing, i'll make do. I just thought of it when I was talking to that dude
[16:59] <cassie_helio> As long as you still have the packages you can view the contents. If they both have the same exact contents then,...ergh, you're out of luck. :stuck_out_tongue:
[17:01] <nasantha> if they both have the same contents then it doesn't matter who gets which one. (just send a mail saying that if there are any scrapes on any of the items that were not there before to contact you :p)
[17:01] <lynfel> you rightclick the package and view contract
[17:01] <lynfel> it will still say who it belongs to
[17:01] <lynfel> as long as you haven't broken the plastic
[17:02] <cassie_helio> @nasantha: not if both are shipping the same assembled ship and one has killmarks and the other doesn't.
[17:03] <lynfel> doesn't trading/contracting remove killmarks
[17:03] <lynfel> anyway
[17:03] <cpt_patrick_archer> I know I can see the contents of a package. But the package doesnt have a nametag
[17:03] <lynfel> not sure about that.
[17:03] <nasantha> that would be what the mail was for though :slightly_smiling_face:
[17:04] <lynfel> when you right click the package in your hangar there is a 'view contract' option. If you click it it opens the contract window which says on it the details of the contract like who it is on.
[17:04] <lynfel> who it is from*
[17:04] <lynfel> Then you know who that package belongs to
[17:04] <lynfel> Even if it says failed
[17:09] <cassie_helio> I had a guy courier an assembled ship for sentimental reasons for the kill marks. I hope they weren't gone when he got it! :weary:
[18:13] <nasantha> #14 is just not going to be workable as individuals could just keep editing the destination until the delivery time ran out. Either that or change a what was a highsec contract to a highsec island and gank the unwitting individual going through low. Even having the limitation of the contract acceptor having to agree to it could still make it annoying if they can make a change request every 30 seconds and you have to keep pressing no. Changes before accepting would be fine but CCP have said that it is currently out of scope for this update.
[18:30] <exooki> once it is in motion i wouldnt want ppl changing it
[18:30] <exooki> i can think of all sorts of BS scams ppl would od
[18:30] <exooki> ping pong freighters across eve
[18:57] <lynfel> There are times an incursion in low/null spawns while the package is in transit, or we get there and the someone has thrown a cyno jammer up in the system and both the pilot and customer are very willing to switch to a nearby station/outpost.
[18:57] <lynfel> Which is why I mentioned it
[18:58] <querns> destination switching is out of scope i'd imagine but it would be cool if there was a way to alter the destination of a courier, with the consent of both issuer and contractor
[18:58] <lynfel> Ya, I know its not going to happen atm, just thought I would give them the idea to think about.
[18:58] <lynfel> pmuch everything I would like is 'out of scope. :wink:
[19:07] <nasantha> I wondering if unicorn hauled containers for contract delivery would be out of scope? :stuck_out_tongue:
[19:08] <lynfel> They could just rollback fatigue and I'll stop asking for a better contract system. :slightly_smiling_face:
[19:18] <kennethfeld> isn't 13 solved by the new way you can set name on plastic wraps?
[19:18] <kennethfeld> get wrap - name it - now you know what belongs to whom
[20:42] <cpt_patrick_archer> @kennethfeld: If you do that yes, but when I accept like 30 contracts going to the same station, I don't really want to spend time on that.
[20:42] <cpt_patrick_archer> I mean, 13 isnt a huge thing, but i think it would be good if enough ppl in here agree.
[20:42] <cpt_patrick_archer> But form the feedback I can tell im alone in this :stuck_out_tongue:
[21:24] <kennethfeld> cpt_patrick_archer: It isn't you are alone per se, i just agree that making you take a bit of time to type a name is probably a better solution than weeks or maybe months of dev time
[21:43] <cpt_patrick_archer> I added #18 , not really necessarily courier related.
[21:43] <cpt_patrick_archer> "Increase the number of contracts that a single character can create. 81 total (assuming you have corp roles) is very very low, when you compare it to the 300 market orders you can do with a single character."
[21:43] <cpt_patrick_archer> thoughts?
[21:47] <nasantha> I'm not sure how many individuals fall foul of that limit but increasing it a little may help those industrialists who want to have a lot of things on the move
[21:49] <cpt_patrick_archer> When people are seeding for alliances they will run out of slots on multiple characters, even with corp roles.
[21:49] <cpt_patrick_archer> TRI is a relatively small alliance and our guys run out of slots constantly.
[22:03] <querns> yeah the number of contracts that you can put up at once is painfully small
[22:39] <kennethfeld> !logs
[22:39] <kennethfeld> dammit, how do i see the logs?