Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Rita's Jita Slave
Rita's Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 17:18:19 -
[31] - Quote
. |
Rita Jita
Relentless Terrorism
2045
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 17:19:56 -
[32] - Quote
sounds like something i could help with.
founder of the "haulers channel" currently the largest hauling community in eve, deal with a massive volume of contracts daily, both personal and the PR for other peoples contract issues.
Founder of the "Haulers Channel"
Come Check It Out
|
Which Frog
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
4
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 17:41:47 -
[33] - Quote
If my opinion matters and I hope it does at least in this Focus Group I would add Rita Jita even though the members have already been selected. The massive experience with public contracts is a definite bonus to the discussion. |
EDX 34F
Heavy Metals Inc
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 00:23:25 -
[34] - Quote
I am a frequent client of high-sec haulers and a member of the Haulers Channel.
-Edit- I also highly recommend Rita just as the person above me did. Rita's channel has helped countless haulers connect with contractors. It is a very active channel with hundreds of people at any given time. |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
91
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 01:00:30 -
[35] - Quote
Just read the first day of slack logs and wanted to point out my suggestion thread as being highly relevant and not something people have quite duplicated in their own commentary yet:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6458153
OK I'll totally stop creeping on you guys now.
Maybe.
|
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
92
|
Posted - 2016.06.27 15:50:01 -
[36] - Quote
Quote:12:45 ccp_fozzie One option weGÇÖre 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 wouldnGÇÖt 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.
Can you guys clarify what "rightful owner" means in this context? Does this mean it goes into the asset safety of the pilot who accepted the contract, regardless of who is in space doing this? Or does it go into the asset safety of the person in space clicking this button? Or into the asset safety of the pilot who issued the contract? |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2631
|
Posted - 2016.07.03 07:10:39 -
[37] - Quote
Quote:12:45 ccp_fozzie One option weGÇÖre 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 wouldnGÇÖt 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. Which courier contract has 5 days of completion time? Show me some data on that because I daresay with confidence that the number of contract with more than 1 day completion time is less than 2%. You should think of something better than resorting to a "less than ideal" makeshift solution that you shoehorn into the game. Furthermore, if you had to resort to this shoehorn: How do you prevent the contract creator from cancelling the contract if the 1 day completion time has run out, but the contract is still in the safety delivery service for 5 more days?
Also, I kindly remember the people in this focus group, who seem to be awfully focused on these access issues, on this thread: Feedback request on Contract system. There are tons more issues to fix, improve and consider than just this mess that the inadequate access rights are.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1436
|
Posted - 2016.07.04 02:46:06 -
[38] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Also, I kindly remember the people in this focus group, who seem to be awfully focused on these access issues, on this thread: Feedback request on Contract system. There are tons more issues to fix, improve and consider than just this mess that the inadequate access rights are. This.
I'd love to participate and I know I have insight to offer, but I'd prefer to do it on the forum. I find the slack transcripts more or less impossible to digest for various reasons.
I'm also concerned that the focus group that has been formed may be a little too specialised. We may find that the result is a lot of progress in narrow areas of contract functionality.
I know this is specifically a group dealing with Citadels, but I'm sure many contracts users would like to see some of the bugs and features get fixed for the benefit of all contracts users no matter which structure they choose to base from. |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
92
|
Posted - 2016.07.08 21:11:34 -
[39] - Quote
Quote::ccp_mimic: :slightly_smiling_face: I know, but was wondering if there was a way to change this behavior of constantly double-wrapping and all that goes along with it. If there was an underlying issue there that could be solved a different way, or if leaving that in place was the way it should be. It just always seemed like such a complete waste of time, and always caused issues when trying to solve Lost Items cases :ccp_mimic: "having" to do a thing is never best. Its just a grind. Can it be better? Can it be easier? Can it be more intuitive? ... :querns: the double wrap thing is because of wardecs
If CCP wants to make our ability to dodge wardecs this way more intrinsic and less grindy, I'd happily use a system that let me "accept contract to delegated hauler" option, that accepted the contract under my name but placed the package into the hauler's inventory. Likewise assuming it also allowed the hauler to then "complete the contract on acceptor's behalf" at the destination. In order to avoid all of the courier package item exchange/trade/double-wrapping that goes on now.
I'd even be fine with this exposing the out-of-corp hauler identity to the contract creator, personally, if that were the trade-off necessary to get rid of having to trade couriers packages all the time :) |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2641
|
Posted - 2016.07.12 09:19:38 -
[40] - Quote
Out of curiosity: When it comes to docking rights removal after someone accepted a courier contract, why simply not allow the citadel owner to remove the contract taker from a docking/service access list or not allow the taker to be set on a docking/service denial list?
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
6100
|
Posted - 2016.07.12 12:04:27 -
[41] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Out of curiosity: When it comes to docking rights removal after someone accepted a courier contract, why simply not allow the citadel owner to remove the contract taker from a docking/service access list or not allow the taker to be set on a docking/service denial list?
One problem is, it's often not the contract taker that's doing the actual delivery.
Woo! CSM XI!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2641
|
Posted - 2016.07.12 19:13:27 -
[42] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Out of curiosity: When it comes to docking rights removal after someone accepted a courier contract, why simply not allow the citadel owner to remove the contract taker from a docking/service access list or not allow the taker to be set on a docking/service denial list? One problem is, it's often not the contract taker that's doing the actual delivery. Since hangars aren't the issues on citadels, when the delivery guy cannot dock to deliver on a citadel, they can transfer the package into the personal hangar/deliveries hangar of the contract taker from outside the citadel. The game already know that a contract package to this citadel is in the ship trying to do this and it knows who took the contract, so that should not be an issue. Tethering does not matter, but the delivery guy needs to be on grid and not cloaked with the destination citadel for the package transfer to work.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Liam Boothby
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
0
|
Posted - 2016.07.13 10:28:02 -
[43] - Quote
I saw CCP Mimic asking about the contract window and if there is something missing, if I may suggest what I think public haulers would really want is an "Ignore Contracts from This Citadel" option exactly as there is already an "Ignore Contracts from This Issuer" option (which appear on the Available Contracts window when you right click on a specific contract).
When contract will go live on TQ we'll probably see a lot of clone-citadels trying to impersonate others more known citadels, introducing this option would help contractors optimize their searches and clean up a bit che contract list. |
Liam Boothby
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
0
|
Posted - 2016.07.13 10:30:44 -
[44] - Quote
. |
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
48
|
Posted - 2016.08.08 21:14:33 -
[45] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:Just an idea [...] make it so couriers don't need to dock to deliver. Just be tethered [...] or within tethering range.
Seems a handy solution. Thus docking rights are no longer an issue.
Could apply to picking up the parcel as well. Even if some citadel owners may not want to allow that, since the goods' owner can initiate safety procedures, it would not make a huge difference. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
6125
|
Posted - 2016.08.09 19:27:16 -
[46] - Quote
Felix Judge wrote:Amarisen Gream wrote:Just an idea [...] make it so couriers don't need to dock to deliver. Just be tethered [...] or within tethering range. Seems a handy solution. Thus docking rights are no longer an issue. Could apply to picking up the parcel as well. Even if some citadel owners may not want to allow that, since the goods' owner can initiate safety procedures, it would not make a huge difference.
It's been mentioned in the focus group as something CCP would like to do.
Just not something to gate the release of contract functionality.
Woo! CSM XI!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Faylee Freir
The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 06:30:24 -
[47] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Quote::ccp_mimic: :slightly_smiling_face: I know, but was wondering if there was a way to change this behavior of constantly double-wrapping and all that goes along with it. If there was an underlying issue there that could be solved a different way, or if leaving that in place was the way it should be. It just always seemed like such a complete waste of time, and always caused issues when trying to solve Lost Items cases :ccp_mimic: "having" to do a thing is never best. Its just a grind. Can it be better? Can it be easier? Can it be more intuitive? ... :querns: the double wrap thing is because of wardecs If CCP wants to make our ability to dodge wardecs this way more intrinsic and less grindy, I'd happily use a system that let me "accept contract to delegated hauler" option, that accepted the contract under my name but placed the package into the hauler's inventory. Likewise assuming it also allowed the hauler to then "complete the contract on acceptor's behalf" at the destination. In order to avoid all of the courier package item exchange/trade/double-wrapping that goes on now. I'd even be fine with this exposing the out-of-corp hauler identity to the contract creator, personally, if that were the trade-off necessary to get rid of having to trade couriers packages all the time :) I havent read the logs, but I intend on doing so shortly.. Just wanted to quickly comment on what you quoted by mimic... How are wardecs related ti double wrapping? You dont double wrap to avoid being caught by war dec'ers. You double wrap so that when youre cargo scanned you are able to hide the true contents of your package. This is a double edged sword in that while youre hiding the value, gankers will assume that youre a good target because youre carrying wraps... Again this has nothing to do with wardecs at all.
HTFU
|
Commander A9
The Scope Gallente Federation
729
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 01:41:06 -
[48] - Quote
My concern is what kind of assurance or security can be granted to couriers who utilize the contract system to retrieve goods, while addressing access lists.
Simply, a courier could accept a contract, then find himself prevented from docking at the Citadel because he hasn't been granted access. Thus, that courier just got scammed...and is now floating outside a floating gun emplacement, in potentially hostile territory...
So, if we're going to allow contracts to be hosted inside Citadels, then we need to do something about enabling access to said Citadels and guaranteeing it. I can envision alot of buyers and couriers getting scammed unless their access to the Citadel is guaranteed, if only temporarily to retrieve the goods or sold product.
Recommendations:
-enable ships wobbling in hangar view (pre-Captains Quarters)
-add more missions (NPC fleet vs. NPC fleets that actually shoot)
-STOP NERFING EVERYTHING!
Join Live Events!
|
Maldiro Selkurk
Conflagration Enterprises
586
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 05:14:42 -
[49] - Quote
OMG the model for game development you should always be using as opposed to the sham and stacked deck that is the CSM.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Shadowlance
Shadow Wings.
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:21:47 -
[50] - Quote
Hello. I have some close to topic question about citadels. It's about procurement skill that allows you to place remote buy orders. For some strange reason it's currently impossible to pick any citadel as a target for remote buy order - no matter if it is into free dock mode and you could place such order mannually while docked in it. Has it been made intentionally for some reason, or it could be considered as system bug/defect? Maybe this question could also be discussed? |
|
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
316
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 23:51:12 -
[51] - Quote
(for instance, how we can best handle situations where the citadel explodes or changes access while a courier contract is in progress).
If a Citadel is within a certain percentage of damage from exploding the Citadel would automatically transfer the contract and items to the contract to a nearby Citadel. This would be done within the backdrop of the citizens of the Citadel transferring the items if the items are in the Citadel in question.
Transferring the contract and items would take time and would be based on a queue that would be managed by AI of the Citadel.
If the Citadel explodes before the contracts and items are transferred then that is part of the experience of using the Citadel. |
Kingkev4555 Solette
Fastest Transport
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 15:36:31 -
[52] - Quote
Since the release of player owned citadels there has been a problem with the mechanic of courier contracts. This problem is that a person can scam you out of isk without there being anything you can do about it. This happens by the player creating a contract from a NPC station to a player owned citadel and once accepted they simply lock the station to where no one can enter it. This mechanic needs to be updated for Citadels so players are not losing so much isk. I know of at least 10 players that have quit the game entirely because of the loss of big isk. All that i am proposing is that CCP put a delivery docking system in so that players delivering stuff to player owned citadels can still deliver the stuff. All that this docking system needs to allow is for players to dock and empty their ships into a delivery bay. I understand that not every station wants people docking and using their services, so the delivery bay could just be that. You would not be allowed to use services at the station just dock and drop off. This could also be used for picking up contracts as well. If something in that bay is assigned to you, only you can see it and only you can pick it up. Same goes with the people receiving the goods. This needs to be put in every citadel so no more scamming goes on. Billions upon billions of isk are lost everyday due to this mechanic. I think its just something that was not thought of when making citadels and we need to raise CCP's attention. This would also allow for players that have been kicked from their corp to receive their stuff that is in a station because it being locked up the goods are pretty much lost from the market no one can get to them. I pretty sure that are billions of items that are locked this way and if CCP wants to keep the market healthy without having to create stuff every so often this will save a lot of the stuff. One thing they could do is make it so you have to request your stuff from either CCP or the station owner to get it back and pay to get it. This could work like insurance for your stuff. You insure your stuff in a citadel by paying the owner of the citadel a price set by the owner and if you get locked out or the corp no longer plays you can request the insurance release your stuff to the delivery bay as a form of payout.
Thanks for reading |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |