Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

P2P - landowners decide. Change "teleport to me". Privacy secured.

Hiro Pendragon
bye bye f0rums!
Join date: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,905
11-23-2005 10:41
1. Linden Lab should continue to place telehubs as the default mode of transportation.

2. Allow landowners to set a single point on their land where people can teleport in. Landowners deserve the control of where people tp to on their land. (Landing point in the land's "About";)

For larger plots of land, multiple teleport locations could be set. (Or, keep it simple, and parcel up the land into different segments each with their own landing point.)

3. This teleport location would only be accessable via:
- Find
- Classified
- Landmarks
- Teleport to me
- Picks in the profile
This way they are not "telehubs", but only conduits for people who specifically want to go to that land.

4. P2P should not be everywhere, because of the obvious security concerns:
- Privacy
- Intended limited access (like games that need progression to get to areas)
- People popping in everywhere breaks the illusion of reality.

... which brings me to ...

5. Change the way "teleport to me" works. The other measures would make this obsolete. Hence, "teleport to me" will send a person to the location on the land that the landowner has chosen.

6. KEEP IT FREE
The Internet does not charge you to go to a webpage, unless the web site owner requires it. There's no reason why this shouldn't work for SL.
...


The resulting changes would mean that landowners can create natural entry points to their land. There would be no more awkward "people popping in out of nowhere". If the landowner did not want people directly to teleport there at all, the landing point could be set blank.

...

Reasoning:

1. Immersion and illusion.
People shouldn't just be able to pop in everywhere. It breaks the idea of a virtual world. It spoils the illusion. Neal Stephenson was very specific about this concept in Snow Crash.

2. Landowner control.
Landowners deserve to control their own land. They should be able to decide if and which people teleport there, and where.

3. SL as an Internet.
The Internet allows people to go to any page, unless the website owner specifically does not want you to be able to go directly there. Landowners are like website owners in this analogy, and should have that power of control over what areas the person can immediately access.
_____________________
Hiro Pendragon
------------------
http://www.involve3d.com - Involve - Metaverse / Emerging Media Studio

Visit my SL blog: http://secondtense.blogspot.com
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
11-23-2005 11:00
From: Hiro Pendragon
2. Allow landowners to set a single point on their land where people can teleport in. Landowners deserve the control of where people tp to on their land. (Landing point in the land's "About";)


"Landowners" is too tight a definition, though. What about parcel renters? What about trusted builders?

From: someone
4. P2P should not be everywhere, because of the obvious security concerns:
- Privacy
- Intended limited access (like games that need progression to get to areas)
- People popping in everywhere breaks the illusion of reality.


How does people popping in everywhere break the illusion of reality any more than people flying everywhere, or plywood cubes appearing from nowhere?

From: someone
5. Change the way "teleport to me" works. The other measures would make this obsolete. Hence, "teleport to me" will send a person to the location on the land that the landowner has chosen.


Very, very bad for maintaining a continuous conversation over multiple locations or helping out new folks.
Cristiano Midnight
Evil Snapshot Baron
Join date: 17 May 2003
Posts: 8,616
11-23-2005 11:06
I agree with most of your post actually, except for this:

From: Hiro Pendragon

- People popping in everywhere breaks the illusion of reality.


Yeah, flying is so realistic. So are the little teleporters we have all over the place.

From: someone

5. Change the way "teleport to me" works. The other measures would make this obsolete. Hence, "teleport to me" will send a person to the location on the land that the landowner has chosen.


This feature works perfectly as is - it does not need to be altered.

From: someone

1. Immersion and illusion.
People shouldn't just be able to pop in everywhere. It breaks the idea of a virtual world. It spoils the illusion. Neal Stephenson was very specific about this concept in Snow Crash


God forbid they do something not Snow Crash approved :rolleyes:
_____________________
Cristiano


ANOmations - huge selection of high quality, low priced animations all $100L or less.

~SLUniverse.com~ SL's oldest and largest community site, featuring Snapzilla image sharing, forums, and much more.

Eata Kitty
Registered User
Join date: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 387
11-23-2005 11:07
The landowner set point sounds the best. Land could have two settings, free or to the landowner set point then any teleportation to that parcel would put you on that point.

Lets people get around but doesn't overly constrict them whilst letting the landowner choose where they enter.
Cristiano Midnight
Evil Snapshot Baron
Join date: 17 May 2003
Posts: 8,616
11-23-2005 11:10
I think instead of implementing P2P, the telehubs should all be changed to giant griffon stations, a la World of Warcraft. You then fly on a griffon to get to your destination from the nearest station. You could mix it up a bit and also use the giant bat things as well. Hey, if it works for 4 million players, surely it could work here.

:)
_____________________
Cristiano


ANOmations - huge selection of high quality, low priced animations all $100L or less.

~SLUniverse.com~ SL's oldest and largest community site, featuring Snapzilla image sharing, forums, and much more.

Einsman Schlegel
Disenchanted Fool
Join date: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 1,461
11-23-2005 11:19
From: Cristiano Midnight
I think instead of implementing P2P, the telehubs should all be changed to giant griffon stations, a la World of Warcraft. You then fly on a griffon to get to your destination from the nearest station. You could mix it up a bit and also use the giant bat things as well. Hey, if it works for 4 million players, surely it could work here.

:)


Yeah then they'd get you for DCMA.

Hey that was my idea!
_____________________
Dyne Talamasca
Noneuclidean Love Polygon
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 436
11-23-2005 11:20
No, no, no. Instead of Griffins, Telehubs, or P2P Teleport, we should get "travel by Red Line".

This pops up a static copy of the World Map without all the little indicators for land sales and junk, and starts drawing a red line from point to point to simulate your "epic journey", ala Indiana Jones and other adventure movies.

Bonus points if Linden can overlay a video montage of footage of "your airplane landing", "War in Jesse!", "Hiking over the mountain in a snow sim" and similar scenarios pertaining to the waypoints.
_____________________
Dyne Talamasca - I hate the word "bling".

Miscellany on MySLShop.com, SLB, and SLEx

Plonk
Ceera Murakami
Texture Artist / Builder
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 7,750
11-23-2005 11:20
I'll agree that protecting one's privacy from 'teleport invasion' should not be restricted only to landowners.

I live in a nice home that is on group-owned land. My Companion is the owner of our home (the structure), but not the group land that it is on. We are both members of the group. There should be some way that at least my Companion, as owner of the home, should be able to limit teleportation to somewhere outside the walls of the house. Personally, I would prefer that one or both of us could set it up so that attempting to teleport directly to coordinates inside our home takes you instead to a designated point near the front door of our home. People who rent living space should, likewise, be able to limit incoming teleports in that manner.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea that someone teleports me to somewhere generally close to their current position, and not drops me on their head.

At the very least, keep the 'teleport to me' function free, even if it is limited to arriving at a nearby designated point. I know when we are shopping, we rely heavily on being able to go find a particular shop, and then summon the other to our curent position.

Incidentally, I think most merchants will find it best not to restrict P2P teleports. After all, they will make more sales if satisfied customers can call their friends to them to take advantage of a good deal or to make similar purchases.
Jonquille Noir
Lemon Fresh
Join date: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 4,025
11-23-2005 11:20
I think landowners should be able to set a point to port to, and those landowners should pay a weekly fee for that option, just like we pay for Find. Everyone would still have the option to P2P, basic accounts wouldn't be getting screwed by it or left out of it, and it would still be a money sink. I'd be willing to pay to have people port directly to my store's entrance, and those who didn't have any use for it wouldn't have to foot any sort of bill for it.
_____________________
Little Rebel Designs
Gallinas
Einsman Schlegel
Disenchanted Fool
Join date: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 1,461
11-23-2005 11:22
Had we all forgotten about the 'land here' option?
_____________________
Hiro Pendragon
bye bye f0rums!
Join date: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,905
11-23-2005 11:23
re: Flying

Flying also breaks the illusion. But it has nothing to do with teleporting. That, as a counter-argument to my proposals, is like me saying, "Well, let's tighten air pollution standards." and you folks saying, "Yeah, but the water is polluted too".

You gotta start somewhere.

I think a natural solution to the flying issue would be perhaps to change "no fly" to not only mean "no take-off", but also have a discrete timer on how long someone can be flying - like 10 seconds, to allow flyovers.

An alternative would be increased privacy features that would allow mutual invisibility on several conditions. - one could be flying.


re: landowner vs. land renter

Definitely land owner.

Should a renter want to do this, then they should ask the owner of the land to do this.
_____________________
Hiro Pendragon
------------------
http://www.involve3d.com - Involve - Metaverse / Emerging Media Studio

Visit my SL blog: http://secondtense.blogspot.com
Dyne Talamasca
Noneuclidean Love Polygon
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 436
11-23-2005 11:31
From: Hiro Pendragon
re: Flying

Flying also breaks the illusion. But it has nothing to do with teleporting. That, as a counter-argument to my proposals, is like me saying, "Well, let's tighten air pollution standards." and you folks saying, "Yeah, but the water is polluted too".

You gotta start somewhere.


So you are suggesting that flying should be gotten rid of, too, then?

I can't agree that either breaks the illusion, personally. I think instead that it simply creates the illusion of a DIFFERENT world where people have different abilities. If everything is exactly identical to the real world, what's the point?

That's not to say that I don't agree with using the Set Landing Point feature to control teleports onto your land (since I do) ... just on the issue of whether teleporting in general breaks immersiveness.

You want to get rid of something that breaks immersion, you'll have to start with giant rotating ad cubes. Another good one is the fact that day lasts 3 hours and night lasts 1.

Personally, I'd just as soon underscore the fact that SL is NOT the real world. In Snow Crash, the Metaverse was a giant black sphere in permanent night, with a single equatorial Street, as I recall. Not exactly similar to either RL or SL. Maybe LL should add a second, differently colored sun (second life, second sun, get it?) or a few extra moons. That'd be nice and aesthetically pleasing.
_____________________
Dyne Talamasca - I hate the word "bling".

Miscellany on MySLShop.com, SLB, and SLEx

Plonk
Seifert Surface
Mathematician
Join date: 14 Jun 2005
Posts: 912
11-23-2005 11:32
From: Hiro Pendragon
5. Change the way "teleport to me" works. The other measures would make this obsolete. Hence, "teleport to me" will send a person to the location on the land that the landowner has chosen.


I agree with Yumi. This would make it much less easy to show someone else (including non-newbies) something cool. They would have to be tped to somewhere close, then find where you are, then fly there.
_____________________
-Seifert Surface
2G!tGLf 2nLt9cG
Dyne Talamasca
Noneuclidean Love Polygon
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 436
11-23-2005 11:36
From: Seifert Surface
They would have to be tped to somewhere close, then find where you are, then fly there.


And finding people even in the same small area is not exactly intuitive in SL. I remember struggling with this in Yadni's junkyard when I first joined.

It takes a while to realize that you can use the map to set a person as a landmark. On top of that, they have to be a friend, and they'll have to log out and log back on in order for a new friendship to "register" for the map's drop down box. And it looks ugly.
_____________________
Dyne Talamasca - I hate the word "bling".

Miscellany on MySLShop.com, SLB, and SLEx

Plonk
Hiro Pendragon
bye bye f0rums!
Join date: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,905
11-23-2005 12:16
From: Dyne Talamasca

So you are suggesting that flying should be gotten rid of, too, then?

no, but landowners should have the choice whether it's allowed or not, and the current "no fly" is insufficient - it forces landowners to live in a flying world.

From: Seifert Surface
I agree with Yumi. This would make it much less easy to show someone else (including non-newbies) something cool. They would have to be tped to somewhere close, then find where you are, then fly there.

Maybe the landowner didn't want that, though? If the landowner wants to share their cool thing, then they could set the teleport in point close by.

From: Dyne Talamasca
And finding people even in the same small area is not exactly intuitive in SL. I remember struggling with this in Yadni's junkyard when I first joined.

It takes a while to realize that you can use the map to set a person as a landmark. On top of that, they have to be a friend, and they'll have to log out and log back on in order for a new friendship to "register" for the map's drop down box. And it looks ugly.

Yadni's junkyard is great, though it would be great if it were easily searchable and navigable. However, the sheer variety of items that are out there make this a tough goal.
_____________________
Hiro Pendragon
------------------
http://www.involve3d.com - Involve - Metaverse / Emerging Media Studio

Visit my SL blog: http://secondtense.blogspot.com
Satchmo Prototype
eSheep
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1,323
11-23-2005 12:37
From: Cristiano Midnight
I think instead of implementing P2P, the telehubs should all be changed to giant griffon stations, a la World of Warcraft. You then fly on a griffon to get to your destination from the nearest station.


Would you fall through the Universe on every sim you crossed?
_____________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Electric Sheep Company
Satchmo Blogs: The Daily Graze
Satchmo del.icio.us
Cristiano Midnight
Evil Snapshot Baron
Join date: 17 May 2003
Posts: 8,616
11-23-2005 12:43
From: Satchmo Prototype
Would you fall through the Universe on every sim you crossed?


Good point.
_____________________
Cristiano


ANOmations - huge selection of high quality, low priced animations all $100L or less.

~SLUniverse.com~ SL's oldest and largest community site, featuring Snapzilla image sharing, forums, and much more.

Magnum Serpentine
Registered User
Join date: 20 Nov 2003
Posts: 1,811
11-23-2005 13:15
Second Life is not Snow Crash
Shadow Garden
Just horsin' around
Join date: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 226
11-23-2005 13:22
From: Hiro Pendragon
2. Allow landowners to set a single point on their land where people can teleport in. Landowners deserve the control of where people tp to on their land. (Landing point in the land's "About";)


With the appropriate additional change of having all 3 axis as a landing point. X,Y,Z so you could specify the height of the incoming P2P transport coordinate.

From: someone
5. Change the way "teleport to me" works. The other measures would make this obsolete. Hence, "teleport to me" will send a person to the location on the land that the landowner has chosen.


This should be left alone, someone could be shopping and want to bring someone to the site to show them an item for one example.
_____________________
"Ah, ignorance and stupidity all in the same package ... How efficient of you!" - Londo Molari, Babylon V.
Shadow Garden
Just horsin' around
Join date: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 226
11-23-2005 13:25
From: Cristiano Midnight
I think instead of implementing P2P, the telehubs should all be changed to giant griffon stations, a la World of Warcraft. You then fly on a griffon to get to your destination from the nearest station.


Have you seen how many staff it takes to clean up after a griffon has flown over head?!!
Those beasties are messy!!

I think we should all get Mary Poppins umbrellas !! :)
_____________________
"Ah, ignorance and stupidity all in the same package ... How efficient of you!" - Londo Molari, Babylon V.
DogSpot Boxer
vortex thruster
Join date: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 671
11-23-2005 13:46
From: Hiro Pendragon
no, but landowners should have the choice whether it's allowed or not, and the current "no fly" is insufficient - it forces landowners to live in a flying world.


You know what "no fly" does for me as someone who doesn't own land?

It pisses me off!

There are few things more annoying then flying into a sim only to find out you have to waste time _walking_ around.
_____________________
Dogspot Boxer
Charter Member Of The Socially Inept Club

Our Motto:

We may be inept, but at least we're social
Eggy Lippmann
Wiktator
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 7,939
11-23-2005 14:03
Isn't there a checkbox called "Landmark/Set Home" in the land options? This checkbox was how we used to control who we wanted on our land.
If you don't want people on your super secret land don't let them make landmarks.
You also have an access control list, and llEjectFromLand.
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
11-23-2005 15:25
From: Eata Kitty
The landowner set point sounds the best. Land could have two settings, free or to the landowner set point then any teleportation to that parcel would put you on that point.
I'd say... just to the landowner set point. When you P2P, you go to the nearest set point the way you go to the nearest telehub now. That way people will start out going to the set points people immediately set in their own stores... around the existing telehubs... and then as people set points elsewhere P2P will gradually spread across the land.
Hiro Pendragon
bye bye f0rums!
Join date: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,905
11-24-2005 07:36
From: Shadow Garden
With the appropriate additional change of having all 3 axis as a landing point. X,Y,Z so you could specify the height of the incoming P2P transport coordinate.

Good suggestion.

From: someone
This should be left alone, someone could be shopping and want to bring someone to the site to show them an item for one example.

Again, my suggestions revolve around landowner rights. A simple way to account for this would be for mall owners to have teleport pads to different areas.

Also, realize that once HTML is integrated, malls will shift their content heavily to websites (in order to lessen SL-sim load and use web-based scripting languages) - and so in your situation, the person could just pass along a hyperlink, anyway.

From: DogSpot Boxer

You know what "no fly" does for me as someone who doesn't own land?

It pisses me off!

There are few things more annoying then flying into a sim only to find out you have to waste time _walking_ around.

Well, then people will vote with their feet and wallets. -- If people don't like landowners setting no-fly (again, I've accounted for fly-through with a timer suggestion) - then they won't go there.

People paying for land should have the right to control what happens on their land, not visitors.

From: Eggy Lippmann

Isn't there a checkbox called "Landmark/Set Home" in the land options? This checkbox was how we used to control who we wanted on our land.
If you don't want people on your super secret land don't let them make landmarks.
You also have an access control list, and llEjectFromLand.

Yes, that's certainly something to be included in the solution, but clearly now it's not sufficient.
_____________________
Hiro Pendragon
------------------
http://www.involve3d.com - Involve - Metaverse / Emerging Media Studio

Visit my SL blog: http://secondtense.blogspot.com
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
11-24-2005 08:26
From: Hiro Pendragon
Well, then people will vote with their feet and wallets. -- If people don't like landowners setting no-fly (again, I've accounted for fly-through with a timer suggestion) - then they won't go there.

People paying for land should have the right to control what happens on their land, not visitors.


True, but there have to be some standards. You might as well say it's not fair that landowners have to live in a world made up of prims.

Fundamentally they chose to buy land in SL and what "in SL" means can vary. Flight is pretty much a fundamental SL feature.
1 2