Pinpoint Teleporting

Name: Pinpoint Teleporting
Category: miscellaneous
Subcategory: other
Author: Magnum Serpentine
Prop Date: 2005-04-14

Feature Detail
In this feature, one could double click on any part of the main map and be teleported to that spot with-in a meter of where they indicated on the main map. This would end the need for central hub teleports.

Feel free to discuss further...

I've got mixed feelings about this. While I can see the benefits many users would get from it, it could interfere with the operation of games that rely on the user starting at a certain point and not being able to immediately access other areas.

Sure, why not?

To solve Beatfox's concern, the about land properties could allow teleport to (or within) a specific plot as an option.

The other proposal that allows this to be scripted got my vote. But I agree about being able to set land to no-teleport.

neko

How about in addition to, and not instead of, teleport hubs?

I think in addition to would be best. I still like the idea of telehubs as an *option*, but hate being forced to use them and putting up with stuff in my face that I don't want/need.

Also the ability to make it so land can't be teleported is an idea I also think would be good.

I'd like to be able to do it with scripts and with the map.

IIRC, we have a 'set landing point' on a parcel, though given the current state of things, I'm not sure why. It could prolly be used.

I view the almost obligatory "IM me for a tport to this event" at the end of every event listing to be very clear "market" indication of need and desire for point-to-point teleport. I think LL could mine or monitor for modal behavior upon arrival at a telehub; I expect that most arrivals at a mainland telehub immediately fly more than 300m to their actual destination.

People teleport because they have a destination in mind already. And, as has been noted elsewhere, diligently streaming 300+ meters of stuff that will rez behind me is probably not the most efficient use of assets. Getting trapped inside a build near a hub that rezzes only after you've flown inside ranges from annoying to embarrassing.

Three RL analogies come to mind. First, almost no one ever chooses ATL, SFO, LGW, or CDG as a destination in itself; they use the airports because the size and noise of aircraft requires it. The traveller's destination is somewhere beyond the airport perimeter and the airport is a "necessary evil" between a traveller and her destination. Second, even though I may be confronted with billboards and shopping on the way to the gate, it is put there because airports are a natural traffic funnel and not because it benefits me.

Simlarly, I can choose to walk the streets of DC or Paris to see stuff between here and there or I can head into the nearest Metro station for a finer grained point-to-point travel, again constrained by the bulk of train and rail. There are Metro stops within popular private destinations because that is the end the means is there for.

As one data point from SL, I have a small shop on a large parcel that is on the flight path from a telehub to a longstanding, regular, popular *ingo game. I have a visitor counter that I had to put a 60 second "debounce" routine into to avoid counting incidental fly-overs. My counts went down by about 100 times after doing this. The telehubs were a fine idea for creating an urban/rural dichotomy. They seem to have only resulted in the equivalent of "congested airport regions". Fortunately, they need not be removed for the player for whom the journey *is* the destination even if point-to-point travel is re-enabled.

Definitely. This would be a very attractive feature add along with the ability to set land to no teleport but still be able to send tp invites. I endorse this.

If only the scripted version of point-to-point were enabled, it could foster opening up the telehub market to entrepeneurs. Kind of like competing airlines with their own hubs. Is that at all desirable?

I'm not advocating for it; I'd be happy being able to teleport directly to landmarks in my inventory. I just wondered what others think.

neko

Very well put ! I was going to post a verbose reply here but Malachi's said it all

Teleport hubs have to go as the main transport solution. Often people work out in what direction a popular venue is from a telehub, and they make builds that have three walls, so a person flies into them before they have rezzed, and get stuck. Then they find they're in an advertising place.

People should be free to go where they want without being trapped in nets, and without being advertised to. It would be lovely to just be able to go where you want.

This would destroy the SL economy, and ruin the esthetics, destroy privacy, and increase griefing. Also will make shopping harder. Land near TP hubs is at a premium value and will crash in value if this is implimented, possibly causing a SL wide depression. you youngsters don't remember the Great Depression do you? Was horrible.

The hubs concentrate the UGLY stores away from the residential areas. Keeps residential areas looking nice. Do you want a prim-o-death store in your backyard?

What about people living in the backwaters Many sims away from the hubs? Maybe they like the isolation. Keeps the rif raf away. Also griefers are too lazy to go too may sims away from the hubs. Now they will be all over the place.

Want to go shopping? Now all you have to do is find the nearest hub and you will find lots of shops. If implimented, shops will be harder to find. Sales will go through the floor I tell you, further increasing the SL economic demise caused by the drop in land prices.

Idiot.

Would do nothing to the economy. This would only hit exploitive economy which has grown to abuse the location of telehubs for financial gain.

There are no telehubs in the real world and we're just fine.

People who live in the 'backwater' miles from telehubs will not get a huge stream of visitors when this comes in. Just cause you can go to some arbitary spot on the map, doesn't mean you will.

Land near telehubs may go down a bit, but only cause it's made superficially high now by people who seek to exploit telehubs and their users.

Exaggerate much?

Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I'd rather not have the ugly great expanses of commercial crap that infest every telehub.

Destroy privacy? How? Because people can tp directly to your parcel? Given that no one takes a blind bit of notice of any attempted privacy measures now, it wont make a bit of difference. Actually it'll increase privacy from at least one perspective, because you won't have to make long trips from a telehub, you can minimize your exposure en route. I often find the biggest thing that ruins my plans when I log in is getting spotted on the way to somewhere and someone tagging along or stopping me doing what I planned to.

Increase griefing? How? Why is there any difference at all in the amount or type of griefing that can take place if people can teleport to a given point? If they're gonna grief you, they'll grief you. You'll still have all the same tools at your disposal to dispatch or report them.

Make shopping harder??? By being able to get right there in one click, in seconds?!

Ah well. Every time someone makes a feature suggestion that makes SL more user friendly or functional, there are always those that make sky is falling type noises about it.

Telehubs in Second Life, if we're assuming it's heading towards the metaverse everyone always touts it as being, are a blocker to expansion. Why shouldn't you be able to put in any address and get there instantly, just like the web? Damned glad I don't have plan a route through one of a few dozen portals worldwide to route to any website I want to visit, and don't see why it's necessary here.

I say keep them for those that use them. But let the rest of us take the easy route!

Couldn't agree more with Kris. When anisthetic first came out, The Lancet ran an article with top surgeons arguing that if God intended us to not feel pain, he'd have made us that way, therefore anisthetic was wrong and should be banned.

So, who thinks anisthetic was a bad idea? Anyone? You in the back? No?

This proposition has my vote.

Only thing I have to add is that I don't think the point-to-point teleporting proposition that some people are mentioning is another form of this. Though it isn't entirely clear, I think THAT proposition is just for a scripting function to replace what people currently do with the sit hack. It reads that it would "improve the current 'sit hack' used to move avatars short distances." Does this mean improving the distance, or improving the function? My guess is it would have a similar range to the current sit hack and may not move people outside the current sim. So if you gave that proposition your vote instead of this one, you might have voted for something else entirely.

For those that dont know, there was a time before telehubs. Back then, we either flew to get where we were going, or we teleported directly to the spot by double clicking the map or selecting a landmark. The difference was that if we chose to teleport, we had to pay a L$ fee based on the distance we teleported. Teleporting was optional and most people just flew to avoid the fee.

This is not a new concept. It worked brilliantly in the past. As far as businesses go, imagine being able to bring people right in your door via a landmark, no chance of them being distracted by another store on the way to yours. Shopping centers will still exist, good stores will join together to make desireable shopping destinations.

There were profitable stores before the hubs and they did tend to group together, but the ability to have your customer come straight to your store enabled any business to flourish. Right now there is a mentality that opening a business is a daunting task, you have to pay rent to a middleman that just happened to beat you to buying hub land. Point to point would be beneficial to the "little guy" that has a small plot of land in Tim-buk-nowhere who currently feels they dont have a chance to make it.

I am all for point to point teleport as long as I have the option to disable it on my parcel of land when I dont want someone dropping in right on top of me. It seems like a radical change being suggested, but its nothing new.

Telehubs are a tightly woven thead in the fabric of Second Life. IMHO - its a bad idea to upset that too quickly or too dramatically.

Sorry, but in my opinion, Point to Point teleporting is extremely short sighted.

Telehubs = Passive Zoning.

If you introduce point to point teleporting, I'll just move my club right next to your quiet residential home - since I can get the land there at $3/sqm instead of $15. There will be no incentive anymore for me to pay a premium to be closer to a telehub.

Remember - commercial 'hotspots' naturally occur anywhere there's an egress point of any kind - its not just limited to telehubs. Decentralize the hotspots - and commercial enterprises will scatter.

I empathisize completely with folks who don't want a laggy club or mall in their backyard. Right now, telehub zones are commercial centers, and I choose to do buisness there because a) its better for my buisness and b) its better for the residential community for me to stay away from them. If you take that away, not only will it impact my buisness.... but in time, you'll see everything decentralize - and you can bet people will be complaining about that.

The system is imperfect, of course.... but we'll be going in the wrong direction if you introduce point-to-point TP. Unfortunately, I think those of you who disagree with me will only see what I'm talking about after its too late.

A better compromise is to introduce extra teleport options, such as being able to directly teleport to any spot you're a group officer of, or land that you own. That would at least keep the central egress points intact.

Having telehubs act as attractors for commercial activity has worked too well. The concentration of commercial enterprises at most hubs overwhelms the ability of the SL engine (and most client machines) to render it all in any reasonable timeframe. P2P teleport will be extremely disruptive to the commercial geography of the game world, but barring some miraculous breakthrough in the technology, it may be the only viable solution to rez pollution (short of some pretty draconian limitations on prims and scripts in telehub sims).

From listening to Cory's town hall meeting yesterday, a 'miraculous breakthrough' may be closer than you may think.

Direct teleporting has long-term implications to the commercial environment in SL - I would proceed with caution, especially when some of the performance issues discussed in this thread may be short-term.

If the rez around the telehubs could be improved significantly, I'd oppose P2P. The sprawl in SL is due in part to a scarcity of attractors around which urban centers develop. Telehubs are one such attractor. I'd like to see more such attractors, and better support for high-density population alternatives (enforcible rental agreements come to mind). This provides a more natural urban/rural development pattern (admittedly at the cost of some convenience).

If you move your club right next to my quiet residential home, I'll be glad to work with you to maintain a lag free environment in the sim by scheduling my events and building around your events and such.

or

I can make your environment worthless so that nobody ever wants to come to your club again. Travis, it's not about what's where. It's about attitude and treating our neighbors with a little respect and consideration.

I support p2p porting using the nearest parcel landing point to the click. I also agree that a deactivation feature per parcel is a good idea. I'll move five votes from the XML client proposal to this one because they're equally important to the general usefulness of the software.

While I'm sure you & I would work together just fine to maintain a lag-free environment, Khamon - I think we're the exception, not the rule. Regardless, I think we fundamentally disagree with each other on this issue - and that's cool - we both have that right.

In my humble opinion, it is *everything* about where.

I think of the telehub system in the context of the interstate freeways in the US. Commonly, where there is a freeway exit, commercial areas abound. In fact - the closer you get to an exit, the more likely you are to find a gas station, shops..... congestion.

As you move away from a freeway exit, you get more green spaces - residential and rural areas.

That's probably why some folks complain when there's talk of putting in a new freeway exit in their backyard

Imagine if in RL there were no exits to the freeway.... instead, everything everywhere was equally interconnected, and you could get anywhere in the same amount of time. IMHO what would happen is instead of commercial stuff gravitating to where traffic is highest, commercial stuff would gravitate to where land is cheapest.

I think the same would go for SL. Nullify the telehubs - and your busiest, laggiest commercial businesses will gravitate to the formally inexpensive, residential areas.

I understand some folks disagree, and debate on the subject is a good thing. I just hope we're looking at all facets of the issue, rather than simply convenience.

I've already had a club move in next door at my quiet residential sim. Fortunately, the owner eventually realized he couldn't do what he wanted in a PG sim and went away, taking his black box and spinning lights with him. But there's another club on the opposite side of the sim... a mall the next sim over... and a club was briefly quite active in the sim north of us, just over the border, quite nearby. And we're almost a full kilometer from a telehub. Fact is, people already take advantage of cheap land for their various enterprises, and rely on TPing people in for events. I've found that being in a PG sim is much more effective at discouraging the people/builds I don't want to be around than being far from a telehub. The passive zoning of telehubs seems to be a little TOO passive to actually protect my sim.

In other words, I don't see a lot of the supposed benefits of telehubs, but, like everyone else, I certainly get a lot of the inconvenience. I'm for pinpoint teleporting (and social security reform)!