Is telehub land value more important than direct teleporting?

That does sound like a good idea! (Not that I understand any of this very well.)

coco

Coco' that's an idea, be able to have a go home button for each group you join. That would give you up to 15 homes. It could be a button on the group. hmmm

Hmmm. I like this idea, it would also make it so you could limit direct teleportation to your land by turning off landmarks (or a seperate option would also be nice).

However I would like the ability to teleport via script too.

Regardless how its implemented, I think Telehubs should still exist. As I do like them as starting points when I want to explore, and they would still allow for businesses to grab explorers.

I'd love to see a trend though in popular places being popular because of whats there, not where it is. Which I think P2PT would help.

I'd love to see more homes, brilliant idea, Coco. Homes to any of the land in a land group for example.

Jamie, your av power idea isn't much different than my dwell power idea of having the avs run the dwell. You're just thinking av power and loads of individual decisions being free from magnetizing av-traps at telehubs, etc. will make for more economic decisions that will help capitalism. I'd like to think that's true.

This utopian notion that people fly around in search of other avs to talk to half way between 2 telehubs is...well...whacky. Have you ever done that? Usually you land at a telehub and swear at somebody who is AFK landing on you head and tangling you up.
It's very common for people to find that even the two seconds you have to wait for a darkened black screen with a fill-up line to resolve into a new spot in the world is just too much for them, so when they press "teleport" they also go AFK and leave their av tangling up with others right on the teleport pads. So many don't understand the courtesy of being able to land and briskly move up and out or to the side to get out of the way of others landing. This is one of the mainly annoying features of telehubs and then it goes downhill from there. I hate them.

But I have to say that they work to bring traffic and sales. That's all there is to it. They are prized for that reason.

Even with taxis sometimes getting to equal the same price as two people on a bus, people still take buses to intersections because they are just wired that way to go toward other beings who are wired to go to intersections and crossroads.

I agree as well, a compromise.

Leave the hubs in place and give us a finite amount (like groups are) of home spots, that we can TP directly to?

That way it doesn't totally kill the businesses around the hubs, yet we can still have some landmarks that are "favorites", so to speak.

I was talking to my SL partner, Sokelle, and she said, why not leave the hubs as they are, and add an option to the land tools that says, "Allow direct teleport to this parcel, *note* that this will cost <XXL$> per week".

Thoughts?

I like this, especially since they took Landmarks out of Profiles and Find.. Maybe something good can finally come of that. :\

I did think about the issue of mall owners simply raising their crap up to telehub height if they're brought up to 200M, and I have no doubt that that would happen.. (Hate hate hate you all.) ..I don't suppose LL could -restrict- that from happening.. I mean, if you have land, basically no one can tell you what to do with it. But.. I dunno. Can't they implement a rule that says "No Commercial Builds Within A 200M Radius Of The Telehub, Plzkthx."? I really think it would be a good idea to raise the hubs if only they could find a way to make sure no one bungles THAT, too..

I would prefer the "homes" we get to set (not that we get to decide this, lol) to be ones we independently set, and not have to have them tied to groups.

I end up getting my head stood on at hubs because my computer is slow.

I'd prefer they did NOT charge for setting these homes. Why on earth would they? Why does everything have to have some sort of a charge on it? Why not charge for looking up events. Now there's a good idea.

coco

I'd really like to have direct p2p and I wouldn't mind if it was only to places I had landmarks for, but I'd prefer just direct p2p since I'm really bad at remember what places are called. I rarely use landmarks at all. I just know where the places I want to go are on the map. I wouldn't mind having to pay to allow direct teleport to my locations.

I also think we should be able to set multiple home locations. I can't think of any reason why we should be able to log in directly to any land we own. If there has to be a limit then limit to three locations or something. We should also be able to port directly to parcels we own.

That's true, Chip! As long as we're asking for things, I'd like all those, too. And you know, even that "my last location" thing doesn't work at certain places. I'll log out at a place, then log back on, and all the time, at certain places, it puts me back at the telehub nearest the place instead for some reason, and I still have to fly there.

coco

This discussion really does unfold exactly the same way every time. It's quite amazing. This is the part where we pretend to debate the pros and cons of charging a fee for direct teleportation while we actually just state our preference and call everyone else stupid.

Oh, I'm wrong. That starts on the next page. No, this is page five; that's right. I obviously haven't memorized the whole twenty pages yet. They start running together after a while.

Frankly I don't think someone interest in having valuable land is more important than facilitating ease of play. The telehubs , as far as I can see, do nothing to contribute to the community, and I would think for people use the find menu than browse the telehub malls anyway. I could be very wrong on that.

Frankly I want point to point teleportation, because when I want to visit my freids its annoying to be teleported some distance a away, get stuck in unrezzed buildings, get bumped by an over active home security system and then fly 600 meters cause my freinds like remote land.

We are not even going to mention what putting that telehub in did to my isolation in nuttal.
Vut really it boils down to the fact that the lindens should designt he transportation system based on fucntionality and not based on current land values. Sometimes land goes up, sometimes land goes down, thats the drawback of market economics.

Frankly, if you want to build a community, I think events and sights, such as cool builds, are a better way to do it that telehubs. Make places people want to go, and they will go there.

I'm surprised by these numbers. Understanding that a very limited set of the population makes use of the forums, I sitll find it odd that p2p is supported 4:1 over telehub land value. Are there really that few teletubby land owners in the forums? Or are a number of them supporting p2p as an ideal even though they will likely loose money when it's implemented. Sorry, I should've said "IF" it's implemented.

You are so sure everything in life is driven by money. Telehubs suck. P2P teleport is good. It should be here now, or asap.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO WILL LOSE MONEY BECAUSE THEY INVESTED IN TRAPPING PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET FROM A TO B.

Linden Labs are NOT going to cancel a great and much needed feature just to line the pockets of a few grubby merchants who like being able to trap everyone into their stores.

Am not. So There.

Yes, Yes, True.

MY SURPRISE IS THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE THE OPINION OF A NUMBER OF TELEHUB LAND OWNERS AS WELL.

I'm not so sure about this one. Telehubbing is part of the game. Vehicles are also part of the game. p2p will make them both fairly senseless to deal with considering the respective problems that plague them.

Telehubs are a negative part of the second life experience because people use them to trap people for financial gain, much to the annoyance of the vast majority of the people, who vote in unison against telehubs.

Providing an alternative is overdue and greatly in the public interest.

Imagine a Second Life competitor who advertises point to point teleportation as one of the natural conveniences of a virtual world. Now imagine your own parody of LL marketing telehubs as a feature.

Chances are that people owning telehub land also own and travel to land elsewhere and thus are subject to the same sorry conditions which make p2p teleporting desirable. Some may even understand that telehubs can survive and thrive even if ptp is reactivated because consolidated retail and commercial centers simply work. Consider the RL comparative experience. Taking an alternate route too avoid mall traffic when you're going about your everyday travels does not take away from the profitability of the mall. Not having an alternative to do so results in a negative attitude (hate would probably be an acceptable descriptor here) towards the mall.