tele hubs or point to point whats your opinion

I was just about to do the same thing!

Just count my vote in for Point to Point. I've wanted it back ever since the day they took it away from us. My reasons.. everyone in this thread that is for Point to Point has already stated my same thoughts.

I think by now I have made my points on the issue of P2P Vs TH. It seems to me that the one thing, and mainly the only thing is that the area around TH are "traps." They take a long time to load, people get stuck in unrezzed builds, etc, etc. I have to say the TH must be good business centers because they do fetch a lot of money to buy land there, and people would not keep paying the rent to have a store if they were not getting business. So then is the problem not the builds but the people buying things at the TH? If no one bought a single item from a TH shop, would not all the big builds, and the "laggy" malls just vanish?

HAVOK 2 is coming soon, and what everyone says it that it will reduce lag, reduce load times, increase draw distance, make roads useful, and many more wonderful things. If this is all true, won't most of the issues that people bring up here also become mute?

I think the Lindens are wiser then we give them credit for. They had P2P teleports, but took them away. Why did they do that? Why after so long have they not brought back P2P teleporting? Linden Labs is not unknown for making drastic changes to this world, so why have they kept the telehubs?

Philip dreamed of building a world, in fact, a "better" world than the real one. Growing such a beast from nothing required such restrictive ideals as contiguous geography, linden sponsored orientation and centralized transportation.

The world is now established and is already too large for anyone to comprehesively explore and know. By the time you fly from one end to the other, more people have joined, new estates have been established, and builds have been replaced by new land owners. Hamlet expressed a desire for just this state of affairs after his first walk across the world. The Lindens are wise enough to realize that we're already breaking up into varied communities and continents. They're wise enough to realize that we can function without wholly contiguous geography, that we can sponsor our own entertainments, that we need a more modern method of transportation.

Things do change drastically around here. They always have; and they always will. We always kick and scream and threaten to quit. But we always stay and continue to build and develop the world knowing that the Lindens are wise and are doing the right thing to support the world's, and the population's, current needs.

This is a very good point, and raises some interesting questions. One can make the assumption that they must be generating revenue for merchants, otherwise why continue to pay rent?

But is that a fact? Or do only a few merchants make money and the rest barely make the rent? Continuing to hope that they will "turn the corner" if they just have enough name recognition .. so they find another spot to rent .. or move from one mall to another.

Is the only reliable money-making happening with telehubs being done by the landlords?

Im afraid I dont see a way to get a definitive answer to that ... not withut a lot of people being willing to be very forthright about their inWorld finances.

I suspect the only other way to get an idea is some sort of comprehensive survey of rentals .. probably conducted over time. Basically looking at how many differerent merchants there are at each of the telehub markets, what the occupancy rate is, how often it changes ... etc.

I'll be frank and admit that I made very few sales at telehub markets ... I do best at my main store and a couple of other locations. I think that is primarily because at places that I control directly, I can put my wares out for people to see. I believe that my particular product lines dont sell well from vendors.

Was my experience common? Is it just me and the things I sell? Is it a statement about my work that it doesn't sell at telehub malls? Is it a statement about the reality of sales opportunities at telehub malls? Who know for sure. I sure dont.

But I truly believe that the business model that supports telehubs is illusory ... and the view that because it's so reasonable, it /must/ be valid, can not be proven.

Just my opinion ... but one I've thought about a lot over the past year.

SL is better then RL in many ways. Things will always change. You can't explore the entire world, I know, I have tried.Keeping the social groups together was never a realistic goal, IMO. Just because something may seem better for you in the short term does not mean it is the best thing in the long term either. I wish I could say for sure that P2P is a good thing or a bad thing, but I don't think it is possible to know. Even if P2P was put in place tomorrow, the effect won't be felt for a long time. Even then we will never know what caused the change, good or bad. It never takes me very long to get where I want to go, and I don't think saving that few extra seconds TPing is going to effect my enjoyment in the game.

Well, back in the save us from the lindens thread I was of the opinion that p2p might be too jarring a change for the world to make. in going back and forth with Khamon, I have changed my mind about that. I realize now that I fell partly into "the sky is falling" camp. Since I'm over my reactionary fear of change (thanks Khamon) I've got some logistical questions about the whole thing.

Toggling my parcel "non-teleport" if I want at least the semblance of privacy. I can imagine popping in on people at inoportune moments.

Automatically toggling a parcel "non-teleport" if I've got the red bars up. Don't wanna land in your place just to be flung into the far corner of the sim

Security Scripts. See above.

You can surmise to a point. This poll is public. How many of the telehub supporters would you call land barons? There are a few different reasons that people site for wanting to keep the hubs in place and most of them are fairly reasonable. However, the primary reason given for preventing p2p is that land brokers might loose their investment. We will see if LL bend to the demands of this little group. We'll know by the end of the week whether p2p will be implemented or not simply be the Linden response or lack thereof. If not, we'll also know why.

P2P would be great I am so tired of the brick wall 200 foot tall strip malls surrounding the hubs always get caught in them.

I think someone needs to go on a little field trip to There. Should be a real eye opener.

Umm...... There has HUGE money sinks. What is the point you are trying to make? More money sinks = ???

There also has a fixed price of 1800TB/USD. It is like apples and bananas.

What about the poorly dressed? eh? Who the f*ck is gonna help me out?

Well, kind sir, there are those who can be helped, and those who can't.

We wouldn't have this problem if we rolled back to 1.3 -- thats the solioutioun!
(sorry folks thats an obscure piss take there)

Except you can, with enough money, buy several billion ThereBux at once, thus flooding the economy.

You can't do that with SL.

Period.

No, you can't, don't say GOM.

Toggling a parcel to nontelepointability will be a necessary concession of p2p implementation as long as people believe that they can ensure personal privacy on the mainland. I don't think people will understand otherwise any time soon, so it's pretty much a given. That'll delay p2p because they'll have to code the option rather than just flipping the old switch. It may not be much of a delay though because they also have to warn us in ample opportunity to scream and threaten to quit before it's time to adjust and move forward.

About security scripts I don't know having never used them. That'll require some extended discussion. God I hope Robin is serious about holding community discussions and isn't just pacifying us with nebulous rhetoric. I equally, deeply hope the the staff at large are open to the idea and not just humouring us as another social engineering tactic.

I like the idea of a Allow Direct Teleport checkbox in About Land, if enabled a Landmark would have a button for it, if disabled, no direct teleport button.

The idea of only having the direct teleport in landmarks isn't a bad one, and I'd accept it as a compromise if you didn't have to pay for it.

If you do have to pay, you should be able to go anywhere unless the parcel is marked no-teleport in, and it should not be like the old system where you payed based on distance, it should be like 10L$ a base sum. We should learn from history, not relive it.

User made "direct teleport" services do not hold up to any built-in direct teleport system in most cases, since you still have boarder crossing and draw lag issues to worry about.

I have not read all the posts here but if no one has mentioned it yet, there are two vote proposals based on this as well... even though the vote page is kinda worthless without any responses...

http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=89
http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=32

Edit: Oh and I have no problem with having BOTH P2PT and Telehubs still existing. I like Telehubs as exploring points, but hate being forced to use them all the time.