Again, here’s what you wrote.
“with an API that is delayed”.
They are your words. The API is delayed.
And it’s actually delayed one hour on the assets path, which is the only one interesting in that context.
And which I also wrote just after, making your quote an out of context quote.
That is, a dishonest lie - or a stupid mistake.
You are wrong. The assets path already exists.
It’s just taking your words as written. It’s exactly the same as how you treat other people, including the OP in this thread.
Can’t have it both ways.
It’s taking them OUT OF CONTEXT; which IS the definition of an out of context quote, and therefore a dishonest lie. Because I did not write ONLY that, I also explained the meaning of those words and your intepretation is against the meaning I gave them.
Which public endpoints allow you to create a contract through the ESI?
A whole new set of endpoints would be required to facilitate this proposal (and I hope CCP doesn’t do it anyway, but no, the endpoints to support this proposal don’t exist).
None.
Yes, the assets endpoints is enough to list available assets that can be placed into a contract, only one more POST endpoint is needed ; but the assets endpoint is delayed one hour, which is literally what I wrote and that you dishonestly quoted out of context .
even if another sets of paths would be created, they would also be delayed one hour like all assets related path, because the assets listing is a costly operation on monolith.
Exactly. Hence, the endpoints to support this proposal do not exist.
You can try to spin BS as usual, but if CCP implemented this proposal, a lot of additions to the ESI would be required and there is no rule they have in place that dictates that they need to have an hour delay.
unrelated.
The assets path already exists and provides everything needed for this proposal.
It is delayed one hour.
No.
That claim is just plain BS
The “mandatory one hour” is only your own strawman.
you are the one “spinning BS as usual”
You also are the one who claimed there was no delay in the fleet path while there is literally one minute delay written in the spec.
Yeah kid, learn to read before trying to discuss.
To use your favourite reply - irrelevant.
That endpoint isn’t there for this proposal. If CCP implemented this proposal, they’d design it effectively and nothing about the existing endpoints, which as above, don’t support this proposal, is relevant. CCP would develop new/modified endpoints for this proposal.
irrelevant.
Nobody claimed it was.
You are just making strawman after strawman after out of context quote.
and your proof is ?
Yeah, that’s just plain BS.
Again, it seems you are too stupid to understand what I wrote and need to make out of context quotes even though they are in total opposition to what I wrote one sentence after.
Well have fun stroking yourself. Still, you are wrong.
You literally asked the OP how they would deal with a 1H delay.
There’s nothing strawman about arguing that:
- the ESI already has many endpoints that have no delay (including endpoints that use the GET method, which is nothing special in comparison to other HTTP methods)
- the endpoints to support this specific proposal don’t exist
Simply, if CCP implemented this, the OP wouldn’t need to deal with a 1 hour delay. There wouldn’t be a delay, because there is no requirement for one.
Yes, because both are things I did not affirm.
Yes there is. In all related assets path there is a 1H delay, for a very important reason.
That you don’t know, because you are too stupid to read what I actually wrote.
Try to get your present fit. Yes it’s delayed 1H.
Try to get your bps ? Same.
Try to get your corp structures ? 1H.
Your pos data ? 1H.
How is it possible ?
So yes, if CCP implemented that, there would be an issue with existing 1H mandatory delay for assets paths. Because there is a requirement for one.
So unless CCP changes a LOT of things in order to reduce the assets delay, YES there is a requirement for 1H delay issue.
And even if CCP did make a lot of works in order to reduce the delay, even 10 minutes would make it unusable. the issues I am talking about would arise even with 60s delay like fleet path. THAT is what I am talking about, THAT is the meaning of the “60min delay API” what you completely ignored in your complete stupidity.
Which is what I wrote in the first post that you quoted out of context and therefore ignored completely that meaning.
So yes, the fleet path is delayed only 60s but that’s … yes, irrelevant, to the constraints and issues with assets management. You’ve just been off-topic with your stupid vid that proves nothing.
OK. First. Number One. I never asked to do delayed contract. If you don’t know what futures contract is, and what is my business of asking to allow POST API endpoints to CREATE CONTRACTS, ACCEPT THEM etc… USE WALLET… whatever…
It’s just proving my point that some capsuleers are less intelligent than machine, because if you let machine play the game it would do it better, and certainly it does, aka mining and trading bots.
Second. Number Two. I don’t get the point of allowing for some of destructive, for newbie players, usage of API - spying on logged in clients to third party apps, sending SPAM through in game mail to invite to corporation targetting players in newbie spawn points. You know what I’m talking about… Recently players from WoW came, because they changed the in-game content, not the sorrounding third party application ecosystem.
Why don’t let the game surf on the tide and flip on the wave so it could leverage it’s potential over one of the most covered API that the game with high player count has.
Thirdly. Third One. My flow of my business that is the question here:
- player go on www.myspace.com
- player engagement in my app
- 3rd Friday of month; I have to get to work. write the contracts, or give commodities and money through contracts (limit over created ones, can not create more before accepted by other player - bottleneck for me) or direct pilot exchange
- repeat.
What’s wrong with external apps? One of the /////\ posters say it’s bad and everything should be in-game, but he makes fleets using API, rly? I’m annoyed everytime I try something new, with another corporation looking for newbies, so they are placed in workers hive, of another multidimensional corp and so on.
Let the game grow, not be boring, because of you… I don’t have to do what everybody else, I’m an independant entiety, and if there are no laws, I will set my reign with force.
You have a car. Car have POST endpoint called steering wheel. You POST “turn right” - nothing happens, because you’re an idiot and forgot about engine ignition.
and nobody talked about it.
No idea what you’re talking about. But no.
It will grow better without stupid ideas.
If players are permitted to shift gameplay-affecting mechanics to bots, you end up with bots becoming mandatory to remain competitive. This discourages players from engaging in the game because they cannot compete with a bot and should not be forced to run a bot of their own just to participate.
It is not in EVE’s best interest to permit players to legally automate setting up contracts, which would be the end result of enabling this API.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.