These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Citadels] - Item Storage Restrictions

Author
Alexhandr Shkarov
ExDominion
Evictus.
#1 - 2016-01-01 15:06:05 UTC
Hi there,

My name is Alexhandr Shkarov and I am the CEO of a small wormhole group called Swamphole. As a CEO I value the security of assets that I provide to my playerbase, and I always work towards keeping these aspects a top priority. In our wormhole, we are spreading people out based on multiple towers so that we have less ISK and risk compounded into one specific location. This in turn makes us much more resilient to the occasional attempt to mess with our towers, and lowers the impact of a corp thief onto our organisation.

As you may know, according to previous announcements, CCP will restrict the market module for Citadels to Large and Extra Large Citadels. This is pretty neat, but it poses a problem for the way I envision our security.

What is the problem?
Whenever someone has rights to dock into a certain Citadel, it is implied by CCP's current implementation that they will have (unlimited) item storage options as well. This allows anyone who wants to use the market module to store their assets in that market Citadel. For my group, this is a problem because we prefer to have people spread over multiple citadels to reduce the risk of one Citadel being targeted.


What would I love to see?

CCP is moving towards a form of Group-Based Access Control. This means that we assign roles and access to certain structures to a group, and everyone within this group will fall under the constraints and enabling factors set for that group. One of the constraints I'd like to see as a CEO is that I could assign a maximum amount of space in certain Citadels to groups. This allows me to effectively throttle where people keep most of their assets, and how distributed our members truly are.

TL;DR
As CEO I'd like the option to set a hangar size limit to control how much space members have to put their stuff in a Citadel-like structure. This allows me to filter roles based on groups and control asset security.

All my posts are on my personal title and should not be confused as me speaking for anyone else.

Alexhandr Shkarov
ExDominion
Evictus.
#2 - 2016-01-02 11:17:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexhandr Shkarov
We had the discussion in our own corporation last night and some points were made:


  • CCP did not tell us if there is a storage limit yet.
  • This is true, but the idea stands separate. I am looking for a potential solution especially in wormholes that allows me to limit the access people have to storage facilities in a Citadel.

  • You can let the people manage it themselves, and get them to spread their assets over multiple Citadels
  • My experience is that when you offer a convenient location where everything is available, that is where everyone will store their assets. Since we can not physically move assets of members anymore, this means we can't help balance the value of Citadels amongst our members.

  • When this idea would be used, do you allow infinite access too?
  • Yes, that depends entirely on how you want to set it. I am looking at this with the mindset that groups get certain level of space ranging from none to all, and anything in between.


This list will be improved when more points both here and outside the forums are brought forward.

All my posts are on my personal title and should not be confused as me speaking for anyone else.

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#3 - 2016-01-02 14:01:18 UTC
Wow, all those questions and uncertainties. The only thing that we do know at this time is how those citadels might look and that there will be modules you can put on them.

We may also have a vague idea of how much one of them might cost - the end.


For the love of my migranes, can everyone please just be patient? I know what you want to do and no, we cannot answer that yet.

All will become very clear with EVE Citadels™.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Alexhandr Shkarov
ExDominion
Evictus.
#4 - 2016-01-02 14:26:04 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Wow, all those questions and uncertainties. The only thing that we do know at this time is how those citadels might look and that there will be modules you can put on them.

We may also have a vague idea of how much one of them might cost - the end.


For the love of my migranes, can everyone please just be patient? I know what you want to do and no, we cannot answer that yet.

All will become very clear with EVE Citadels™.


Of course,

We're being patient but while they are working on it we can use this time to addess certain issues that are present in the game.
I've chosen to live in wormholes but the current system of POS's and it's modules is really weak. Very little roles can safely be divided amongst players and there is almost no way to limit certain actions to certain objects.

But that problem is being addressed with Citadels and it's use of Group Based Access Control. By making groups, we can now control the permissions in a much more structured way, but in order to get that right we should give feedback. As a CEO I'd love a method to limit the access to certain structures while still allowing a limited level of docking rights.\

So yes, this is an idea to put into discussion in the hope that it can contribute to CCP's work.

All my posts are on my personal title and should not be confused as me speaking for anyone else.

Kyra Lee
Ixian Machines
#5 - 2016-01-03 07:25:16 UTC
I really like that you and your corp put so much thought into this issue. Its nice to see someone actually thinking before they post. You seem to have a pretty unique situation on your hands. I haven't heard of anyone else regimenting their members in such a way.

While I see what you want to accomplish I feel having any sort of limit on hanger size will severely hamper many other aspects of the citadels. If you could also set the hanger size to infinite then I may be ok with something like this. The main issues I see are market hubs and capital ship building. Setting up a market hub takes an enormous amount of inventory and that means lots of m3. Similarly capital ship production also takes up large amounts of m3 in materials and intermediate products. Less impacted would be mining and refining, ABC ore takes up lots of space.

Secondly I don't think we will see any major changes to the Corp roles any time soon as they are directly tied in with the old POS systems, Legacy Code. If they could implement the group base system in citadels specifically and not touch the old systems that may work. I personally would love to see a roles and access system that is similar to Active Directory.

Lastly, and this is just personal opinion, you seem to be trying to fix a people problem with a technical solution. In my years in the IT world that is not usually a good option. I have had to deal with people constantly getting viruses and adware on their PCs. In nearly every case it has been easier to counsel or remove the offending person than to further protect the systems from their stupidity.
Douglas Adams wrote:
a common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#6 - 2016-01-03 08:16:45 UTC
You know a great place to put all this stuff.... Into the Citadels Q&A thread.
Alexhandr Shkarov
ExDominion
Evictus.
#7 - 2016-01-03 12:26:06 UTC
Kyra Lee wrote:

While I see what you want to accomplish I feel having any sort of limit on hanger size will severely hamper many other aspects of the citadels. If you could also set the hanger size to infinite then I may be ok with something like this. The main issues I see are market hubs and capital ship building. Setting up a market hub takes an enormous amount of inventory and that means lots of m3. Similarly capital ship production also takes up large amounts of m3 in materials and intermediate products. Less impacted would be mining and refining, ABC ore takes up lots of space.


Yes,
The idea revolves around being able to restrict access based on groups, but on the premise that this restriction (or lack thereof) can be changed. So if you have a role that warrants more access, we should be able to give it. This way I can make access groups that base around the specific restrictions. You're a guest in our system that we invite over but don't want to give unlimited storage? Put them into the Guest group with a limit on storage. You're an industrialist? Maybe build a group without that restriction.

Quote:

Secondly I don't think we will see any major changes to the Corp roles any time soon as they are directly tied in with the old POS systems, Legacy Code. If they could implement the group base system in citadels specifically and not touch the old systems that may work. I personally would love to see a roles and access system that is similar to Active Directory.


As far as I understood the changes they are pushing, that is exactly what their new system is accomplishing. It supposedly circumvents old corporate roles and permissions, instead opting to consolidate access and roles into groups for Citadel structures (and following structures in the future).

Quote:

Lastly, and this is just personal opinion, you seem to be trying to fix a people problem with a technical solution. In my years in the IT world that is not usually a good option. I have had to deal with people constantly getting viruses and adware on their PCs. In nearly every case it has been easier to counsel or remove the offending person than to further protect the systems from their stupidity.


You are correct that you need to change the human factor in an organisation, but that doesn't always help out. It also means that if we decide to house people in Citadels in order to help us fight for example, that they end up having unlimited access if we do not build restrictions. So yes, you are right that technical solutions alone will not solve it but they are to augment the approach.

As far as I know, but it may have changed, each group in Citadels will have an administrator and a manager. The administrator would be the leader of an organisation, while he delegates the management of groups and their members to people within the corporation/alliance/coalition. By creating this artificial barrier, I can then help control the human factor in member management and group management by those who work with me.

The only difference with a real-life situation is that when I limit your access to a specific object that it isn't overcome by any human behaviour similar to a real-life situation. Once you have access to one object that's the constraint you need to deal with, without the ability to bend that freedom without going by me or my director(s).

All my posts are on my personal title and should not be confused as me speaking for anyone else.

Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#8 - 2016-01-04 05:46:20 UTC
I'm pretty sure that considering how much CCP are about safety they will just make thefts impossible and all storage personal.

Because screw metagaming and infiltrations, that's not what eve is about.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#9 - 2016-01-04 06:02:12 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
I'm pretty sure that considering how much CCP are about safety they will just make thefts impossible and all storage personal.

Because screw metagaming and infiltrations, that's not what eve is about.

There is both personal and corp storage. These things called Corp offices which the corp owning it gets I hear...... Almost like it was in the blogs.
Alexhandr Shkarov
ExDominion
Evictus.
#10 - 2016-01-04 10:31:03 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
I'm pretty sure that considering how much CCP are about safety they will just make thefts impossible and all storage personal.

Because screw metagaming and infiltrations, that's not what eve is about.


Oh yes, I am sure they will.
But I want to be able to determine if someone who visits a Citadel under corporate control, has unlimited storage space or not. I want to be able to give friendly players the ability to dock if needed, but not store enough materials to fund an invasion fleet.

When you have a house, you set the rules of access. So why would I not be able to limit access to storage based on what we envision?

All my posts are on my personal title and should not be confused as me speaking for anyone else.