These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Correct Serious 9year Flaw

Author
Nevryn Takis
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-08-02 12:25:44 UTC
+1 from me

I'm not going to expand my corp, which I'd love to do, until I can lock down BPO's/BPC's/interface so that corp members can use them but not remove them from either a corp hanger in a staion or a hanger in a lab, and lock down jobs so that people can only cancel their own jobs.
Note any member should be able to deliver any ready job .. assuming that invention jobs sucees is determined at the point of instantiation and not delivery. This would prevent slots being blocked because a corp member is on holiday/sick/got other commitments/being a lazy ass..

True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
#22 - 2012-08-02 17:59:08 UTC
Nevryn Takis wrote:
+1 from me

I'm not going to expand my corp, which I'd love to do, until I can lock down BPO's/BPC's/interface so that corp members can use them but not remove them from either a corp hanger in a staion or a hanger in a lab, and lock down jobs so that people can only cancel their own jobs.
Note any member should be able to deliver any ready job .. assuming that invention jobs sucees is determined at the point of instantiation and not delivery. This would prevent slots being blocked because a corp member is on holiday/sick/got other commitments/being a lazy ass..



Hmm, maybe I'm confused, but when the previous job finishes, it doesn't stop someone from using that lab slot, so this isn't needed. You would want to prevent any member from delivering any job, because otherwise your newbie corp member could sneak on to complete a Jump freighter build and deliver it (assuming you have a 'production tab' where members can place their minerals and such in order to run the job).

CEO/Director would maintain their current roles, and be able to cancel/complete all jobs being done in corporation owned facilities.
Reachok
Cydaen Awareness
#23 - 2012-08-03 13:26:52 UTC
+1

I had a couple members that wanted to use the POS, but there was no way to allow them to use it for research without giving them the ability to end a capital job that was taking place at the time.

The bad guys went the other way, seriously....

Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#24 - 2012-08-03 14:02:51 UTC
I think the whole role management needs to be reworked. And yes, this is a serious issue.

Also we dislike such minor facts, that role-titles are displayed on the character info. because of this some corps are using ascii-art titles without meaning, so outsiders can't even get what kind of roles should that toon bear with.

Even more, it'd be needed to give access to arbitrary installations/arrays/whatever to members. And having arbitrary number of wallet divisions, maybe corp hangars.

Also alliance-level roles would be nice, even alliance hangars, with roles.
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
#25 - 2012-08-03 15:23:15 UTC
Xantos Semah wrote:
d) processing gas requires roles that will allow you to offline and unanchor any POS that belong to this corporation



I believe you can work around this problem in the POS management window by changing the online/offline option to POS Fueler, rather than Starbase Manager.
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
#26 - 2012-08-03 15:26:38 UTC
Magic Crisp wrote:
I think the whole role management needs to be reworked. And yes, this is a serious issue.

Also we dislike such minor facts, that role-titles are displayed on the character info. because of this some corps are using ascii-art titles without meaning, so outsiders can't even get what kind of roles should that toon bear with.

Even more, it'd be needed to give access to arbitrary installations/arrays/whatever to members. And having arbitrary number of wallet divisions, maybe corp hangars.

Also alliance-level roles would be nice, even alliance hangars, with roles.


Whilst I think you're entirely right, my goal here is to get a hotfix to what I think is the single largest biggest issue with the roles currently, I don't htink anyone dissagree's that a total overhaul is in need.
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#27 - 2012-08-05 11:05:50 UTC
+1

It's been a problem for years so I'm not optimistic that CCP will do anything about it
Nofearion
Destructive Brothers
Fraternity.
#28 - 2012-08-05 22:54:29 UTC
+5 for me
CEO, and past Alliance Industrial Director
this one issue is a major bar to recruitment into corps and also hurt Newbies from getting in the better indy corps.
To those who say CCP is not listening check out the section of discussion on CORP revamps discussed by the CSM and CCP
http://community.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2012/CSM_CCP_Meetings_May_June_2012.pdf
contact your local CSM and push for the changes you like.
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
#29 - 2012-08-06 03:28:16 UTC
Nofearion wrote:
+5 for me
CEO, and past Alliance Industrial Director
this one issue is a major bar to recruitment into corps and also hurt Newbies from getting in the better indy corps.
To those who say CCP is not listening check out the section of discussion on CORP revamps discussed by the CSM and CCP
http://community.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2012/CSM_CCP_Meetings_May_June_2012.pdf
contact your local CSM and push for the changes you like.


Yeah I read that yesterday, my one concern was that it was a single paragraph explaining the problem, but no comment from CCP if they acknowledge/agreed or such. I hope it gets more attention.
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
#30 - 2012-08-11 14:08:35 UTC
Raising some more attention to this, I'm hoping at the very least that these factors will be taken into consideration with the POS replacement discussed in the CSM meeting, but to be honest I don't think this should wait any longer than it has already and think this is something worth placing into the very next available patch.
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
#31 - 2012-08-30 23:30:14 UTC
Bumping to get more peoples attention and feedback!
Aineko Macx
#32 - 2012-09-01 17:22:57 UTC
+1, naturally.

Of course, this is one of many things the long overdue rework of corp roles and management includes.
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
#33 - 2012-09-26 06:18:57 UTC
Bringing this up again as it continues to be a major limiting factor that seriously needs attention
Dolm Velith
Velith Family Productions
#34 - 2012-11-13 06:37:22 UTC
I know several of the CSM have commented on the state of corp management in the past, I'd love to hear them weight in on this. *hinthintwinkwinksaynomoresaynomore*
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#35 - 2012-11-15 09:07:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Destination SkillQueue
Xantos Semah wrote:
Obsidiana wrote:
CCP does love it when corp treachery makes the news. That said, it only makes the news it it was a huge theft and a trusted individual. Small corp theft and manufacturing job hissy-fits do not make for an interesting read.


Yes I know. But whats important here is to make eve hardcore game for its pvp pew pew style but it has to be as easy as possible to be able to steal few bil isk worth of assets. CCP thinks we are iditots so if we like to steal it has to be easy or we would get bored quickly. And its not just about the news, its about the playerbase.


I think you're a bit mistaken. CCP certainly likes the cold dark universe and that is how it should be, but this isn't what the issue here is and the change doesn't prevent thefts or betrayals. Even in the current game you still need to gain enough trust to gain those roles and you get them after you are trusted, but thefts still happen. The new system doesn't alter this. It just allows the corp to function better and get more players involved. The added security also helps new players to be more easily accepted in to player corps, which is something CCP certainly wants to encourage, since being part of a player corp greatly increases the likelyhood of them subbing to the game long term.

I think the real reason CCP hasn't addressed this and might not do it until the whole system is redone is because the whole corporation management and corporation role system is old(poorly documented, not designed to be easily modifiable, with the original programmer propably not working at CCP anymore) and full of similar problems. This makes fixing it a large project with very serious reprecussions for the game no matter how it turns out. It's similar to the POS system in many ways. Everyone knows the system needs to be upgraded, but it's a huge project, with a high likelyhood of serious problems occuring and a painful transition period even in the best of case scenario. This means CCP is reluctant to touch the system and will only do it when a total redesign is going to take place.
z Flint
z Mining Corp
#36 - 2012-11-16 16:55:44 UTC
+1 Good Idea!!!!!!!!!
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#37 - 2012-11-19 00:16:40 UTC
The current coding that CCP uses for the role interface / corp interface is limited by its original coding. Because of this it is very difficult for them to add more to the interface. I am pretty sure there are plans in order to deal with this and when they tackle updating the corporation interface and completely reworking it - You will be able to do this.

CCP doesn't get off on making it hard for you to do industry.
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
#38 - 2012-11-20 17:11:15 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
The current coding that CCP uses for the role interface / corp interface is limited by its original coding. Because of this it is very difficult for them to add more to the interface. I am pretty sure there are plans in order to deal with this and when they tackle updating the corporation interface and completely reworking it - You will be able to do this.

CCP doesn't get off on making it hard for you to do industry.


Never implied there was, I just don't think for this particular case they quite understand the negative impact. I understand the limitations based on the original coding (pretty much 9year old code for this stuff), but if they could jerry-rig a change that you don't need "Factory Manager" in order to install jobs and "Rent Factory Slot/Rent laboratory Slot" would only allow you to deliver your own jobs, then it would be a hugely significant change that would allow industrial corporations to actually exist.
Jean-Pierre Olenarde
Grey-Wolf Inc.
#39 - 2012-11-24 01:42:45 UTC
+1

If I had something witty to say, this is where I'd put it.

Ronan Connor
#40 - 2012-11-27 10:10:43 UTC
+1 to OP

But I fear that it wont have a chance (see Causality Trailer). They want that betrayal to happen to you.

So its not a flaw in ccp's eyes, its a feature. Roll