Player Features and Ideas Discussion

first

I could be way off the bat here but there isn't a need for a Security setting for using lines. But with the changes coming to Manufacturing I can see some Corporations downsizing their POS outlay somewhat. So the ability to perhaps (through Titles/Roles) set it so that people within a certain group in your Corp can operate the lines with priority over people not in that group might be useful.

For example, if we as a corp are building Dreadnoughts, and we use (currently 4) Component Assembly Arrays in our POS to build the parts, I would want those Corp members who are actively involved in building Corporate Dreads to have first use or reduced cost use of the lines, over someone in the Corp who is building a Dread to sell for personal profit.

I don't think that directly relates to security or standing settings atm, so apologies if it's way off the mark. But I think some way of managing Assembly Lines (or Labratory Slots) on Starbases is needed.

This, but also for stations and then applied to diffrent corperations instead of raw standings. Coz everyon ehas the same standign in an alliance and you cant differentiate between.

My corp owns a station and i want all our alt corps to have no tax on that, but **** the rest of the alliance basicly :D

I don't agree that standard charges like assembly line / research fees can be discounted by station holding corporations. Where does the money come from to pay for the discount? The same applies to station repair fees, it makes no sense that players can repair for free in captured outposts. Who pays for the replacement parts and the workload?

Discounts on assembly lines in general are only going to serve the already massive advantage 0.0 is going to have over building in high or low-sec, which are already going to be hampered by a 10% DECREASE in refining output compared to 0.0. Especially in the case of low-sec, this makes no sense since there is in many cases equal or more risk to living here than in large swaths of 0.0. Where is the risk vs reward? It seems you've managed to turn it into sec vs reward, and it's skewed beyond belief.

I think that the roles should be redone as well as the interface. I would like to see it whereyou can see the jobs being run and directors and slot managers can cancel jobs being done in pos structures but you dont need permissions to use them

Ideally:

Security can be disregarded. It factors into bugger all within a corporation/alliance setting.

Allowing use to be public would be great - except that the way you've set things up means no office to starbase usage, diminishing 99% of potential there. No one is going to use my starbase for their research and manufacture when they cannot even reach it.

Otherwise, the best system [for non alliance/corp] really would be to go similar to how customs offices are set up, with variable rates for all those standings. As much of the industry changes are working on % of product, the lines can be taxed at % as well.

Finally, being able to set % prices by role within corp and by corp within alliance would be grand.

you can do this right now, shift-clicking lets you select all of them

and Ctrl+click lets you select things as you click on them.

This is probably a little outside scope. . . .

An example of how I would like to see things work, although some things may change with upcoming industry changes.

We have 4 labs and 2 assembly arrays anchored on a corporate POS.

Two of those labs and the assembly arrays are dedicated to a specific project and only members in the "R&D" division (by title) of the corporation may install / deliver the jobs in these facilities

The other two labs are general purpose and any member may install jobs into them, but only the installer or a director can deliver / cancel.

In the current system, POS facilities are pretty much off-limits for all but the industrial officers, who can be trusted not to steal or cancel another member's job. If someone were to steal/cancel the job, there isn't even a record of who did it. Thus being able to limit who can use facilities, and what they can use those facilities for, would be fantastic.

There are two areas that have to be looked at separately because they work differently.

POSes:

As a corp CEO, I'd like to point out that if you are not a member of the owning corporation with access to at least one hanger division, one wallet division, and certain roles, you can't use the tower arrays at all. With the removal of remote research and the changes to job install costs and taxation, that entire menu can simply be removed as it serves no purpose what-so-ever.

Now, I'm totally in support of having a way to enable access for randoms based on standings and such, as well as a way to set corp taxes on the arrays. But until out-of-corp users can actually put stuff into the array and take out a finished item, that will never happen.

As far as setting cost/taxes, why not have the array taxes directly coupled to the corp tax rate? If having the ability to set arbitrary tax rates on individual arrays is desired, then add that as a column in the interface. Right-click to change it in a small dialog box.

tl;dr: Add a personal hanger division to all POS arrays. Then we can talk about more POS array security and standings changes.


Stations:

As far as stations, now we some wiggle room. A player sitting in station has unlimited storage and a personal hanger from and to which they can move stuff. Now there that interface makes sense. Providence being freeported, it is vital to be able to set all of those settings.

With the removal of individual lines, station (and POS) managers will no longer have to set everything on every line. \o/ This is a huge quality of life improvement for managers. Thank you.

Now the question is more along the lines of "Who do I want to have access to service x, and not to service y?" How much differentiation do we need on a service by service basis. Do we want to be able to manage access to each and every possible service, like ME research, TE research, copying, Invention, manufacturing... et al? Do we want to have the ability to set a blanket policy for everything all at once?

I think the answer is yes to both.

So I say eliminate this current menu. Move the functionality to the individual services, and have an "Apply Blanket Policy" option for managers. If it takes a revamp of the station manager's menu, then so be it. But changes to industry necessitate changes to industrial interfaces. And the Station Manager's interface is a part of that.