These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Corp roles feedback needed

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ghenghis Kralj
Big Johnson's
#21 - 2015-01-28 20:37:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ghenghis Kralj
Newt BlackCompany wrote:
I think a POS (and all pos access rights) should belong to an individual, not a corp. And that individual can give rights (like shield access and access to the fuel bay) as they like, including to their corp and alliance.

Similarly, all modules floating in space should belong to an individual (not to a corp or pos), and that individual can set the access rights. If the module (like a SMA, for example) is placed by the individual on grid with his pos, then it's default access rights should mirror the pos's, but they are adjustable independently.

This should sort out the problem with Starbase Config roles.

Also, Industry (esp reactions) should not be tied to the tower, but instead to the reactor module. Access rights to the reactor module (and any processes therein) should be controlled by the individual who placed it.

Finally, all modules not protected by a shield (including dead sticks) should be able to be offlined, unanchored, and stolen by anyone. This should occur with an appropriate eve-mail to the owner and an appropriately significant unanchoring time (which could be several hours, and could be much shorter for the owner). Perhaps we can add a new 'module hacking' skill to allow non-owners to do this. This could introduce a problem of blues 'stealing' the guns outside the shield, but that can be fixed by making them 'grey' when they start this process and then having to deal with the pos defenses.


THAT!!!!!!!!!!!

(A) And switch POSes to the same mechanics as MTUs with a crap ehp profile when offline. It could make it easier to program with online mode giving a huge ehp bonus similar to the bastion module or whatever
(B) Or make dead sticks disappear after 30 days or something
(C) Or, as a bunch of people have suggested, make 3rd party pos unanchoring a hacking game

Also, the onlining/offlining one module at a time. Good god. No. Almost anything else would be better.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#22 - 2015-01-29 02:17:38 UTC
There is no use debating corp roles on a wormhole forum without referencing the influence of them on POS security, POS management and the like.

Ask highsec wardec corps and they'll be "What? You can have roles? Oh, right, yeah, there IS a whole bunch of tabs in the corp interface right next to the wars tab!"

Lowsec and nullsec (moon goo holders) have some of the issues of wormhole corps, but it's infinitely simpler because you only need one role for your toons which hump the moon goo to market to take the ISK from the ISK machines.

Maybe if the whole issue of corp roles is so intrinsically linked to the parlous state of POSs themselves then CCP will have to devote much overdue resources to improving both in tandem? We can only doubt. I mean hope. We can only hope.

I like the idea of the VISIO-like corporate heirarchy. CCP can program this similarly to the damn PI system with little circles and whatnot and assign roles to each circle. In fact, having a publishable corp heirarchy that members can look at would feel very corporate indeed. i know whenever i get a new job with a big corporation i fap off over the organisational flowchart and dream of moving up the corporate ladder so people can report to me, instead of the other way around.

This would be a nice cosmetic change. Kind of like the revamp of the industry interface and the skill tree. At least a dysfunctional knife-strewn minefield of a Gordian knot of corp roles and permissions would look nice.

But it always, always will come back to how these corp roles apply and can be applied to POS infrastructure, theft prevention and the like. Short of SMA's acting more like stations, which is thankfully going away with Greyscale and his lunatic ideas of ridding POSs of bubbles so that no one would ever know anyone else was around, then any jointly occupied SMA is inevitably going to involve risk of theft and trust issues.

So, again, yes we need to improve the POS interface to simplify and streamline access control. Or, CCP needs to publically state that the whole idea of POSs is that they remain broken, prone to thefts, prone to making CEO's and recruiters and directors lives hell, and then we can all decide whether or not we maintain corporations and alliances when they inevitably cave in and give alliance BMs. Or BM's that you can mail to people.

I know when I save a waypoint to my GPS it prints out a receipt I have to keep in my pocket and can't read the coordinates of, and the only way anyone else can go find my geocached sparkly hotpants stash is to take that indecipherable receipt and feed it into their own GPS no more than 10 at a time, and can't delete it unless they have a role i grant them.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Mathieu X
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-01-29 10:38:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mathieu X
Hi,

Thank you for taking your time to collect player feedback.

Please, consider letting us assign each and every POS / Modules option (SMA #1 View, SMA #1 Put, SMA #1 Take, SMA #1 Anchor, SMA #1 Unanchor; same things for other modules and options) by Title and individually.

Please, stop forcing us to use "Role" for every aspect of POS Sec. There is only 3 level of Role (you can not consider giving Config Starbase Equipment...) and this is bad.

Sorry for my English.
Chesterfield Fancypantz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2015-01-29 19:27:13 UTC
I think that a lot of the people here are missing the point here, or maybe I am.

I would think this would be a corp roles "little things" where we can suggest easy to fix changes that can be done in the short term, as opposed to a complete overhaul and working with POS's. We all know that is coming and being worked on.
Bleedingthrough
#25 - 2015-01-29 20:09:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Bleedingthrough
Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:
I think that a lot of the people here are missing the point here, or maybe I am.

I would think this would be a corp roles "little things" where we can suggest easy to fix changes that can be done in the short term, as opposed to a complete overhaul and working with POS's. We all know that is coming and being worked on.


Little things ... are Uranus. Would you worry about Uranus being a planet or not when close by system goes supernova? Or was is Pluto?
Alundil
Rolled Out
#26 - 2015-01-29 23:40:47 UTC
Updated original post with further details
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5439762#post5439762

I'm right behind you
Zara Arran
Overload This
#27 - 2015-02-02 15:56:50 UTC
I have made a thread on the general eve-o forums ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5384853#post5384853 ) with general corp management related stuff, but here some more ideas in more details, though some might be double. Keep in mind, in my opinion, corp management, POS management needs to be removed and completely re-done.

- ability to link characters, so leadership can link alts. Would be amazing if you could also in one go give or remove roles from that person's alts in one go
- ability to pick and choose your own set of roles, link this to a title or function of some sort and give these out to members.
- when a member leaves the corp, sent a notification to not only the CEO, but also directors and perhaps someone with the "recruiter" role or something alike.
- be able to give someone roels with a timer: for instance a one hour "config starbase" role, and preferably also the ability to tie that to a specific location (system/station/Planet and moon etc).
- ability to attach notes to people for only directors and CEOs and perhaps a "recruiter" or HR role to see to discuss members
- ability to see the history of roles: who gave a role or took it away?
- ability to see a person's last killboard activity (last loss, last kill)
- we need alliance roles as well.. similar in structure as corporation roles

(perhaps more to come but this is at least a start)
Darren Fox
Overload This
#28 - 2015-02-02 19:05:09 UTC
I agree with Zara's points here, but also want to add some more.

-The entire process around CEO vote is strange and with sketchy documentation. It needs to be revised and documented. Shares are part of that as well.
-Sanctionable actions need a rework. Should be available to give out authority to at least parts of this
-Roles tie in with POS Management. POS Access needs to be able to be given out individually or on configurable roles, not just the Alliance, Corp, Starbase Config and Fuel tech
-Rework Roles, Grantable Roles and Titles. Unnecessary overlap and inflated
-Configurable number of divisions and wallets.
Previous page12