These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

POS Mechanics = Broken
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Skittles Aldent
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#1 - 2012-01-08 10:22:12 UTC
When is CCP going to look at this?

I want to be able to assign one slot within a Corporate Hanger Array to one member. This is not possible, you assign him to High Slot 1, he has access to High Slot 1 in all the CHA's within his roles.

You can cut it down a bit, but making some CHA's require the fuel tech role and others requiring the config star-base equip role but this is still not a best case scenario.

It makes no sense that I can set permissions for a POS so that anyone with the Fuel Tech role can offline a structure, including those structures, such as the POS itself even if they have a higher permission level - config starbase equipment.

When will we have the ability to have separate tabs within an SMA to separate ships. The whole system along with the corp permissions is borked.
Defecanda
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-01-08 10:39:32 UTC
Skittles Aldent wrote:
When is CCP going to look at this?

I want to be able to assign one slot within a Corporate Hanger Array to one member. This is not possible, you assign him to High Slot 1, he has access to High Slot 1 in all the CHA's within his roles.

You can cut it down a bit, but making some CHA's require the fuel tech role and others requiring the config star-base equip role but this is still not a best case scenario.

It makes no sense that I can set permissions for a POS so that anyone with the Fuel Tech role can offline a structure, including those structures, such as the POS itself even if they have a higher permission level - config starbase equipment.

When will we have the ability to have separate tabs within an SMA to separate ships. The whole system along with the corp permissions is borked.



LOL, very borked indeed... Not an empty quote.

[i][b]CCP Zulu.....      Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. [/b](i like to steal sigs)[/i]
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#3 - 2012-01-08 13:13:23 UTC
It's well known that the game's permissions system is f**ked up.

It's also well known that CCP has yet to pull its finger out and make it based on more than a silly bitmask.
Pinaculus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-01-08 13:23:50 UTC
I'm still a bit sore that we can't change T3 subs at a POS or Orca bay. Yeah, it's old news. It still annoys me every time I have to have multiple T3s in a wormhole for jobs that could easily be accomplished by a quick refit.

I know sometimes it's difficult to realize just how much you spend on incidental things each month or year, but seriously, EVE is very cheap entertainment compared to most things... If you are a smoker, smoke one less pack a week and pay for EVE, with money left over to pick up a cheap bundle of flowers for the EVE widow upstairs.
Rellik B00n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-01-08 13:39:15 UTC
is gear grinding considered old these days?
[Of a request for change ask: Who Benefits?](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199765)
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-01-08 13:50:26 UTC
Welcome to the world of POS administration where if you want any kind of real security forget it!

However, there are some convoluted ways to do what you want. If you go into the manage feature of the tower you can somewhat compartmentalize usage between those who have certain permissions and those who don't.

Example: You have 2 corporate hangars. You have members who have starbase config and those without. You can assign access to specific hangars on such criteria. So for Hangar 1 only those with starbase config can access their specific divisions within. Hangar 2, being configured for corporate use, anyone with access to specific divisions can access it. It's far, far from ideal but it does offer some hope. It won't really allow you to be more specific than assigning permissions between those you trust (who basically get the run of the pos) and those you don't (who are limited).

The access feature from the manage screen does illustrate that "groups" could be used but, CCP never iterated beyond what is already there. So, you have a group who can offline everything at the pos including tower and those that can't and that's about it. Fuel Technician is another option but, who doesn't allow everyone in the corp to fuel the pos??? Would kind of be silly not to give everyone the permission to fuel the pos since it's a critical need but, noone can do anything with that permission to screw you over.

Don't ban me, bro!
Treks Shadow
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2012-01-08 15:47:48 UTC
well i agree this roles structure is just old old old. i think even with out giving someone roles you should be able to assign a tab to one individual no roles needed. just like the rose interface. hover mouse over the taband it reveals a assign to ........ member. the tab now allows only that member to use it and he doesnt need roles.
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#8 - 2012-01-08 15:53:24 UTC
fixing POS permissions would break the spy and corp thief mechanics Shocked
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-01-08 16:48:13 UTC
Morganta wrote:
fixing POS permissions would break the spy and corp thief mechanics Shocked


Yeah, with the way it is now the spy either has no access, crappy access or total access. Fixing POS administration would so break the spy mechanics preventing any good spy from walking in taking everything and leaving without anyone having a clue who did what when.

Look at polymer reactions. Either the person that needs to do them can offline everything or not be able to run reactions.

Don't ban me, bro!
Jenshae Chiroptera
#10 - 2012-01-08 16:58:21 UTC
Skittles Aldent wrote:
When is CCP going to look at this?
....


Read the dev blogs and even just the first few pages of this forum.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Skittles Aldent
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#11 - 2012-01-08 19:32:53 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Welcome to the world of POS administration where if you want any kind of real security forget it!

However, there are some convoluted ways to do what you want. If you go into the manage feature of the tower you can somewhat compartmentalize usage between those who have certain permissions and those who don't.

Example: You have 2 corporate hangars. You have members who have starbase config and those without. You can assign access to specific hangars on such criteria. So for Hangar 1 only those with starbase config can access their specific divisions within. Hangar 2, being configured for corporate use, anyone with access to specific divisions can access it. It's far, far from ideal but it does offer some hope. It won't really allow you to be more specific than assigning permissions between those you trust (who basically get the run of the pos) and those you don't (who are limited).

The access feature from the manage screen does illustrate that "groups" could be used but, CCP never iterated beyond what is already there. So, you have a group who can offline everything at the pos including tower and those that can't and that's about it. Fuel Technician is another option but, who doesn't allow everyone in the corp to fuel the pos??? Would kind of be silly not to give everyone the permission to fuel the pos since it's a critical need but, noone can do anything with that permission to screw you over.


I was attempting this last night which is when I discovered the fact that if I gave a member the Fuel Tech role, and wanted him to be able to online and offline the structures he was using, it also gave him the ability to offline the tower (I think?) even if the tower required Config Starbase Equip role. It makes no sense for a lower role to be able to offline something that requires a higher role in the first place to access.
Burseg Sardaukar
Free State Project
#12 - 2012-01-08 19:37:38 UTC
Pinaculus wrote:
I'm still a bit sore that we can't change T3 subs at a POS or Orca bay. Yeah, it's old news. It still annoys me every time I have to have multiple T3s in a wormhole for jobs that could easily be accomplished by a quick refit.


Yea, I don't live in W-space anymore, but it sort of defeats the whole purpose of a ship that can change its config on-the-fly as its even described as in Templar One... Doesn't make sense that Sleeper tech is shittier to use in Sleeper space than known space.

Can't wait to dual box my Dust toon and EVE toon on the same machine!
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#13 - 2012-01-08 19:42:43 UTC
Morganta wrote:
fixing POS permissions would break the spy and corp thief mechanics Shocked


This

Working as intended.
Skittles Aldent
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#14 - 2012-01-09 18:27:54 UTC
Burseg Sardaukar wrote:
Pinaculus wrote:
I'm still a bit sore that we can't change T3 subs at a POS or Orca bay. Yeah, it's old news. It still annoys me every time I have to have multiple T3s in a wormhole for jobs that could easily be accomplished by a quick refit.


Yea, I don't live in W-space anymore, but it sort of defeats the whole purpose of a ship that can change its config on-the-fly as its even described as in Templar One... Doesn't make sense that Sleeper tech is shittier to use in Sleeper space than known space.


Never thought of it that way but yeah, it's highly annoying the work involved in the shifty system they have set up.
Knug LiDi
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2012-01-09 20:41:29 UTC
Ocih wrote:
Morganta wrote:
fixing POS permissions would break the spy and corp thief mechanics Shocked


This

Working as intended.



No.

Working as abused not as intended.

spy and corp thief mechanics would only change to the degree to which you need to be trusted before you can steal everything. Sorry, but in a game with 3 different FTL technologies, better corp security is a must.


If only we could fall into a woman's arms

without falling into her hands
Skittles Aldent
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#16 - 2012-01-11 20:15:33 UTC
Corp Theft should not be such a huge issue to worry about it. It's like CCP sets up the mechanics just for the purpose of the corporation failing.
Endeavour Starfleet
#17 - 2012-01-11 21:01:11 UTC
Morganta wrote:
fixing POS permissions would break the spy and corp thief mechanics Shocked


What?! Shocked

Are you serious?

Mechanics based on an incomplete feature suddenly needs to be considered? Meanwhile smaller corps can do squat with their members due to the issues with the permissions and lack of modularity with the POS.
Skittles Aldent
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#18 - 2012-01-16 00:39:09 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Morganta wrote:
fixing POS permissions would break the spy and corp thief mechanics Shocked


What?! Shocked

Are you serious?

Mechanics based on an incomplete feature suddenly needs to be considered? Meanwhile smaller corps can do squat with their members due to the issues with the permissions and lack of modularity with the POS.


I think it was the single hardest thing about starting up a corp was the lack of features within the POS.

I doubt CCP will look at it, it's like they love the idea of pirates and thieves.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#19 - 2012-01-16 00:44:15 UTC
Skittles Aldent wrote:
I doubt CCP will look at it, it's like they love the idea of pirates and thieves.
You are correct about their love of pirates and thieves (and everyone else playing this game within the EULA). Of course they do. It's a legitimate part of the game. I rarelysay this... because I am one... but n00b ^

CCP has said they are looking at the POS system and the intent is to go modular. It's a big project though. Read the dev blogs (they go back for years on this issue) and you will see what's going on. I bet we see an overhaul this year. In fact, I bet 100 mil ISK to the first player to take me up on this that we see a major POS overhaul before 2013.

Any takers? Big smile

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#20 - 2012-01-16 00:50:14 UTC
^Just an addon. Don't want to edit that challenge.

REQ: 1 year + mains only. Corp and Alliance showing if you want to take me up on that.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
12Next page