Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
1199
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:18:25 -
[1] - Quote
CCP are looking at working on corp roles. So I'd like to get some input and feedback from everyone in w space.
We all know at the moment there bad. What i'd like is stuff you think could be improved on and how. ideas on what you think should be there thats not.
Couple examples.
When changing standing you have the option to click a box and that will let the people you are altering standing with know its been altered (ceo director diplo)
letting directors know when some one has left not just the ceo.
All the good stuff I will take from here and put on conflunce so ccp can see it much much eaiser.
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
Lloyd Roses
811
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:13:49 -
[2] - Quote
Is that the right place to complain about POS industry being tied up with POS specific roles? Where bookmarking rights and the right to annoy your alliance are in one role with auditor?
Currently, many roles are like a combination of x, y and z - and while you want to give the person access to x, you certainly don't want him/her to have access to y and z.
From my POV I'd really welcome a change to roles that renames them from professions to actually reflect what they do:
Diplomat -> Checkbox for *able to set standings* Accountant -> Checkbox for *access to corporation wallets (x)* Auditor -> Checkbox for *Can edit bookmarks that weren't created by the pilot himself, and able to send mails to corp/alliance*
I don't even know in detail what the permissions from being POS Manager / POS fuel tech are, but *can deliver indy jobs* should not be tied into these.
I GÖÑ Sleipnir
|
Nash MacAllister
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
220
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:30:52 -
[3] - Quote
To simplify, I would love to see a far more granular access assignment. Let me as CEO create roles, then simply apply check access boxes at the lowest levels for each possible task. Obviously have some canned roles in there if people want to use them. This may take a while to set up but in the end, by un-linking all the various access levels and allowing them to be independently selected, each CEO can create the exact role and access levels they want.
It would be great to see individual members added into the access levels for each POS module as well, particularly SMA/CHA. It would be a huge benefit to set it such that the POS owners could be set, and then the access levels only applied to them. I.E. 3 members can manage their own POS fuel and anchoring/unanchoring, but not for every other POS in the corp.
In a nutshell, allow access levels to be defined at the lowest possible level so no undesired linking takes place.
Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you...
|
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
9087
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:31:50 -
[4] - Quote
Seeing as CCP have made things "easier for noobs" so far, im thinking doing some sort of good explanation by the roles as suggested by Lloyd would be a good start.
Also, i had trouble in the past with "Grantable Roles" and "Roles" so i'm sure others did too, but it would be a good idea if you split them to something like:
"Roles Assigned" and something along the lines of "Roles they can assign" |
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
4078
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:08:20 -
[5] - Quote
access to pos mods should have an allow list option, like chat channels, where you can set exactly who has what access.
Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/
|
Abraham Vyacheslav
Vanishing Horizon Ventures Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:46:39 -
[6] - Quote
Right now, POSes themselves are such a disaster it's a little hard to imagine fixing corp roles in isolation.
Having said that, the ability to restrict access to an entire POS based on roles could be a great bandaid/stopgap. It's imperfect, but it would at least let people say "these people can get into this POS and do stuff once there" (perhaps short of offlining/removing fuel?). |
Bleedingthrough
Project AIice
153
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:53:32 -
[7] - Quote
- A tooltip for roles would be nice.
- Roles should only enable to do one thing, e.g. if you want someone to be able to create medals he can also invite ppl to corp also you need access to a wallet. This is bad.
- My main concern with roles in w-space is that they offer way to limited options to organize access to structures. Tabs in hangars help with that but for SMAs only 4 access layers (ally, corp, starbase fuel technician, config starbase equipment) are useable.
Suggestions: 1. Global access levels and access levels for individual POSes, structures, etc. 2. Tabs for SMAs would be cool. 3. Add roles for organizing access... and only that!
- It also bugs me that there is no log of who takes and puts stuff in.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5305080#post5305080
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
844
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:24:29 -
[8] - Quote
In no order of importance
1. POS Roles should be clearly explained. It should not be a mystery what setting effects what action/activity. 2. POS Roles should be "Testable". There should be a way to apply roles quickly and easily to insure that the setting applies correctly and to the correct action/activity. 3. It should be possible to grant access and levels to POS modules by type (first) and by individual POS (second). Reasoning is that it is common for wspace pilots to own their own POS yet have it completely controlled by the corp leadership who must anchor and manage all aspects other than fueling it. This deprives the owner of said tower and modules of their easy use. An example of this would be:
Will post my full idea for corp roles later. In progress.
I'm right behind you
|
Icarus Able
Revenant Tactical
533
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:56:21 -
[9] - Quote
My vote would be to just add the titles to the corp access dropdown. Currently you only have the option of Starbase Fuel tech and Starbase config. If you can add all the titles to that list it would be awesome. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1035
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:35:57 -
[10] - Quote
Control tower access tab, use/take/view. Needs more than 4 options so we can delegate sma's and assembly arrays to different individuals without locking them down.
Yaay!!!!
|
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2008
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:08:20 -
[11] - Quote
The ideas of access control to a POS via title is neccessary.
Also, would be good if all of this stuff stuck, and there was a log of all changes to structure access permissions. I am sick of checking and re-checking and triple-checking and then discovering access permissions have been changed.
I also think that the industry access via corp roles and titles is....well, i can't even figure this crap out, and hence the majority of peons in the corp cannot do industry and don't do industry.
i also agree that roles can be a bit too broad. In W-space, for instance, you need Communications officer role to survive, because you need to be able to blitz 250 wormhole bookmarks and clear room for the next rageroll. So everyone has to have this role. But this allows people to spam corp and alliance mails, delete bulletins, etc.
The basic problem is that roles etc. were created before anyone even knew what people wanted or needed in a corporate system in w-space. This requires a root and branch rethink, with the whole system burned to the ground and rethough from the ground up....in tandem with POSs, because as said above, any redo of the corp roles system needs to work with the POS system.
The current system is set up to fail, and it regularly does fail, and when CCP eventually caves in and allows allliance bookmarks we will see the mega WH corps blow up into 300 one-man corps all in the same Alliance, sharing Alliance bookmarks and living in their own secure one-man corp POSs because this is the most secure method of doing it, and right now you can only synthesise it to some degree via personal POSs.
So, thought needs to be started with "What do you need to do as a CEO? What roles do corporations need to do in order to function?"
1) First and foremost, i think, the access at HQ, Based At and Other are unneccessary complications which can be reversed into (as above) access being handled on the domain-level (ie; per structure) via allowing the activity to each title class. eg, you do not need to set the Based At attribute for a character (eg, to a branch office in Heimatar) if you can then just click on he list of corporate offices or POSs and set the access to a title class directly.
Right now you have to keep a matrix of who is allowed to access what. And the access based at and access (other) are the most important, so it's in effect a three dimensional matrix. With give/take and view roles for hangar slots AND THEN FOR MOFUQIN CANS inside said hangars.
So, to conclude, simplify this.
2) Remove the container access restriction level. The number of times people get hung up on having chucked a can into an array and been unable to access the contents and I have to fly over, changing passwords to enter the field, find their bloody can and empty it or eject it or store it back in their stupid ship and remind them about the no containers in containers rule. OMG. Give me my game time back. Like, seriously, if anyone is stupid enough to store corp BPO's in cans inside an array, let them get their crap stolen as dumb tax. Doesn't matter if you have 3,000 BPCs you can use the search function, so cans are a redundancy anyway.
3) Config equipment role. At least rename this to Anchor Bubbles role, because there's literally no other use for this role. Also some corps may not even care about corp bubbles being nicked by adventurously cavalier members, so maybe this whole role can be an opt-in. Maybe a tickybox in the roles screen "Do you want to restrict anchoring in your corp? Y/N? If Y, pick a title to grant it."
(reserved for more ranting, later)
J's before K's.
Prolapse. Turning holes inside out with pew pew.
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Adoris Nolen
Sama Guild
80
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 03:50:46 -
[12] - Quote
might be hell on the coders but why not just make it fully customizable. No more preset director/ starbase manager/ whatever crap. Just full customization. Even down to the specificity of corp assets in system A but not in system B, region A but not B etc etc.
But what do i know, it's just me and my alts. |
Newt BlackCompany
BlackCompany Personal Corp
24
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 06:44:45 -
[13] - Quote
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.
|
Kier Wilson
Hard Knocks Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:56:23 -
[14] - Quote
Recruiters need more access to assigning roles. Maybe give them the power to grant selected roles, without having director status. Being able to accept apps without getting starbase config would be nice |
Bleedingthrough
Project AIice
153
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 10:18:27 -
[15] - Quote
Kier Wilson wrote:Recruiters need more access to assigning roles. Maybe give them the power to grant selected roles, without having director status. Being able to accept apps without getting starbase config would be nice
We do not use roles but titles (bundles of roles) exclusively. I never worked with "grantable roles" feature and am not sure if this actually is useful but "grantable titles" would defiantly be an interesting feature for me.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5305080#post5305080
|
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth
201
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:20:46 -
[16] - Quote
I sensed it already when reading the OP text. Most of the ideas provided here are actually about POS access managment rather than corp roles... and there is nothing i have to add to that really since nothing will happen to POS. Beside us being told that CCP will fix POS soon(TM).
Something somehow related to corp roles i want to add anyway:
Would be nice to have a couple more "Titles" we can create. Even though this doesn't help much as long as one cannot select them in corp structure access drop-down. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
806
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:18:55 -
[17] - Quote
SMA tabs w/ grantable access by title. Give an SMA 15 tabs, so we can assign one tab to Billy, one to Stephon, one to Sally and so on. We can also assign a tab as Corp rolling ships and grant that to all 3.
When you access the SMA and you happen to be Billy, you can see your Billy tab and the Corp roller tab. If you don't have rolls to do Sally then you can't see her goodies.
POS access by director assignment. (get rid of the whole manual PW garbage). Directors can assign who has access to which POS by title.
Just a table of the POS that you have anchored across the top and the list of members down the left hand side. Let the directors check off who has access to which POS and be done with it on the corp member level. Still provide the PW funcionality for non corp members. Having POS access grantable by title would be sweet for bigger groups (refueling lackey title would allow your refueling lackey access to all POS, but once in a POS only allows fuel to be put into the fuel bay)
General update of grantable roles.
Fuel Lacky - can access any POS, but allows ONLY adding fuel and nothing else. Refiner Dude - Can online and offline ore cruncher thingers, fill them, use them, empty them Research Dude - can use a research facility Bob the builder - can use the various arrays that make things Reactor Rick - can use the various reactors/silos and what not to make moon goo or gas stuffs into other stuffs.
It would be a productive round table to talk with various groups to get your arms around how POS are being used differently and what the best actual roles to have are. I can think of several user groups that use POS in distinctly different ways.
WH guys, HS indy towers, reaction towers, staging towers, LS/null indy towers. |
Bloemkoolsaus
Viperfleet Inc. Disavowed.
179
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:59:33 -
[18] - Quote
I would love a screen that would allow me to set a title to multiple members in one screen. To give someone a title, you currently have to right click them => edit => and check the titles you want them to have. A matrix with members as rows, titles as columns and then checkboxes would be really helpfull. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1035
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:23:09 -
[19] - Quote
Specifically with roles, the ui itself needs to be updated. Spreadsheet formats don't work as they are too large, too long, etc.
Convert the roles ui to a drag and drop system. Drag a role, drop it on the person, done. To clarify, in corporations, roles are setup using a graphical top down tree. It's the boss, then supervisors below them, then peons, Etc.
Put that top down graphical list in the game (basically Visio for eve). You assign roles to the circle, drag the person to the circle, done.
Yaay!!!!
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
823
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:02:13 -
[20] - Quote
This is spreadsheets online. I want excel, not visio. |
|
Ghenghis Kralj
1st MC Wormhole Clown Car
53
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 20:37:37 -
[21] - Quote
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 Prolapse.
2011
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 02:17:38 -
[22] - Quote
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.
J's before K's.
Prolapse. Turning holes inside out with pew pew.
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Mathieu X
Eldar Army La Division Bleue
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 10:38:46 -
[23] - Quote
Hi,
Thank you for taking your time to collect player feedback.
Please, consider letting us assign each and every POS / Modules option (SMA, Hangar, Turret, Industry modules and fuel bay) 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
Radical Astronauts Plundering Eve WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
30
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 19:27:13 -
[24] - Quote
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
Project AIice
153
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 20:09:04 -
[25] - Quote
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?.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5305080#post5305080
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
846
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 23:40:47 -
[26] - Quote
Updated original post with further details https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5439762#post5439762
I'm right behind you
|
Zara Arran
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
139
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 15:56:50 -
[27] - Quote
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
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
66
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:05:09 -
[28] - Quote
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. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |