EVE Search - POS; Conflict not unity?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

POS; Conflict not unity?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Xaeon	Posted - 2004.12.10 02:28:00 - [1] I would firstly like to take the chance to thank CCP for their work this far, on the whole, it's all good; the missing parts being the major exception -- but everything that is in is good. Anyhow, There's a great paradox we have occuring in XTM; riches on our doorstep and the happiness tied to this while at the same time misery over not being able to access fundamental parts that make the POS up. What do I mean? CCP's design for all or nothing in context of player rights within corps is madness. People cannot use the Ship Maintenance Array (SMA) or Refining Array (RA) without full rights to the POS -- meaning that they could take the POS offline, potentially steal billions of ISK in ships, or generally disrupt the setup and running of the POS with a few simple clicks; how simple: RMB on the CT, Put Offline. I'd rather not come back and find that what we've worked so hard to build up is ruined becuase of an easily made mistake. People not being able to use the SMA is madness: why come down if you can't refit and change ships? Then you can mine ore but have to wait around for someone with the rights to access the RA to start the runs off? For obvious reasons of secuirty, both personal and corp I can't give everyone all the rights; hell giving a lot of people the rights is worrying enough. I can't do right; either I give them the rights and something will (and it will) go wrong, or I give nobody the rights, everything works, but nobody can use it. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of this is the SMA. If all the POS consisted of corp cash fine; take the risk, give people the rights, but with billions of ISK in ships can such risk be taken? If someoone woke up to find their bs had been ejected into space, gotten pushed outside of the FField (due to the warp bug) or had had to be manually moved (i.e. getting into thier ship and thus voiding thier insurance) -- they'd be pretty annoyed to say the least. It also would HAVE to be moved as the SMA is useless if something else is close by it (which is a good rule) but close, unpiloted ship should be able to be moved into the SMA by sitting near it. Solutions: Only a few as far as I can see. a) Create specific rights; can POS anchor, can online, can use RA etc. Inc in this would need to be specific tasks tht could be done. E.g. A player may be able to read the contents of a SMA, refit their ship but jettison or store THEIR SHIP ONLY. b) Make certain things CEO or director only -- such as onlining / offlining the CT c) For the SMA at least have some system whereby ships can be put in the SMA without being in them (you can already eject ships). Additionally the same starbase config role would have to allow manipulation of modules (i.e. allowing one person to refit another person's ship). This still brings about the problem that the person with the rights has to be online and close by however. It's causing some probs, and I really want some help. Xaeon
Xaeon	Posted - 2004.12.10 02:28:00 - [2] I would firstly like to take the chance to thank CCP for their work this far, on the whole, it's all good; the missing parts being the major exception -- but everything that is in is good. Anyhow, There's a great paradox we have occuring in XTM; riches on our doorstep and the happiness tied to this while at the same time misery over not being able to access fundamental parts that make the POS up. What do I mean? CCP's design for all or nothing in context of player rights within corps is madness. People cannot use the Ship Maintenance Array (SMA) or Refining Array (RA) without full rights to the POS -- meaning that they could take the POS offline, potentially steal billions of ISK in ships, or generally disrupt the setup and running of the POS with a few simple clicks; how simple: RMB on the CT, Put Offline. I'd rather not come back and find that what we've worked so hard to build up is ruined becuase of an easily made mistake. People not being able to use the SMA is madness: why come down if you can't refit and change ships? Then you can mine ore but have to wait around for someone with the rights to access the RA to start the runs off? For obvious reasons of secuirty, both personal and corp I can't give everyone all the rights; hell giving a lot of people the rights is worrying enough. I can't do right; either I give them the rights and something will (and it will) go wrong, or I give nobody the rights, everything works, but nobody can use it. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of this is the SMA. If all the POS consisted of corp cash fine; take the risk, give people the rights, but with billions of ISK in ships can such risk be taken? If someoone woke up to find their bs had been ejected into space, gotten pushed outside of the FField (due to the warp bug) or had had to be manually moved (i.e. getting into thier ship and thus voiding thier insurance) -- they'd be pretty annoyed to say the least. It also would HAVE to be moved as the SMA is useless if something else is close by it (which is a good rule) but close, unpiloted ship should be able to be moved into the SMA by sitting near it. Solutions: Only a few as far as I can see. a) Create specific rights; can POS anchor, can online, can use RA etc. Inc in this would need to be specific tasks tht could be done. E.g. A player may be able to read the contents of a SMA, refit their ship but jettison or store THEIR SHIP ONLY. b) Make certain things CEO or director only -- such as onlining / offlining the CT c) For the SMA at least have some system whereby ships can be put in the SMA without being in them (you can already eject ships). Additionally the same starbase config role would have to allow manipulation of modules (i.e. allowing one person to refit another person's ship). This still brings about the problem that the person with the rights has to be online and close by however. It's causing some probs, and I really want some help. Xaeon
Wishdokkta	Posted - 2004.12.10 08:56:00 - [3] I too think this is dodgy. Xaeon makes good points here that need addressing - especially with regards to access rights etc. CCP have gone to great lengths to change the corp management interface (for some reason, nuthin wrong with it before) but then go and ruin all the hard work by not paying enough attention to the access rights/roles within POS. Would be nice to get a CCP comment on this?
Wishdokkta	Posted - 2004.12.10 08:56:00 - [4] I too think this is dodgy. Xaeon makes good points here that need addressing - especially with regards to access rights etc. CCP have gone to great lengths to change the corp management interface (for some reason, nuthin wrong with it before) but then go and ruin all the hard work by not paying enough attention to the access rights/roles within POS. Would be nice to get a CCP comment on this?
Fester Addams	Posted - 2004.12.10 09:17:00 - [5] Ehh, admitedly I havent looked too deeply into POS but am I correct in understanding that in order to be able to refit my ship in a POS I have to have full access to the entire station? Including shutting down and unanchoring it... If this is true then CCP made a BIG boo boo.
Fester Addams	Posted - 2004.12.10 09:17:00 - [6] Ehh, admitedly I havent looked too deeply into POS but am I correct in understanding that in order to be able to refit my ship in a POS I have to have full access to the entire station? Including shutting down and unanchoring it... If this is true then CCP made a BIG boo boo.
Wishdokkta	Posted - 2004.12.10 11:02:00 - [7] Originally by: Fester Addams Ehh, admitedly I havent looked too deeply into POS but am I correct in understanding that in order to be able to refit my ship in a POS I have to have full access to the entire station? Including shutting down and unanchoring it... If this is true then CCP made a BIG boo boo. Yes thats true. And yes they have imho.
Wishdokkta	Posted - 2004.12.10 11:02:00 - [8] Originally by: Fester Addams Ehh, admitedly I havent looked too deeply into POS but am I correct in understanding that in order to be able to refit my ship in a POS I have to have full access to the entire station? Including shutting down and unanchoring it... If this is true then CCP made a BIG boo boo. Yes thats true. And yes they have imho.
Xaeon	Posted - 2004.12.10 18:24:00 - [9] Edited by: Xaeon on 10/12/2004 18:28:08 Unfortunatly this seems to be a common thing with Exodus; all of the things that affect the least people are the things which, unsuprisingly, didn't make the final release. Seven ISK accounts really only effects a few people in each corp, if they're bothered at all, the tax system I would love to have made use of more; especially now we have the added costs of having a POS, again was not introduced. Yet the things that (the majority) of people would moan about should they not have come, i.e. new ship classes, fancy explosions are finalised. Sure I want the latter features also, but the missing elements are things that make running a sucessful, organised corporation more simple (becuase we don't have to manually find ways around doing things they missed), and more importantly, things that were promised; not just to be "soon". I really do hope this is fixed soon, and as asked previously, can we please have a dev response? Thanks, Xaeon
Xaeon	Posted - 2004.12.10 18:24:00 - [10] Edited by: Xaeon on 10/12/2004 18:28:08 Unfortunatly this seems to be a common thing with Exodus; all of the things that affect the least people are the things which, unsuprisingly, didn't make the final release. Seven ISK accounts really only effects a few people in each corp, if they're bothered at all, the tax system I would love to have made use of more; especially now we have the added costs of having a POS, again was not introduced. Yet the things that (the majority) of people would moan about should they not have come, i.e. new ship classes, fancy explosions are finalised. Sure I want the latter features also, but the missing elements are things that make running a sucessful, organised corporation more simple (becuase we don't have to manually find ways around doing things they missed), and more importantly, things that were promised; not just to be "soon". I really do hope this is fixed soon, and as asked previously, can we please have a dev response? Thanks, Xaeon

Minmatar Citizen 290574	Posted - 2004.12.11 08:21:00 - [11] friendly bump This issue is turning out to be a real big problem for not just Xaeons corp but many others.. Members of the corp should be able to use the ship maintanence array/refinery array, and not have complete control of the starbase...offlining it by mistake could be disasterous
Minmatar Citizen 290574	Posted - 2004.12.11 08:21:00 - [12] friendly bump This issue is turning out to be a real big problem for not just Xaeons corp but many others.. Members of the corp should be able to use the ship maintanence array/refinery array, and not have complete control of the starbase...offlining it by mistake could be disasterous
Xaeon	Posted - 2004.12.11 17:11:00 - [13] Devs...? Any of you anywhere? Will this be addressed?
Xaeon	Posted - 2004.12.11 17:11:00 - [14] Devs...? Any of you anywhere? Will this be addressed?
Atrossoe	Posted - 2004.12.11 17:25:00 - [15] Xaeon, the dev's are aware of this problem and are working on it, it should be out with either the next patch or the patch after. Atrossoe
Atrossoe	Posted - 2004.12.11 17:25:00 - [16] Xaeon, the dev's are aware of this problem and are working on it, it should be out with either the next patch or the patch after. Atrossoe
Akan	Posted - 2004.12.12 03:34:00 - [17] very good post and nothin else to say that we have the same problem and hope it to be solved soon :) thx to devs, keep it on * Guardians Die but Do Not Surrender *
Akan	Posted - 2004.12.12 03:34:00 - [18] very good post and nothin else to say that we have the same problem and hope it to be solved soon :) thx to devs, keep it on * Guardians Die but Do Not Surrender *
Dsanta	Posted - 2004.12.12 03:37:00 - [19] hmmm, POS,.....hmmm...... i dont own one, so i dont care ----------------------------------------------- Linkage
Dsanta	Posted - 2004.12.12 03:37:00 - [20] hmmm, POS,.....hmmm...... i dont own one, so i dont care ----------------------------------------------- Linkage

Xaeon	Posted - 2004.12.15 22:27:00 - [21] Unless I've missed it in the patchnotes, this still isn't addressed... so a simple question.. why? It is so v.important that it gets sorted, and yet the whole issue seems to be falling on deaf ears (or blind eyes in this case)... so when? I really thought it'd be fixed already ... who was I kidding Xaeon
Xaeon	Posted - 2004.12.15 22:27:00 - [22] Unless I've missed it in the patchnotes, this still isn't addressed... so a simple question.. why? It is so v.important that it gets sorted, and yet the whole issue seems to be falling on deaf ears (or blind eyes in this case)... so when? I really thought it'd be fixed already ... who was I kidding Xaeon


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.