Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Everyone knows that corporation roles and how they work are flawed and have been for a very long time, but I want to highlight the single biggest flaw which has a negative impact on game experience and social interaction, which in-turn hurts subscriptions and player retention.
Simply put: With the current corporation roles, you can only give a player entire access to Factories/Labs, or nothing, there is no inbetween.
Problem: Player A and Player B are trusted friends who start a corp together and start producing things, they put up a POS, start researching their blueprints and doing invention. Player A is making Stealth Bombers and Player B is making Jump Freighters. Both players have known each other for years, they are both directors in the corp and have full access to everything.
Due to current mechanics, this corporation is basically ****-blocked from ever trying to recruit and expand with new members, this is why you see very very few successful industrial corporations in-game and most you do find are very small.
They cannot recruit a new player to their corporation, and let the guy build ammo and frigates as he learns manufacturing in-game, because to give him the role to build Tristan's, will in turn give him access to cancel 7billion isk of in-build Jump Freighter, or multiple freighters, stealth bombers etc.
It's impossible under the current mechanics to have an industrialist corporation with 30 players, all using shared POS to build ammo, ships, tech 2, tech 3 etc.
Solution Allow the Roles "Rent Factory" and "Rent Laboratory" to enable a player to rent and install jobs in corporation facilities, to see other jobs, but only to be able to cancel/deliver THEIR OWN jobs.
This would up corporation recruitment, create more social bonds and greatly increase the chance the players who's primary drive is not PvP to remain playing the game because of those social bonds.
|
Fournone
Gallente Trade Union Paradigm Shift Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
+2 year CEO reporting.
+1 from me.
All the roles are horribly broken. Besides POS roles, rent roles are the most broken. And gets far worse when you combine POS and Rent roles. You can still recruit, you just need to force everyone to manufacture in NPC stations with NPC wait lines. There is almost no point in trying to research things in NPC stations, takes forever to get an open spot without a friendly neighborhood research POS. Of course if they have access to those labs to research their Rifter BPO, they can "borrow" my Hurricane BPO while I'm offline.
|
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Fournone wrote:+2 year CEO reporting.
+1 from me.
All the roles are horribly broken. Besides POS roles, rent roles are the most broken. And gets far worse when you combine POS and Rent roles. You can still recruit, you just need to force everyone to manufacture in NPC stations with NPC wait lines. There is almost no point in trying to research things in NPC stations, takes forever to get an open spot without a friendly neighborhood research POS. Of course if they have access to those labs to research their Rifter BPO, they can "borrow" my Hurricane BPO while I'm offline.
Totally agree with everything you say. I'm sure all of this has been on the 'backlog list' for years and is planned as a huge review of these mechanics, but I really think its gone on too long, and a quick fix like mentioned above in my OP would atleast bandaid the problem until they get a chance to really review all of the roles. |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
110
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
+1
And, I too am a CEO (of a very small corp).
My solution has been just to allow players I've known for a long time to join. All players are people who take care of their own blueprints and resources. I keep assets locked away.
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2056
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
I've been director of two corps, and see no problem with this proposal.
edit: You *can* use more than one POS to solve this problem. One with its own password for the "trusted" guys, where high-end production is done, and at least one other that will allow anyone in the corp through the shield.
I'd really like to be able to configure a POS to allow blues access to labs... The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
Obsidiana wrote:+1
And, I too am a CEO (of a very small corp).
My solution has been just to allow players I've known for a long time to join. All players are people who take care of their own blueprints and resources. I keep assets locked away.
I think you hit the nail on the head there, problem is if someone gets upset or malicious, they can still trash a 7billion ISK Jump Freighter in production.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I've been director of two corps, and see no problem with this proposal.
edit: You *can* use more than one POS to solve this problem. One with its own password for the "trusted" guys, where high-end production is done, and at least one other that will allow anyone in the corp through the shield.
I'd really like to be able to configure a POS to allow blues access to labs...
Yeah, I think this is the closest thing to a workaround people have used, still doesn't stop the above griefing, you still can't have a situation though where your Researching ME1 on a Titan BPO and let your normal members use your lab services, as again a player could simply undo that 170 days job with a single mouse click, hell they could even do it by accident, which makes corporations wanting to take on unknown/new players even less likely.
I want to see a situation where an Industrial based corp can build 3 titans, whilst at the same time a new member can build his frigates and learn industry, in the same corp. |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
111
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
True Sight wrote:I think you hit the nail on the head there, problem is if someone gets upset or malicious, they can still trash a 7billion ISK Jump Freighter in production. Yep. Something like that happened before. I wasn't burned too badly, but others were (I wasnGÇÖt a CEO in those days).
|
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
51
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 18:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Who does a guy have to pod to get a CSM looking?/feedback :) |
Teshania
Aliastra Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
+1 Ohh Yes Roles need to fixed! |
Xantos Semah
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:07:00 -
[10] - Quote
You guys trolling right ? |
|
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
51
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
Xantos Semah wrote:You guys trolling right ?
Trolling to ask for something that's been broken for so long to be fixed? |
Xantos Semah
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ah you actually seriours....forget about it . As far as I know CCP likes it. They cant imagine eve without these bilions of isk losses due to theft and such. If the corp settings and hangars are actually safe then that would make eve a very popular game for being fair and kinda easy. Ect. Ect...
I personally would love changes for it but after few years of hearing promises about so many things from this company I just gave up. There is no point in telling them what should be done. They just know better lol. Last changes to UI is a perfect example - they dont care that the damm thing worked perfectly they just changed it so now its working their way. Looking at the archive forums and it looks like people crying about the same things over and over again for long long years ... Some topics as old as 2004/2005. |
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
51
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
Yeah I get your point, I think this change listed for the reasons mentioned though outways the 'omgcarebear eve' if corporations recruit people and get them involved in game mechanics like research, production, invention etc, said player is more likely to keep playing for the game. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1158
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 00:39:00 -
[14] - Quote
Current in game solutions to this issue are complicated and annoying, so I will add a +1. |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
114
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 06:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP does love it when corp treachery makes the news. That said, it only makes the news it it was a huge theft and a trusted individual. Small corp theft and manufacturing job hissy-fits do not make for an interesting read. |
Xantos Semah
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 09:13:00 -
[16] - Quote
Obsidiana wrote:CCP does love it when corp treachery makes the news. That said, it only makes the news it it was a huge theft and a trusted individual. Small corp theft and manufacturing job hissy-fits do not make for an interesting read.
Yes I know. But whats important here is to make eve hardcore game for its pvp pew pew style but it has to be as easy as possible to be able to steal few bil isk worth of assets. CCP thinks we are iditots so if we like to steal it has to be easy or we would get bored quickly. And its not just about the news, its about the playerbase. |
Charles Baker
Federal Mineral Acquisition VORTEX RISING
148
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 19:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
To be honest i'd give CEO's/Directors the ability to 'Lock Down' in progress jobs so only CEO's/Directors can cancel them. |
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
52
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 22:26:00 -
[18] - Quote
Charles Baker wrote:To be honest i'd give CEO's/Directors the ability to 'Lock Down' in progress jobs so only CEO's/Directors can cancel them.
I think that's more fiddly and effort (and can kind of be done by flipping roles on and off on members), but still inhibits a corp that's building expensive items from actually encouraging and recruiting new industrialists. |
Xantos Semah
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 09:53:00 -
[19] - Quote
+ 1
I dont think CCP will do anything about it. Although this would be the best change in Eve Online I ever heard of. Im also sure that if CCP supports our progress we would support them greatly. REMOVE LOCAL !!! |
Xantos Semah
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:17:00 -
[20] - Quote
I like to add few things that always annoyed me so much:
a) corporation hangars has only 7 tabs. For people living far from highsec and ussing POS is a nightmare, esspecially when you are about to recruit new people. Giving them access to tab 1 will give them access to other hangars tab 1 in other POS for example.
b) alliance has no access to any of the hangars
c) when researching for example you cant use input/output any other than the tab BPO is in.
d) processing gas requires roles that will allow you to offline and unanchor any POS that belong to this corporation
REMOVE LOCAL !!! |
|
Nevryn Takis
University of Caille Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 12:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
+1 from me
I'm not going to expand my corp, which I'd love to do, until I can lock down BPO's/BPC's/interface so that corp members can use them but not remove them from either a corp hanger in a staion or a hanger in a lab, and lock down jobs so that people can only cancel their own jobs. Note any member should be able to deliver any ready job .. assuming that invention jobs sucees is determined at the point of instantiation and not delivery. This would prevent slots being blocked because a corp member is on holiday/sick/got other commitments/being a lazy ass..
|
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
54
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 17:59:00 -
[22] - Quote
Nevryn Takis wrote:+1 from me
I'm not going to expand my corp, which I'd love to do, until I can lock down BPO's/BPC's/interface so that corp members can use them but not remove them from either a corp hanger in a staion or a hanger in a lab, and lock down jobs so that people can only cancel their own jobs. Note any member should be able to deliver any ready job .. assuming that invention jobs sucees is determined at the point of instantiation and not delivery. This would prevent slots being blocked because a corp member is on holiday/sick/got other commitments/being a lazy ass..
Hmm, maybe I'm confused, but when the previous job finishes, it doesn't stop someone from using that lab slot, so this isn't needed. You would want to prevent any member from delivering any job, because otherwise your newbie corp member could sneak on to complete a Jump freighter build and deliver it (assuming you have a 'production tab' where members can place their minerals and such in order to run the job).
CEO/Director would maintain their current roles, and be able to cancel/complete all jobs being done in corporation owned facilities. |
Reachok
Full Circle Research Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 13:26:00 -
[23] - Quote
+1
I had a couple members that wanted to use the POS, but there was no way to allow them to use it for research without giving them the ability to end a capital job that was taking place at the time.
The bad guys went the other way, seriously.... |
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Silent Infinity
37
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 14:02:00 -
[24] - Quote
I think the whole role management needs to be reworked. And yes, this is a serious issue.
Also we dislike such minor facts, that role-titles are displayed on the character info. because of this some corps are using ascii-art titles without meaning, so outsiders can't even get what kind of roles should that toon bear with.
Even more, it'd be needed to give access to arbitrary installations/arrays/whatever to members. And having arbitrary number of wallet divisions, maybe corp hangars.
Also alliance-level roles would be nice, even alliance hangars, with roles.
|
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
56
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:23:00 -
[25] - Quote
Xantos Semah wrote:d) processing gas requires roles that will allow you to offline and unanchor any POS that belong to this corporation
I believe you can work around this problem in the POS management window by changing the online/offline option to POS Fueler, rather than Starbase Manager. |
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
56
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:26:00 -
[26] - Quote
Magic Crisp wrote:I think the whole role management needs to be reworked. And yes, this is a serious issue.
Also we dislike such minor facts, that role-titles are displayed on the character info. because of this some corps are using ascii-art titles without meaning, so outsiders can't even get what kind of roles should that toon bear with.
Even more, it'd be needed to give access to arbitrary installations/arrays/whatever to members. And having arbitrary number of wallet divisions, maybe corp hangars.
Also alliance-level roles would be nice, even alliance hangars, with roles.
Whilst I think you're entirely right, my goal here is to get a hotfix to what I think is the single largest biggest issue with the roles currently, I don't htink anyone dissagree's that a total overhaul is in need. |
Dyvim Slorm
MNU Operations Luna Sanguinem
32
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 11:05:00 -
[27] - Quote
+1
It's been a problem for years so I'm not optimistic that CCP will do anything about it |
Nofearion
Jadablade Redneck Rage
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 22:54:00 -
[28] - Quote
+5 for me CEO, and past Alliance Industrial Director this one issue is a major bar to recruitment into corps and also hurt Newbies from getting in the better indy corps. To those who say CCP is not listening check out the section of discussion on CORP revamps discussed by the CSM and CCP http://community.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2012/CSM_CCP_Meetings_May_June_2012.pdf contact your local CSM and push for the changes you like. |
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
60
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 03:28:00 -
[29] - Quote
Yeah I read that yesterday, my one concern was that it was a single paragraph explaining the problem, but no comment from CCP if they acknowledge/agreed or such. I hope it gets more attention.
|
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
60
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 14:08:00 -
[30] - Quote
Raising some more attention to this, I'm hoping at the very least that these factors will be taken into consideration with the POS replacement discussed in the CSM meeting, but to be honest I don't think this should wait any longer than it has already and think this is something worth placing into the very next available patch. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |