EVE Search - Corporate Tools need work, several ideas

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Corporate Tools need work, several ideas

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Rak'an Almir	Posted - 2007.01.05 23:11:00 - [301] i agree on a feture to see who has been taking what out of a hanger bay. And maybe focus on the diffrent divisons a little more and igve them some love. aka seperate divison funding. maybe some additonal corp hangers? how about getting some reserch and manufacturing slots included into a office rent? or as a side rent for a corp. to get small corperations a chance to get some reserch and such done as well in empire? :)
Johnathan Roark Caldari Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.01.06 14:29:00 - [302] Originally by: Rak'an Almir i agree on a feture to see who has been taking what out of a hanger bay. And maybe focus on the diffrent divisons a little more and igve them some love. aka seperate divison funding. maybe some additonal corp hangers? how about getting some reserch and manufacturing slots included into a office rent? or as a side rent for a corp. to get small corperations a chance to get some reserch and such done as well in empire? :) Research and Factory slots are fine as it is. Size of corp does not change your ability to research in empire unless your talking about the number of simultaneous projects the corporation can do. Its a matter of joining the queue. they way research and factory slots use to be I would have agreed with you, as we where able to afford to block almost an entire station out If you do not want to wait to do research, you either can set up a POS or go to low sec/0.0 just like any other corp. Corporation Management Improvement
Dr Slaughter ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.08 03:00:00 - [303] I guess my thread (here) should be included here. Concept is to allow quorum voting for certain functions that deal with high asset value items (POS, certain hanger items) and have the restrictions applied by sets of policies.
Eethrak Gallente LiveTech	Posted - 2007.01.18 00:15:00 - [304] A lot of people are suggesting things that, given the way their corp is set up, may be desperately needed for them. However, things like the suggested share-holder voting for directors, or maximum daily withdrawl from corp account, could well prove to be as much of a hassle for other corps who don't want it to work that way. The thing I'd suggest more than anything would be additional configurability for corps - lets have these as options we can enable or disable - obviously within certain realistic limits, 1001 options is only going to clog things up, but right now, we get to set.... well just the tax rate. For my part, the grantable title thing is certainly on my top ten list of things that really need adding in. Also, grantable roles should give access to the r-click/edit member window. Its a much cleaner interface than the corporation one (which seems to suffer from a serious default width flaw atm?) but only seems available to directors. Even if grant title was only implimented implicitly based on being able to grant the specific roles that combine to make that title, it would still be a major step up. /signed on all the stuff I've signed before, delivery boy, better wallet logging, divisional wallets, CEO being able to edit corp orders set by others blahblahblah.
Dawnstar Gallente Kiroshi Group	Posted - 2007.01.18 23:38:00 - [305] Originally by: Eethrak A lot of people are suggesting things that, given the way their corp is set up, may be desperately needed for them. However, things like the suggested share-holder voting for directors, or maximum daily withdrawl from corp account, could well prove to be as much of a hassle for other corps who don't want it to work that way. The thing I'd suggest more than anything would be additional configurability for corps - lets have these as options we can enable or disable - obviously within certain realistic limits, 1001 options is only going to clog things up, but right now, we get to set.... well just the tax rate. I may not have been clear in what I was suggesting - I was proposing a new vote that could be proposed to put those types of rules into effect for the corporation. Assuming that the majority of shareholders approved the vote, the rule (such as limiting the maximum daily withdrawl from the corp wallet) would then go into effect. If you didn't implement this rule, it wouldn't apply. -D
Perin Ashedge Minmatar Total Information Technology	Posted - 2007.01.28 04:25:00 - [306] /signed
mikeni Templars of Space	Posted - 2007.02.01 19:20:00 - [307] MOTD option in alliance and corp chat!
CaldariCitizen2023	Posted - 2007.02.08 12:01:00 - [308] Allow corp directors to "yank" applications at any time. Currently if Joe Schmoe applies my corp, I approve his ap, it's sent back to him.. Joe Schmoe just decided that Corp XYZ was better, and decided to join there. Yet his app to my corp isn't auto-voided, or nobody is able to go into the corp management and withdraw the app from our end.
Johnathan Roark Caldari Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.02.08 15:58:00 - [309] Originally by: CaldariCitizen2023 Allow corp directors to "yank" applications at any time. Currently if Joe Schmoe applies my corp, I approve his ap, it's sent back to him.. Joe Schmoe just decided that Corp XYZ was better, and decided to join there. Yet his app to my corp isn't auto-voided, or nobody is able to go into the corp management and withdraw the app from our end. Corp> Members > Applications> Offers > click on offer, withdraw button. I also came up with another idea. Currently, we only have one wallet, which I hope is fixed real soon. But even if you have 7 wallets, isk is still at risk from theft and/or accidental use. What I would like to suggest is a for share holders can propse a vote to lock down isk, kind of like bpos. The ability to lock down other assets would also be cool. Corporation Management Improvement
Tobin Ilkari Minmatar Core Element	Posted - 2007.02.20 08:09:00 - [310] Edited by: Tobin Ilkari on 20/02/2007 08:06:37 I'm sure this has been mentioned some where between pages 3 and 10 (which just happen to be the pages I didn't read) But the ability to have Divisional wallets as mentioned in the first page would be a TREMENDOUS help to corp management. Lets us either give each division wallet full access to the corp wallet, a set ISK amount, or a percentage of the Corp wallet. Also, I would love to see the ability to pay out only to certan groups of members in the corp. Currently you can either pay out to just stock holders or everybody in the corp. I would like the ability to pay out to everybody that has the "Member" title and exclude those that only have the "Initiate" title.
Wagner84 Minmatar Secteur Armement	Posted - 2007.02.21 16:48:00 - [311] +1 Divisions Wallets Pleeeeeeeease -------------------------------------------------- Try the Minmatar way of life.
CmdDesaster	Posted - 2007.02.26 14:17:00 - [312] +1 for Division-wallets Would really be a huge help...
James Britanicus Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.02.28 08:27:00 - [313] I have mentioned this somewhere else but something that would be really helpful for the corporate administrator would be the ability to remotely get items out of impound and trash then if desired. JB **************************************************************** He thinks he is Uber, if you don't believe me, just ask him :)
Pazna Darakanim The Sentry Cartel	Posted - 2007.03.04 19:09:00 - [314] A way to search the endless list of offices in a station, not really a corp function, but i don't know where else to put it and it doesn't really seem it needs its own thread.
Jenson Cole Red Dagger Fleet	Posted - 2007.03.07 00:28:00 - [315] Corp Reaquireing of Corp Shares: This feature would involve a corp CEO being able to raise a vote to bring back share's that are held by inactive players. I currently have one person who was a director in my corp and currently a share holder that has been out of game now 4 months and would like to reaquire those shares. Also upon leaving a corp if a Corp Member has shares he/she automaticly returns those shares held. Right now I don't belive there's a way to get shares back unless someone gives em back willingly and if votes are set that require a percentage over 60% needed to pass my corp may run into some difficulties passing items such as war decs and BPO lockdowns. And with the current system if someone leaves corp they are currently able to recive notices on votes still. I had a founder of my corp who had shares from our previous corp state he recived an email on a vote they held.
Endymionnn	Posted - 2007.03.10 02:51:00 - [316] Corp: - I second that on the Shares issue. With me it's a slightly different case though... My corp tries really hard to create some sort of business "reality" with payment of dividends in regular intervals and such; and it's a real pain for me when I know that x% of the income has to go "dead" to an inactive player or one that is no longer with the corp (bonus!). CEO needs to have an option to recall shares, or set them to be inside-only, so that any leaving player has to give up the shares along with the roles before they choose another path. Again, it's an issue of control, which is necessary in any corporation. Players come and go, that is the reality of the game, so the game needs to allow for a corporation to be able to stay organized. Otherwise, one IPO in the beginning gone wrong and you have to set up a new corp. And I don't even DARE to dream about separate different shares (1st issue, 2nd issue). +1 on the divisional wallets (or at least assignable sections of the wallet / budget limits for certain directors etc) whatever is easiest and work best. +1 on the basic reports like income statement/cash flow per time period and balance sheet, that could do wonders for the business aspect of the game, part of which right now is virtually roleplayed. +1 on Corp hangar logs... as much as I think that is unsustainable (simply way too much action would have to be added on game servers, I don't think EVE will withold it). But corp theft would be very difficult if you could go back and review the "tapes". I'm sure alot of CEOs and directors will back me up on this one. +1 on Role granting improvement. Real mess and alot of clicking, especially in Corporation interface, where I have to scroll to the right for 2 screens to check all the View and Take accesses on 4 different screens. 99% of the time the same options are chosen for ALL the types of hangars there anyway. +1 on Hangar naming and individual division naming for POS hangars. They rarely require the same functionality as Station Corp hangars. Market: - Quickbar should allow to create folders to group shortcuts in. That would help alot. - Ability to adjust order price by clicking on your order in the list view for that product. I.e. so you don't have to click to Orders tab to change the price and then go back to the Details market view to see its position. - Alerts for being overpriced or underpriced (I wish :)) - Daily reports from transaction journal would ROCK. - Remove redundant options from filters in journal and transactions tab of the wallet. 99% of traders use very few of them. If not remove then allow to set which ones are available. I could probably come up with alot more but hey if even 1 of the above gets implemented - i'll be happy. Big ups to the hardworking CCP pplz who read through all this and actually push these ideas through.
Mal Loc	Posted - 2007.03.12 22:20:00 - [317] My apologies if this feature has been requested before. It would be nice to be able to set an item to only be salable for the corp. This would allow some enforcement that goods created by the corp are only sold for the corp. The situation I imagine is a manufacturing corp that has a sales division. If one wanted to enforce that all products were sold only to benefit the corp one could use this feature. Otherwise, the only way to enforce this is to check the logs and validate that all items that any given sales person sold were sold to benefit the corp. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Eldo Davip ([email protected])
StarRanger 3rdClass	Posted - 2007.03.21 19:18:00 - [318] Corporation / member Can CCP please put in an option to have more "Based at" stations for roles settings. The problem came with JumpClones and people are staying on more then one based-place. Now a days you JumpClone too another place/office when you want, but then the role-setting are lost into "Others" or "Headquarters". Thanks for looking into this Dev-team.
StarRanger 3rdClass	Posted - 2007.03.21 19:42:00 - [319] Edited by: StarRanger 3rdClass on 21/03/2007 19:41:02 Originally by: Wagner84 +1 Divisions Wallets Pleeeeeeeease It was suppose to be in the expansion Exodus , 7 division wallets even. It didn't make it, and never heard from it again. The function of setting up roles for it is still available for Accounting (Divisional). If you look at the Features of Exodus you'll even see a screenshot of it. *Seven ISK accounts for corporation* it was called
Kurunth Grok Gallente Bogans INC	Posted - 2007.03.22 13:19:00 - [320] - A corporation should always know who owns shares Me thinks this is a fundamental issue. What is done with such info, may well be relative to any kind of share trading system. But CEO who is not aware of who owns the corp is a blind CEO.
Karash Amerius Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.	Posted - 2007.03.28 19:04:00 - [321] This thread was stickied in 2005. How about some movement on this? Merc Blog
Johnathan Roark Caldari Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.03.28 19:12:00 - [322] Originally by: Karash Amerius This thread was stickied in 2005. How about some movement on this? Some progress has been made, but im going to fanfest and harassing the devs if divisional wallets doesn't get in soon. Also, came up with another idea/issue. Contracts are neat in all, but say i have a group of players who handle logistics for the corp who are trusted to do so. I do not want to have to set a collateral to keep other members from getting sticky fingures, but more then one member may need to be allowed to accept the contract. I would like to have the ability to set up internal contracts to all members with a title or a list/group of charaters. Corporation Management Improvement
Lab Technician071548 Astro-Support Services	Posted - 2007.04.02 18:00:00 - [323] It would be great if you could check tax revenue by member over a time frame. Reporting, in general, could use a major overhaul. It would be great if information could be downloaded for external analysis to reduce overhead on the servers and increase flexibility. If I could download corporate data, I could then work with it in a spreadsheet, statistical analysis tool, or even accounting software. It would be great if you could set a spending budget (by time frame) and attach that to a title, role, or person. Alternatively, if you could implement certain accounting principles such as separation of duties. For example, one person makes a request to purchase, but the transaction doesn't occur until someone else releases the funds. If the object is gone from market? Loosen standards or be prepared to miss on some deals. That also happens in the real world. It would be great if blueprints and mineral stocks could be handled entirely separately from other assets, with their own command and control structure, rather than cobbling tools onto a generic system. +1 for container and hangar audit logs
Anteba	Posted - 2007.04.02 22:59:00 - [324] Please remember. We are in need for Divisional budgets. A seperate wallet for each division.
Jhar'An God's of Eve	Posted - 2007.04.04 21:21:00 - [325] I am in favor of having the ability when viewing offers etc for applications of new members to have it auditted with a transaction log so to speak of who has given counter offers, who has accepted the application as well. So we can keep track of which recruiters are working with which people. Perhaps an area on the application that has a drop down list of all recruiters, and a role called recruiter on members so that they get added to that list as well. Defaults to N/A or something. That way we also always know if they already have spoken with someone when they put in the application.
Arte Warspite Developments	Posted - 2007.04.09 17:44:00 - [326] The ability to see the corp wallets for members, but not access it. This would allow transparancy in corp financial matters for those corps that need it.
RaTTuS BIG Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.04.11 10:41:00 - [327] A couple of things that are bugging me ATM are :- When voting to lock a blue print - that vote should should be automaticaly sanctioned at the end of the period - as it stands they sometimes drop out of being locked at random times after the vote. I would not mind it the CEO had to sanction the action or if it just happed if majority voted on as long as it was consitant. The ability to sanction an action should be allowed to a majority share holder [within the corp] for when the CEO is being lazy - that is part of what a director is all about. -- BIG Lottery, BIG Deal \| RaTTuS @ Skills Showroom
Aivo Laitanen Laitanen Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.04.15 11:11:00 - [328] Yes, we really need divisional wallets to know how we gain money and to divide risks or corf thieves. As, we would be able to give X isk for minings ops and Y isk for POS and Z Isk for pvp.... We also need more love for interactions between alliances and corporation. Indeed, it is really boring to have to adjust all standing with each corp when corporations are in alliance in order to use pos or stations in 0.0. To correct this, it is necessary that alliances standings permits all access without any intervention of corporations to readjust standings. We also need some love with POS interactions between alliances' mates. - We should be able to use an alliance facility that is in POS and not only laboratories. - If the facility is not open to alliance, it shouldn't be viewable by alliance mates etc etc etc
Gabrielle Black	Posted - 2007.04.16 17:22:00 - [329] I only read the overview in the first post, but didn't see this anywhere. I'd like to see office types, first off. The current offices would be either 'HQ' or 'General'. I'd like to be able to tag an office as 'Tactical', 'Manufacturing', 'Lab', etc. Other than HQ and General, they would be free text like hangar names. Each type of office would have it's own set of permissions and roles (Ie, just like HQ hangar access type stuff is now). Also, each office type would have it's own set of hangar names. The office that is used for Tactical might have 'High', 'Medium', 'Low', 'Ships', 'Capital Ships', etc, while the factory might have 'Blueprints', 'Materials', 'Output', etc. I'd also like to see more strict controls allowed for corp jobs. It should be possible to force input and output hangars for jobs that use corp resources. That way you can allow access to the materials hangar, but force any output to an output hangar which only certain people have access to. It would also be cool if you could queue and contract out factory and lab jobs. Let's say the director needs 50 things built, but doesn't have the slots to do it. He enters in all the information (input hangar, number of runs, output hangar, etc) but doesn't have to actually start the job. He can then just queue those jobs (somehow, a new checkbox on the S&I job interface could be added called 'create contract job' so when he clicks 'OK' it doesn't start the job, it just locks all the materials and enters a corp contract). Whoever has the slots and time to execute those jobs can accept the contract, right click the job and click 'start'. Alliance offices would be nice also.
Johnathan Roark Caldari Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.04.17 08:09:00 - [330] Edited by: Johnathan Roark on 17/04/2007 08:06:17 Originally by: Gabrielle Black I only read the overview in the first post, but didn't see this anywhere. I'd like to see office types, first off. The current offices would be either 'HQ' or 'General'. I'd like to be able to tag an office as 'Tactical', 'Manufacturing', 'Lab', etc. Other than HQ and General, they would be free text like hangar names. Each type of office would have it's own set of permissions and roles (Ie, just like HQ hangar access type stuff is now). Also, each office type would have it's own set of hangar names. The office that is used for Tactical might have 'High', 'Medium', 'Low', 'Ships', 'Capital Ships', etc, while the factory might have 'Blueprints', 'Materials', 'Output', etc. I'd also like to see more strict controls allowed for corp jobs. It should be possible to force input and output hangars for jobs that use corp resources. That way you can allow access to the materials hangar, but force any output to an output hangar which only certain people have access to. Its in here somewhere, probably on the first page or two. If half of the things that are in this thread are implemented, corp management will be a lot easier. Corporation Management Improvement

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 .. 13 :: 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.