|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
   |
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
In general, I like the changes. This coming from a high sec industrialist.
But...in regards to a POS
1. I'd like to see some type of anchor-able secure container, maybe a new blueprint container (without the stacking issues), that allows a locked blueprint to be installed to labs/assembly lines and returned to the container in a locked state once the job is delivered. A means of bpo security at the pos.
2. Materials that are consumed by assembly lines should be fed from an anchored corporate hanger. No one likes the click fest of moving materials to all of the different assembly lines. |
Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 19:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:I've been waiting for someone to make the argument on how keeping BP's secure at a POS... I don't see happening soon so I'll just make the Pro BP at POS argument and then promptly squash it. Blueprints will be secure at a POS because since we will be able to run them from containers and audit contains can lock items so they can be viewed without taken, You only need to be able to see the blueprint to use it much the same as in corporate hangers now. And having them locked in an audit container keeps them in one place too.Above is about the best argument that could be made... However
- Corporate roles and permissions regarding container access is not exactly straightforward especially at a POS
- This of course assumes you can run jobs from an anchored corporate hangar at the POS
- Audit containers rely on passwords, that can be requested if a member has a permission or role(s) that allow it, simply unlock the item and take
- The type of audit containers that could be located at a POS are generally small enough to be taken assembled in the typical industrial ship
- Even if the BPs (or other items) are locked it only requires waiting till the activity log has been idle long enough then repackage, result 1 repackaged audit container and everything that was in it right there in a personal hangar
Yup zero net gain still, and just as much of an annoyance, Hey at least a thief can still steal big easier....
If you anchor a container at a pos, does it have to be launched for corporation? That would keep it separate from the corporate password request.
At least one person would have the ability to take all of the blueprints. That's a given but seems better than no bpo security at all.
If someone hasn't used their bpos in a month, i doubt they are really and industrialist. I don't think the 30 day audit expiry is really that much of an issue. That could just be categorized as the risk factor.
It would probably require a new type of anchor-able container specifically for bpos.
CCP are the ones that can look at the code. I'd expect them to figure out the details |
Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 19:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:Barune Darkor wrote:In general, I like the changes. This coming from a high sec industrialist.
But...in regards to a POS
1. I'd like to see some type of anchor-able secure container, maybe a new blueprint container (without the stacking issues), that allows a locked blueprint to be installed to labs/assembly lines and returned to the container in a locked state once the job is delivered. A means of bpo security at the pos.
2. Materials that are consumed by assembly lines should be fed from an anchored corporate hanger. No one likes the click fest of moving materials to all of the different assembly lines. I always envisioned BP not being physically moved but more akin to DRM (DIgital Rights Mangement) scheme hence the existing status of remote from office, POS work In regards to your second point, that actually would remove "game play" one of the principles touted in the announcement. Additionally the ease will come at a price, some corporations actually budget materials to each array. So say with your suggestion member A goes a little (probably alot) overboard in producing ammo members B and C can't do their work in drones and small ships (or whatever). The existing method prevents that, requires more management but honestly that is kind of the point in operating a POS.
That why you have different hanger divisions and division access with corp roles and titles. Do corporations give out the rent factory slot rule to a significant number of their membership? |
Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 19:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
@Flay
Thanks for being civil, which doesn't seem to happen much in this thread.
This is very much from a small indie corp perspective.
Here's hoping ccp figures out some type of solution that doesn't involve copying everything.
Cheers, |
|
|
| |
|