| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
33
   |
Posted - 2014.12.20 00:30:14 -
[271] - Quote
This is so well timed as I thought of one in the shower yesterday!
Right now the trader role gives anyone with the trader tag access to the 'deliveries' hangar on anything that is bought by/delivered to anyone in the corp. This means that if I buy 10 B isk of goods for a production project via a buy order over several days, my lowest level 'trader' can jack all that stuff out the deliveries hangar. This sets the bar pretty high trust wise for who can get that 'trader' tag, and I'd be more likely to use it if the low level traders can only touch the stuff that they specifically bought or shipped somewhere.
Thanks! |
JetCord
Abyssal Heavy Industries
51
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 00:44:10 -
[272] - Quote
ROLES need to be more intuitive and over haul the corp UI (each time im using them i wanna poke my eyes out!)
and the abilities that allow allies/friends (non-corp/non-alliance member) to use a corp/alliance owned structure would be cool (or CCP recognize the coalition and formally making them a formal game mechanic instead of its just a player agreement) |
Tom O'Neil
Fruidian Logic
The Volition Cult
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 01:01:58 -
[273] - Quote
I'd love to see some changes made to Wallet divisions and hanger divisions e:g can we make more than 7 divisions
Can we also get a way of changing title colours without having to hack it with HTML tags
Oh and roles but that's already been mentioned |
Mesitosh Kashada
We Have A Winner
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 01:16:55 -
[274] - Quote
Can I move things around in the Market Deliveries hangar more? Right now the only way to split a stack within that hangar (that I know of) is through the contract-creation interface, which is a really pointless and painstaking way compared to shift+drag&drop. This offers no benefit compared to being able to drag-and-drop, which you only can't do because you're not allowed to drop things into the market deliveries hangar (which is itself a pointless labor-wasting system if you have corp contracting roles, because you can contract something to yourself and accept it from the corp to land it in the MD hangar). |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
974
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 01:32:42 -
[275] - Quote
Its to hard to steal from my corp. |
Pestilen Ratte
Artimus Ratte
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 01:34:27 -
[276] - Quote
One of the biggest obstacles to eve fleet play is waiting around for other players to get properly fitted. In fact, this is also a major obstacle to enjoying the fighting life (?!!) in any real military. The army is described as "hurry up and wait" for good reason.
Another major obstacle to fleet operations in eve is folks trying to get other folks to pay for their grand adventures. This is a game, but when you analyse the way many FCs address newer players, you could be forgiven for thinking senior players actually own the fleet, and that newer players owe them something by default.
Rather than change the entire game, I would suggest that CCP might make some "fleet enabling tools" that give corps the option of getting around these two problems. So, if corps could "opt in" to a specific model of operation, certain tools could become available to them.
At first draft, an opt in fleet tool could be a special type of fleet hanger concept. The special type of fleet hanger would be made to give effect to fast, specific fleet policies.
Three tools would be ideal for speeding up organization and curtailing FCs who want obedient bots as cannon fodder.
1. The fleet hanger would be divided up with a hanger for EACH FC. The corp or alliance appoints one player to be the FC for that hanger. Each FC is responsible for BUYING AND FITTING all the ships in his or her fleet. Whether they take donations from others is negotiable, but in principle each FC pays for and maintains THEIR fleet, to be used when their prefered doctrine is called for. So a corp or alliance would then have a hanger for each doctrine they might wish to use. i.e. a corp or alliance might have an ambush hanger commanded by one player who is right into recon and SB doctrine. Another hanger night be for tech one cap war battleship doctrine. Another might be a WH fleet with a mining wing. The point is that the hangers would be designated for a specific fleet with a specific doctrine, and only the FC would have access to that hanger, to choose ships and to fit them. And, if they are not into using other players as free canon fodder for their mad aspirations, they can pay for the ships and fittings as well.
2. The fleet hanger will have a mechanism for assigning ships to fleet members. Thus, when all the fleet members are assembled in station, as guests, the FC can fleet up and then assign ships to designated fleet members. The idea here is to make it simple. This can already be done with the trade window, but doing this for a twenty or thirty ship fleet is very awkward. If the FC could assign ships to players BEFORE the players assemble, and then press a single button to issue each ship to each player in station, the time taken to get everyone into their designated ship could be cut dramatically. It would be ideal if the "issue ship to player" command did three things:
a. automatically removed the designated player from their current ship and made the fleet ship active.
b. prohibited the player from changing fittings
c. automatically assigned the UI to the preconfigured status for that ship, in that role, as created by the FC.
3. Self destruct feature to curb loose canons. This is really simple. If a player tries to change a fitting or disobeys the FC in battle, the FC should have the power to simply blow up the errant fleet member. It is a straight up field court martial, and not beyond realistic policy. If the FC pays for the fleet, he or she is entitled to destroy it. If a fleet member disrupts doctrine by being a loose canon (loose canon!), they ought to expect summary justice in the traditional manner. The incentives here are not unbalanced. Sure, players have to respect fleet doctrine and discipline, but FCs also have to weight their options very carefully. After all, blowing up your own ships in battle is not a sign of solid FC credentials, and it puts the onus on FCs to choose their pilots wisely, and to treat them with due respect. Lastly, if the FC is paying for these ships, they will think twice before taking the nuclear option.
As I noted earlier, this kind of new fleet organization should be, must be, opt in. The way the game is played now is fantastic, and should not be changed. It is pure sandbox, and people should be able to fly their own ships in their fleets any way they want.
Be that as it may, if a option exists for fleets who have already agreed that they want to fight a certain way, with battlefield discipline and incentives properly allocated with capital costs, then a feature which facilitates this method would save a whole bunch of time for everyone.
I envisage a system where 12 new players could all join a new fleet, and have a hanger each. The new players would each take turns at FC, and each would develop their own preferred doctrine with their own preferred fits. It would be entirely up to each FC, in turn, to buy and fit their fleet. Overall, as each player would fly "for free" in the other 11 fleet doctrines, players would all pay the same amount for the same amount of game play.
With such a system, players could log on when they have their own time, in order to fit and managed their fleet. When groups schedule field operations, the fleet could be undocked as a fully operational fleet within 30 secs of the formation time.
Getting this operational readiness timeframe down to 30 secs is really important, because players need to know that they can log in and have a cool experience in an hour. If that hour of gameplay is stretched to three hours because of the inevitable waiting for fit and assembly, flying fleets becomes a major drain on real world time.
Lastly, I would leave the loot mechanics alone, albeit with the proviso that the FC can auto destruct each ship.
The auto destruct feature should only work in system, or perhaps across all adjacent systems. In other words, folks should still be able to try and flee a rogue FC with a stolen ship. |
vikari
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Nulli Secunda
88
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 01:50:55 -
[277] - Quote
Common issues I see in interface of corp management are:
Use of shares is rudimentary at best.
- Shares are a risk to corp security, and server little to no purpose. If shares are going to be part of the security of a corp they should have a greater functionality applied to them.
- First, bulk voting should be an option, it simply doesn't make sense to have to vote yes or no to every single item.
- Second, founder of the corp should automatically get all the shares, this happens in the real world when the owner of a corp makes the corp public.
- Third, remove the dividends option from them and build that into a separate tool with "stock." Have a buyback program in which the corp can put up stock for a price, with an interest rate, and then have the option to buy back. Have an expiration date applied in which can be extended with mutual agreement or the taxes are applied to the stock value till they are paid off.
- Fourth, shares (not stock) should be limited to only people part of the corp, this effectively gives a fix to the issue where people retire with so much stock that the corp has to be abandoned and rebuilt under a new name.
Corp hangers are limited and need greater expansion.
- We need more hangers at the corp level. Corps have several jobs, and the hangers often have to be merged to deal with multiple jobs because of lack of hangers. Command will often have one, the POS managers, FCs will have assets, Capital pilots in which fuel, cynos and such are stored, a Ship replacement program will need one, industry requires on for BPO/Cs, and then the general membership one. I'm sure corps have more jobs than that, but already I'm up to eight different needs for a secure storage.
- Then the HUGE issue is a lack of logging. I can't see who has taken or added items to the hanger. I want to know who has borrowed a corp asset and forgot to return it, or maybe a theft has happened and we need to do an audit. Logging will give the corps more freedom in expanding the use of hangers to more members, as it stands now it's a needed resource and yet a great risk, so corps excessively restrict the access.
Voting is a horrible experience.
- Bulk locking / unlocking of items, as well as bulk voting on the items. The current process could take an extensive period of time if the corp has hundreds of blueprints, which is not uncommon in Eve. This leads to people restricting access to them rather then dealing with the inconvenience associated with the locking process. Also why is there a voting process if only one person has shares? The CEO is going to take all the shares, for security reasons, but if he is the only voting official, why should he have say yes to his own action?
Member List information is limited.
- Can we add an Alt function to the list so we can have an in game tool to manage who is who. It's common place to have multiple toons in a corp. As of right now any corp with decent numbers uses out of game rosters to manage people.
Need more wallets.
- While we do have seven wallets, and we can rename them. We need more wallets to manage access to money better. I would go as far as to request a total of 15 wallets going forward.
Offices should have a function where I can remotely close them.
Roles, and I know you've seen this before and I won't beat a dead horse. So I'll keep it very basic:
- Allow to assign more than the HQ/Based at/Other options to a pilot. We'd rather be able to apply roles to individual offices if we don't want to give them blanketed roles. Better than having the current system, I'd rather see the ability to right click on a hanger and change its access by allowing us to put in a title, role or character name and select query or take permission.
- Junior Account is wide open. Can we have the ability to limit what wallet balances they can view as well as if they can see bills.
- Split the Communications Officer role, book market access and MOTD access should be separate roles. Corps often need several people to handle book marks, but the MOTD doesn't need to be accessible by the same people.
|
SeneschaI
Ordo Ministorum
Violent Society
15
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 02:03:58 -
[278] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Hi, we want to know what are your biggest pain points in the corp interface so please post below with some nice examples
- PRIMARY PAIN POINT - The biggest pain point is not having a new recruit friendly introduction...being able to see more tabs than just 'home' is adding too much complexity, AND unnecessary access to raw recruits. SUGGESTION - only allow raw recruits to see the 'home' tab in corporation panel, and give us more bulletins!
- PRIMARY PAIN POINT - the "HQ", "Based at" and "Other" hangars is woefully inadequate to protect a corporations assets aside from making, as intended, only one station hangars secure (or by unintended, using 'based at' as a second HQ) SUGGESTION give us some way of flagging an office an 'hq' level access, and/or add a new drop down option for 'outpost' or 'vault' that we can also flag an office with such a rubric
- SECONDARY PAIN POINT - "factory manager" is a headache. SUGGESTION rent lab / factory slot should be the role that allows one to start a project (and finish/cancel one's own), whereas 'factory manager' should be the more powerful umbrella role dealing with all facets of such for the corporation
- SECONDARY PAIN POINT - When you subscribe to a mailing list you don't get previous evemails. SUGGESTION when you subscribe to a mailing list you'll see all the archived mails the CEO has in the mailing inbox (or someone designated as the archivist)
- SECONDARY PAIN POINT - Lack of alliance bookmarks, fitting manager, etc SUGGESTION - allow CEOs/directors to add alliance bookmarks and add fittings to an alliance level manager.
- TERTIARY PAIN POINT - The next pain point is not having a way for recruits, who are given roles (via titles or otherwise...i prefer titles exclusively btw), to be able to see a list of things they are allowed to do. SUGGESTION - create a new tab with a list of roles that have been enabled for that character, much like the 'edit member', but also with some link to and explanation on eve-wiki or the encyclopedia. (example)
- TERTIARY PAIN POINT - the horrible explanations of what each role grants access to, etc..., since the griefers all know the loopholes why make things opaque for n00b CEOs? SUGGESTION - make a new updated glossary of what the roles enable
- TERTIARY PAIN POINT - Too much power for raw recruits
see combat loss mails (even ones to npcs),
send and read corp evemails,
copy and create corporate bookmarks,
see corporate fitting management,
see corporate contacts (standings),
view corp mates locations on map (if in space only),
see locations of all offices,
ability to put items/ships into any corporate hangar,
view a member list showing last known logins (how many hours ago),
shoot any corp member without any repurcussions from CONCORD (and even be remotely repaired by a third party outside of corp without said pilot being flagged),
be able to view and engage in corporate chat window without moderation.
SUGGESTION assign most if not all of the above to some kind of role, either currently coded or new ones
I'd also like to pimp GamerChick42's article about this subject |
Jericho Wolf
Journey.
Alternate Allegiance
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 02:26:33 -
[279] - Quote
1. More efficient and effective 'Role' system that's easy to track and remember!!
2. Infrastructure that enables each corporation to set their own unique content (corp missions, bounties, quotas etc)
3. Corporate LP store that ties in with the above idea
3. Enable corps to track/monitor various internal activities or duties like POS management, supply lines, industrial quotas
4. More customization abilities with corp logos and other personalization pieces would be nice. (corps being able to use their own designed logo)
5. Corporate/Alliance marketplace is needed or better contracting mechanics to be ably to supply doctrine ships and corp specific goods easier (because its a pain atm) |
Vise Visteen
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 02:27:28 -
[280] - Quote
Not sure if this has been mentioned. I run a corp for myself and alt and do manufacturing and trading I'd very much like to be able to change a corporate sell order even if my char didnt place it. This wold of course need proper roles and security levels and access. |
|
|
Ainrose
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 04:48:47 -
[281] - Quote
Hi there,
As everyone has said, roles and titles, but also, would like more options for small corps to make isk. Non-hostile reasons for other players to visit a pos - perhaps a refinery service outside of shield that has a small tax for the corp that owns the pos. Initially - I believe with the old industry "slot" system the initial intention was to allow other people to rent a slot - might be tough now that the bp and mats need to be inside the shield - but small corps need more ways to earn isk themselves (like pocos). Also the ability for corps / alliances to bill someone.
Also, Ceo/director access to personal hangar - so that a members belongings can be saved if relocation is required. |
Jack Tronic
borkedLabs
227
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 05:01:23 -
[282] - Quote
Remove the default corp divisions you guys literally have hardcoded. Make them add/remove. It can't be that hard to have a database table to store the divisions since you probably associate the divisions as a container ID anyway somewhere. |
Ainrose
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 05:03:35 -
[283] - Quote
This is probably also not a little thing, but something for consideration - when looking at new applications - usually an api is provided at which point the recruiter / ceo / director goes out of game, uses an app or website to view said api... how about an ingame "allow recruiter to view... xyz... and keep it in-game. Would be much more efficient for recruiters. |
Kurt Kobane
The Nose Picker Clown Group
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 05:05:06 -
[284] - Quote
Yes one of the bigger things for corp office/POS access is the ability to customise access to every base instead of the severe limitations in place currently, and also the ability for corp traders/haulers to be able to see the corp asset deliveries (in corp tab) without having access to every corp wallet (as that blows).
A drag and drop feature would seem to fit in more with the new designs of UI ect in game
And in the pos lines of things like sort of previously mentioned, When "sharing" POS access to the alliance and or +10 Corps an extra "slot" in all structures that allows external members the ability to use the structures with the "alliance" access slot. That of course brings in troubles with the station manager permissions on who should have the access to deliver cancel the jobs ect but that could be sorted out.
|
Agenta Khaulan
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 05:37:41 -
[285] - Quote
Designing and rewarding others achievements with badges/metals. I always like eve could give others metals but just designing them let alone giving them out costs as much as a cruiser/bc, how this little **** piece of metal and cloth costs as much as a 100 mill or so bc is beyond stupid. I can get and am willing to pay 10 mill or so for both the design and the reward piece to a pilot. Also can you make it where a corp can get metals? From like FW and your alliance if they deem you worthy of such an item? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4571
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 06:23:02 -
[286] - Quote
Jack Tronic wrote:Remove the default corp divisions you guys literally have hardcoded. Make them add/remove. It can't be that hard to have a database table to store the divisions since you probably associate the divisions as a container ID anyway somewhere.
Nope. it's a bitmap flag on the item. so it's just a /wee/ bit more complicated than you think. It makes things far simpler when you want to total up the volume inside a thing (like a pos array) across all the hangars.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Kyalla Ahashion
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
14
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 06:24:46 -
[287] - Quote
Transform the launcher into an "out of game" communication tool that optionally minimizes to the system tray - give us access to our corp chat and notifications from there so that it's possible to function without third party tools.
Give us an out of game "alert" that can be sent out by those with the communication manager role.
Sure, most corps & alliances will use jabber for this, but it would be nice for smaller entities without their own infrastructure to have the same advantages.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4571
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 06:24:51 -
[288] - Quote
Mattpat139 Sukarala wrote:It would be nice if instead of having to give 1 member 5 roles to do industry in a pos you could do it all with a little industry check-box next to that persons head on a menu. just, simplify the roles system please.
EDIT: spelling
Right now, the best way to handle it is to grant the roles to a title, then give the title to people.
Makes that a bit simpler. Though less than ideal.
(This isn't the full corp rework. it's a 'knock off some rough edges, before we get to the meat')
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Toshiro Umezawa
New Eden Retirement Village
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 06:40:01 -
[289] - Quote
Bulletins being more accessible, as well as a corp-wide notification when one is updated(toggle please, so minor changes don't spam guild), or posted.
Ideally corps should have their own nested folder on the neocom in order to jump to appropriate interfaces in a quick and easy way. It should be something like opening the corp section lets you access things such as war reports, assets, member list, etc on the fly. War reports would be especially useful for the majority of groups.
Things like the war report window could be cleaned up a lot for better viewing, a sort tab of some sort would be great (or a search one). Being able to search all war reports for "Kills by: Algos" or "Deaths by: Algos" would be too cool. The ability to create a link to a war report would be nice, though just linking a kill report suffices for now. |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force
A T O N E M E N T
581
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 07:09:16 -
[290] - Quote
Allow me to lock and unlock blueprints as if they were a contract. IE - When viewing the vote it has a similar interface as contracts allowing me to look down the list - but it is attached to a single vote. This way if you are to move any amount of blueprints that are locked, you can easily do so in a day without suffering from carpal tunnel.
It will also allow sneaky people to siphon off blueprints from corps who do not pay attention to listed items. |
|
|
Aischa Montagne
Blut-Klauen-Clan
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 09:07:45 -
[291] - Quote
My whishlist is ranked like this:
1) Corp Member Management + Space Structures Management
All is said on this topic already
2) Voteing System sucks!
2.1) Expand voteings on a group of objects.
2.2) Custom Votes. (Simply a flexible text and Outcome of the Vote)
2.3) Extention of the share system. It would be great if we could make payouts via shares. And 2 types of shares would be great.
2.3.1) with voteing capabilities
2.3.2) with payout capabilities, but no voteing.
3) Flexible Wallets and Corp Hangars
4) Corp Bulletin space (we ran out of it. :P ) |
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Deep Space
Sanctuary Pact
88
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:06:18 -
[292] - Quote
Wondering if it would be possible to do more than 8 corporate hangars/divisions?
When your corporation focuses a lot on manufacturing and research, you run out of corporate hangars very quickly. Or better said, places that you can restrict or open only for specific people.
As there are only so few corporate hangars, usually multiple people end up having access to a specific hangar, that you would have liked to keep more restricted, or only open to a specific group.
The same is true when it comes to corporate ISK accounts - having more would definately help.
I know that this may be a big database issue, but i would for sure love to see more than 8 hangars. Ideally you would be able to dynamically add more as you need them, name them, and grant access for them to specific people only - but i would assume that this is just a nice hope and fantasy that may not make it in ever cause of limitations ;)
|
Marlona Sky
Burning Napalm
Northern Coalition.
5761
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:26:37 -
[293] - Quote
Just like on the corp into, alliance info should show the total number of pilot members.
The Paradox
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
283
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:49:46 -
[294] - Quote
role management (particularly where POS roles are involved)
new choices for logos would also be nice |
Niki Reaver
Reaver Sisters Corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:46:45 -
[295] - Quote
Easy for a corp's leaders to set a standing forward another corp in the standing tab. ( From Red to Blue )
A new tab with info about all corps income of ISK and where the ISK went 
A super ISK status page and a rank page showing who have made the most ISK for the corp - day - month - year.
So the leaders get a super detailed page and members gets a Total ISK status and a member rank list.
Being able to rename slots on hangars and PoS on a local individuel plan. |
Elmer Scribner
Cold Hard Productions
Steel Conglomerate
56
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:58:53 -
[296] - Quote
The ability to add a note to a Corporation or Alliance contact!
Someone can come back later and see WHY they are at the standing value they are. You don't have to rely on old mails, or someone trying to remember why a contact is set to the value they are.... They just look in the standings interface. |
Gwara
BioStorms
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 12:01:12 -
[297] - Quote
Hexatron Ormand wrote:Wondering if it would be possible to do more than 8 corporate hangars/divisions?
When your corporation focuses a lot on manufacturing and research, you run out of corporate hangars very quickly. Or better said, places that you can restrict or open only for specific people.
As there are only so few corporate hangars, usually multiple people end up having access to a specific hangar, that you would have liked to keep more restricted, or only open to a specific group.
The same is true when it comes to corporate ISK accounts - having more would definately help.
I know that this may be a big database issue, but i would for sure love to see more than 8 hangars. Ideally you would be able to dynamically add more as you need them, name them, and grant access for them to specific people only - but i would assume that this is just a nice hope and fantasy that may not make it in ever cause of limitations ;)
I agree with this more hangers would be nice but with that said it should not reflect like that at all corporate bases and post. You should have the ability to rename and choose the amount of which hangers appears at different bases or post. Different circumstances require different amounts of hangers or to be named differently. I hope this makes sense. |
Elmer Scribner
Cold Hard Productions
Steel Conglomerate
56
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 12:08:14 -
[298] - Quote
Bulletins on both the Corp and Alliance level (even more so) can be difficult for people to find. A way to link these areas in say, a channel MOTD or evemail would be awesome.
As previously mentioned, I will add my voice to Kill Reports (in general) being separated from the Wars tab.
And I know Role Management will not be considered a little thing, but horizontal scroll bars! Or at least some indication that you're not seeing all the columns that are being displayed so you know to resize to see it all. |
Bakuhz
Ebon Cartel
Ebon Pestilence
167
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 12:21:31 -
[299] - Quote
All Corp roles are a pain to configure it takes my second screen to have a uni-wiki or eve wiki opened to first of all see what you actually grant to a pilot in general.
Not much of a problem but of the trillion tooltips in the game this is were they are required!
the need for more precise acces granting/restrictions we need more control on specific function in starbases and the structures anchored.
making it possible or likely more easy to specify for each pilot what he/she can do is the key limiting acces to certain assembly or maintainance array's for example will be nice, currently it's limited or a certain role allready grants to much.
for corp mechanics it has to be possible to tax everything
not just bounties but make it so refining for example corp gets a certain % same for LP all this could fund smaller entities into a reimbursement system like larger sov entities do.
Alliance mechanics i would like to see an option to grant certain pilots in the alliance but not in the holdings corp to change MOTD's, Control of bookmarks who can add and delete them and possibly a taxing system for alliance aswell ( lets say 1% of all bounties earned in alliance) does not seem much but can stack up for the active alliances.
an actual wallet for the alliance.
https://zkillboard.com/character/584042527/
|
Omega Flames
Last Resort Inn
100
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 12:53:07 -
[300] - Quote
Double the number of corp hangars and AT LEAST triple the total number of corp roles to allow for much more precise control over the access being granted. There are many roles that having the same access being granted (for instance access to the corp deliveries storage area, access at one POS means access at all POSes and most/all stations) and most roles do not very clearly explain the access they do grant (for instance accountant vs junior accountant and the additional need/use for wallet div access) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |