EVE Search - Would you believe CCP BROKE the corp interface further?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Would you believe CCP BROKE the corp interface further?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2007.01.08 07:55:00 - [1] Edited by: Rells on 08/01/2007 07:54:01 Edited by: Rells on 08/01/2007 07:53:13 It used to be that you could give someone take but not view rights to a hangar with minerals in it and then they could build without being able to swipe the whole hangar. Now they broke even that. You now need query AND take access to allow poeple to build. This means that ANYONE in the corp that can build can take everything in that hangar. And dont tell me to create two hangars and refill one from the other as that is FAR more admin in a large corp than ANYONE wants to do. How many BUGS are in the corp interface. CCP put in all of these new spiffy features but where is the redesign of the most SCREWED UP interface in the whole game. By comparison Escrow was perfect. There are so many bad things in the corp and alliance interface that it is just staggering. Just a few of the suggestions: 1) As many tabs as we want (corp as well as personal). Just right click and add smart tab and allow it to sort the hangar contents appropriately. Smart tabs would be like smart Playlists in Eve and the CEO should be responsible and able to configure them. Players could configure their own for their own private hangars and store them in the settings. 2) Configurable permissions for hangars allow people to build things but not take. 3) Quotas for builders so they cant build 400 tractro beams at once. 3) Rank HIERARCHY. You should be able to set integral hierarchy in the build interface. 4) Export of roles for all memebers in the corp. 5) Ditch the shares. They stink, they dont guarantee payouts and they are the biggest scam in eve. 6) Make the ability to propose a vote for all directors without having to have a share. Better yet .. have a role to propose the vote. 7) Overhaul the UI to make it easier to use. 8) Blast out all the useless tabs in corp interface. 9) Assets list for corp paired with personal assets with asset search. This tab should be in corporate interface. 10) Expired Sanctionable actions should be cleared after two weeks or by CEO operation. 11) Sanctionable actions, implemented or rejected should be cleared after some time. 12) You shouldnt need 4 clicks to immplement each sanctionable action. I SENTENCE Oveur to unloc 510 blueprints. 13) Corp orders should be visible in corp interface. 14) Corps should be able to set standings to alliances. 15) Auditing for who removes what from hangars and who puts what in. 15) Build and research job auditing. 16) Corp members tab into corp interface and display titles. and ranks. 17) Ranks should be separate from other titles. 18) Any number of ranks you want up to some number. 19) ... that other irritating stuff I didnt think of ... Its HIGH time that CCP gave the alliance and corp interface some love. Having to have someone be able to rip off the whole corp just to build some Antimatter ammo is MESSED up. -- Rells Isnt it time you learned how to fight back?
Lygos Amarr ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.08 08:25:00 - [2] Corporate Divisions The counterargument is that corps are just supposed to form up as alliances, and use corporations within them to organize their divisions. Seems a bit excessive and just sounds weird to me. --- T2 Risk \| Corp Divisions
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.08 08:29:00 - [3] Originally by: Lygos Corporate Divisions The counterargument is that corps are just supposed to form up as alliances, and use corporations within them to organize their divisions. Seems a bit excessive and just sounds weird to me. We considered that idea as well but logistics would be a pain as producers wont be able to access all the hangars. The extra titles slots that where added are pretty cool, id like to see the corp hangar amount doubled as well though. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express	Posted - 2007.01.08 08:31:00 - [4] I agree with you Rells, this change was made with the Dragon Patch. I noticed it back then and sent in a petition. I was told it was working as intended and to lock down the BPOs, they don't seem to care you can't lock down minerals which means you can only give limited access :(. Galactic Express Recruitment Post
Omber Zombie Gallente Frontier Technologies	Posted - 2007.01.08 08:32:00 - [5] Originally by: Rells Edited by: Rells on 08/01/2007 07:54:01 Just a few of the suggestions: 1) As many tabs as we want (corp as well as personal). Just right click and add smart tab and allow it to sort the hangar contents appropriately. Smart tabs would be like smart Playlists in Eve and the CEO should be responsible and able to configure them. Players could configure their own for their own private hangars and store them in the settings. 2) Configurable permissions for hangars allow people to build things but not take. 3) Quotas for builders so they cant build 400 tractro beams at once. 3) Rank HIERARCHY. You should be able to set integral hierarchy in the build interface. 4) Export of roles for all memebers in the corp. 5) Ditch the shares. They stink, they dont guarantee payouts and they are the biggest scam in eve. 6) Make the ability to propose a vote for all directors without having to have a share. Better yet .. have a role to propose the vote. 7) Overhaul the UI to make it easier to use. 8) Blast out all the useless tabs in corp interface. 9) Assets list for corp paired with personal assets with asset search. This tab should be in corporate interface. 10) Expired Sanctionable actions should be cleared after two weeks or by CEO operation. 11) Sanctionable actions, implemented or rejected should be cleared after some time. 12) You shouldnt need 4 clicks to immplement each sanctionable action. I SENTENCE Oveur to unloc 510 blueprints. 13) Corp orders should be visible in corp interface. 14) Corps should be able to set standings to alliances. 15) Auditing for who removes what from hangars and who puts what in. 15) Build and research job auditing. 16) Corp members tab into corp interface and display titles. and ranks. 17) Ranks should be separate from other titles. 18) Any number of ranks you want up to some number. 19) ... that other irritating stuff I didnt think of ... 1. Sounds good 2. hell yeah 3. would be handy 4. not sure why you need it, but exporting things is always good 5. Shares work, just their implementation could be a lot better 6. Directors can propose votes without shares, I do it regularly 7. which UI? or just all of them? 8. what useless tabs? 9. Ever tried to search through 7 corp hangers in 50 offices? I think that may be a little insane/ ou can now see corp hanger assets throught the corp interface anyway. 10. sounds good 11. i dunno,a history of cinflict isn't that bad 12. you can multiple lock/unlock bpo's now. Just select them all and right click 13. corp orders are viewable in the corp wallet - why do they need to be in the interface? 14. agreed 15. would love that, but a simple quickfix might be to change the wallet entry to state what is being built, not just the rental fee 16. eh? expand please 17. ranks? please expand further 18. as 17 19. plenty moreirritating things, but you mentioned most of them :) ---------------------- FTEK is Recruiting
Khajit Smitty Minmatar MisFunk Inc.	Posted - 2007.01.08 08:50:00 - [6] Quote: 19) ... that other irritating stuff I didnt think of ... Yes like the 300 standings limit, for alliances this i dont see as being a major pain (but im sure it can be) but for corporations its a complete and absolute pain the the rear. Having the ability to set corporation standings to an alliance as a whole as apposed to each individual corporation would make life so much easier, possibly in the interim double it from a 300 limit to 600, which while not the best solution will still reduce the amount of frustration. Sifting through 300 standings is a time consuming and painful job looking for that 1 obsolute one. And yes i agree with all the points raised aswell.
Sevarus James Minmatar Meridian Dynamics Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.01.08 09:00:00 - [7] I often disagree with Rells on various points, but oooooh boy not this time. As a CEO of a 0.0 corporation, I 1000% COMPLETELY agree that things are messed up. Consider me SIGNED on all of those points. Of course considering the length of time we've spent waiting for certain things, I'm not holding my breath. P.S. What BRAIN SURGEON decided a POS takes corp standings OVER and irregardless of ALLIANCE standings? hmmmmmm? Sorta defeats the purpose, yet again, of having alliance standings eh? -just had to throw that in there, as I'm still steamed over the response from CCP regarding multiple petitions over friendly fire, PLUS a considerable amount of time manually setting individual corp standings. Updated Linux Desktop+EVE+EVE-TV
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2007.01.08 10:25:00 - [8] Originally by: Omber Zombie 12. you can multiple lock/unlock bpo's now. Just select them all and right click Its not the votes, its the sanctionable actions is the ***. Isnt it time you learned how to fight back?**
Tanis Bastar Caldari Interstitial Incorporated	Posted - 2007.01.08 11:38:00 - [9] I'm pretty new to manufacturing, but one feature that I can't find is how to download, say, the last week's worth of sales by location, ideally with remaining inventory. Is it possible to do this? If not, why not?
Lucre STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.01.08 12:01:00 - [10] Originally by: Mecinia Lua I agree with you Rells, this change was made with the Dragon Patch. I noticed it back then and sent in a petition. I was told it was working as intended and to lock down the BPOs, they don't seem to care you can't lock down minerals which means you can only give limited access :(. You not only can't lock them down, they can't trace them either if they go missing. Some time back we had over a freighter-build of minerals disappear from one of our capital-build corp hangars. We petitioned this as a bug in the build process, but were essentially told "must have been a thief" though since they couldn't track the minerals they couldn't actually confirm this. We believed (and still believe) this was a production bug as T2 modules and components in that hangar worth several times that of the stolen minerals were left totally untouched. Meanwhile, signed a thousand times over just for the "corps setting standing to alliances" feature. Having left/lost ASCN, we're now in the ludicrous position of having to consider forming a corp-alliance of our own for no other reason than to get around this particular ludicrous standing-setting omission. CCP, whatever were you thinking? Fix it!

PhamNuwen Caldari Bungee Jumper	Posted - 2007.01.08 12:03:00 - [11] Originally by: Rells Would you believe CCP BROKE the corp interface further? : Yes. Most developers are bad designer of Userinterfases (I'm working in software development since 15 years...). I think, CCP is not better... Furthermore: Since 1.5 years CCP is running for higher number of simultaneous user and this has some side effects: - database access must be minimized - CPU-Usage (server) must be reduced. This causes some more handicaps for the developers --> causing more crappy interfaces for us... Caching data local would open the client for 3th-party tools. ---
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:52:00 - [12] The entire corp UI needs to be scrapped and redesigned. Isnt it time you learned how to fight back?
Rosabella	Posted - 2007.01.08 18:11:00 - [13] Agreed. Naturally this will fall on deaf ears until someone (Rells?) writes up their objections, provides suggestions for solutions and sends it directly to the designers. CCP has taken the same hands off approach to the player base that other MOG design teams practice. Witness the lack of dev blogs and developer posts to topics on this board. Posting here invites support from the players but in no way guarantees that the developers will see it. Drill into their organization, focus your communication, send it directly to the right people and you'll have more success. This board has become little more than a moderated chat room.
bluecheast Four Rings Myriad Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.08 18:34:00 - [14] Agreed. Ne also need income outgoing option in wallet not some 10 different things and also show only transfers over/under ( value ) And maby some medal system so directors, fc's, local heros etc... could be given 1-4 stars for example that would be visable like standings offcourse there needs to be a option to hide medals outside corp/alliance if needed like during fleetfights to avoid being made primary. But most importand is having some log on hangars. The Rings Forums
Redbad Minmatar Gingerbread Reapers Inc.	Posted - 2007.01.08 18:43:00 - [15] Originally by: Rosabella This board has become little more than a moderated chat room. You're so right about that. To continue on the topic: There is a Features and Ideas section that Developpers, according to the description, are reading. I'm sure there's something already there along the lines to what the OP states. I do think that revamping the Corporate interface is something that should be on the "to-do" list of CCP, as the interface can be somewhat incomprehensible at times. Futhermore, EVE involved into a much more complex game with every expansion. It asks for people to get organized in this game to achieve their goals. It's indeed important to have the right tools for that. A good corporate interface reflecting a good managemt tool for that is then indispensable.
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2007.01.08 18:52:00 - [16] The reality is that posts like htis have been made in the Ideas forum for three years to no avail. It seems to me pthat CCP only serves those that scream the loudest. Time to scream. I CHALLENGE Oveur to unlock 500 blueprints and run a corp of more than 100 people for 6 months. Isnt it time you learned how to fight back?
Redbad Minmatar Gingerbread Reapers Inc.	Posted - 2007.01.08 18:57:00 - [17] Originally by: Rells The reality is that posts like htis have been made in the Ideas forum for three years to no avail. It seems to me pthat CCP only serves those that scream the loudest. Time to scream. I CHALLENGE Oveur to unlock 500 blueprints and run a corp of more than 100 people for 6 months. Then I scream with you ..... WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH ...
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2007.01.18 19:40:00 - [18] Everyone has to scream the loudest. CCP should be french because they seem to only appreciate a great Wine. Isnt it time you learned how to fight back?
Forum Troll	Posted - 2007.01.18 19:50:00 - [19] /signed Good post by the OP. CCP should listen to his suggestions.
Sorela Gallente	Posted - 2007.01.18 20:11:00 - [20] A good post. Personally I'd like to see them put efforts into encouraging corporations to actually use currency instead of the barter system though. I'm not familiar with POSes nor do I know what all can be done with the corp interface but in an ideal setup things would work like the following: 1) Instead of having to put mins in a hanger you'd be able to set up a sell order in the PoS restricted to alliance or a corporation. It should not have any tax or broker fees (maybe a corp manager skill to make it work or whatever). 2) Should be able to setup buy orders for whatever needs to be produced with the same above features. 3) Let each BPO/BPC have advanced features like allowed runs or even the ability to set runs on a per person basis. Also other fun features would could be an ISK charge per run and what not. Those are just some examples and I'm sure people can poke many holes in them but I'm really only trying to point out that a proper corp interface should allow us to use currency in the ways it is used in real life to manage empires and corporations. Only in cases where that really makes things easier though.

SSgt Sniper Gallente Zekarus Ltd.	Posted - 2007.01.18 20:38:00 - [21] Edited by: SSgt Sniper on 18/01/2007 20:35:16 Originally by: Rells Edited by: Rells on 18/01/2007 19:35:35 It used to be that you could give someone take but not view rights to a hangar with minerals in it and then they could build without being able to swipe the whole hangar. Now they broke even that. You now need query AND take access to allow poeple to build. This means that ANYONE in the corp that can build can take everything in that hangar. And dont tell me to create two hangars and refill one from the other as that is FAR more admin in a large corp than ANYONE wants to do. How many BUGS are in the corp interface. CCP put in all of these new spiffy features but where is the redesign of the most SCREWED UP interface in the whole game. By comparison Escrow was perfect. There are so many bad things in the corp and alliance interface that it is just staggering. Just a few of the suggestions: As many tabs as we want (corp as well as personal). Just right click and add smart tab and allow it to sort the hangar contents appropriately. Smart tabs would be like smart Playlists in Eve and the CEO should be responsible and able to configure them. Players could configure their own for their own private hangars and store them in the settings. Configurable permissions for hangars allow people to build things but not take. Quotas for builders so they cant build 400 tractro beams at once. Rank HIERARCHY. You should be able to set integral hierarchy in the build interface. Export of roles for all memebers in the corp. Ditch the shares. They stink, they dont guarantee payouts and they are the biggest scam in Eve. Make the ability to propose a vote for all directors without having to have a share. Better yet .. have a role to propose the vote. Overhaul the UI to make it easier to use. Blast out all the useless tabs in corp interface. Assets list for corp paired with personal assets with asset search. This tab should be in corporate interface. Expired Sanctionable actions should be cleared after two weeks or by CEO operation. Sanctionable actions, implemented or rejected should be cleared after some time. You shouldnt need 4 clicks to immplement each sanctionable action. I SENTENCE Oveur to unloc 510 blueprints. Corp orders should be visible in corp interface. Corps should be able to set standings to alliances. Auditing for who removes what from hangars and who puts what in. Build and research job auditing. Corp members tab into corp interface and display titles. and ranks. Ranks should be separate from other titles. Any number of ranks you want up to some number. Allow directors once again to strip all roles from a member via a single menu iter rather than having to do it manually. Fine grained permissions for being able to use and administer POS. Also drop the POS shield password and replace it with the ability to set access to the POS based on title and standings. Ability for players to deploy POS for "Self" without needing to deploy it for corp. I shouldnt have to give corp permissions for someone to deploy a POS for themselves. Ability to filter the audit logs described above based on character. Ability to know who is an alt of who. Simply allow members to select that their char is an alt and give the name of the main. Its HIGH time that CCP gave the alliance and corp interface some love. Having to have someone be able to rip off the whole corp just to build some Antimatter ammo is MESSED up. They also broke corp standings insofar as people using the higher standing of the corp to get access to higher level agents that much sooner. Probably when they unlatched corp standing from jumpclone access tbh. --------- Representing all the casual gamers happily living in Empire, that want NO PART of your 0.0 annoyances. However, I do not represent my corp. We vote first.
BlackMoon Thrawn the Organ Grinder and Company Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2007.01.18 22:49:00 - [22] Agreed on most everything said. I would also like to see a set of buttons on the set standings page to set a corp to 0,2.5,5,7.5 and 10(also the inverse).
SolarKnight Gallente ORIGIN SYSTEMS Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.18 23:23:00 - [23] Or Just let us type in the standing? or just vary the size of the box that appears when the slider is shown, as some corp names are too long and obscure the numeric output of the slider. The Light in the Darkness http://Origin.zapto.org
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2007.01.19 03:50:00 - [24] Originally by: SolarKnight Or Just let us type in the standing? or just vary the size of the box that appears when the slider is shown, as some corp names are too long and obscure the numeric output of the slider. That is an excellent idea. Isnt it time you learned how to fight back?
Benglada Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.19 05:09:00 - [25] I agree, Deploy pos for self should be available. --------------------------- Originally by: Arkanor 0.0 is the Final Frontier. Bring money and friends. Sig nerfz0r - maximum allowed siz0r is 24000 bytz0r. - Devil ([email protected]) Sig By Ortos
Kesro	Posted - 2007.01.19 10:36:00 - [26] One of the many oversights. I shouldnt have to give someone oPOS rights for their own private venture.

Tuxford	Posted - 2007.01.19 11:42:00 - [27] I agree the corp interface needs some love, so does the eve mail inbox for that matter. Not much I can tell you I'm not really that involved in implementation or design so all I can promise you is that I'll lobby for this internally _______________

MindBender Acheron Vanguard Armada Storm Armada	Posted - 2007.01.19 12:49:00 - [28] Originally by: Tuxford I agree the corp interface needs some love, so does the eve mail inbox for that matter. Not much I can tell you I'm not really that involved in implementation or design so all I can promise you is that I'll lobby for this internally Tux! Drop the hammer bud... there is so much more that could be done with both of those features. --- Place Sig here (Help a man with no Sig, Eve-Mail me if you can make me one.)
Altaree Gallente Red Frog Investments Daikoku Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.19 14:02:00 - [29] threaten them with more photoshopping :)
Erfnam Time Cube Syndicate Daikoku Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.19 16:17:00 - [30] The central theme of EVE is corporations. Whether a player enjoys pvp, mining, scamming, or anything else, they must belong to a corporation and suffer through the UI. In the words of Fry, "FIX IT, FIX IT, FIX IT!!!" TCSyn is recruiting



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.