EVE Search - The third flaw of starbases

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The third flaw of starbases - the roles to use them

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ugleb Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan 126	Posted - 2012.01.03 21:41:00 - [1] - Quote I was recently thinking about starbases (POS) and how I hope that CCP are finally going to do a fullscale revamp on the infernal things in 2012. By my reckoning the problems with POS break down into three areas, the first being the pain of maintaining them, which fuel pellets will hopefully go a long towards alleviating. The second area is the big game design chunk of what they actually do and the godawful UI. Have you tried POS gunning? There must be a better way.... Stick in here a more more cool design and what have you. Its a big job and there are many opinions/suggestions out there on how to do the whole thing better. If fueling/maintenance is part 1, and the structures/UI is part 2, what then is part 3? This last piece is a personal and long held bug bear of mine as someone who has been a corp director/CEO throughout nearly all of my 7+ years in EVE. Corporation roles and permissions suck. The system is painful to use and convoluted, to the point where few players feel confident in saying that they know how it all works or even what half the options actually do. From a corp management perspective, the whole thing is hideous, overcomplicated and gets in the way of playing and enjoying the actual game. I was very pleased to see the CSMGÇÖs (relatively) recent crowd sourcing poll come out with corp/alliance management tools so highly ranked as something the player base wants CCP to work on. And I was surprised, as most players never even see the interface let alone have to deal with using it! It made more sense when I learned of the EVE University block voting according to a priority list set out by their CEO. And it was for that reason the results came to be seen as GÇÿskewedGÇÖ, but even when the EVE-Uni votes were removed from the count corp/alliance tools remained high on the list (yes they will have used alts to vote too). The CSM advised CCP to ignore this area in their plans for Crucible and focus on other areas, which I agree was the right call for that release. However, I think something is being missed in all this. Recently a corp mate asked me, his CEO, to grant him roles to setup his own industrial POS. We needed more industry in our small null sec holdings and we needed more stuff built locally to stock the market. Despite this, I reluctantly turned him down. I turned him down because the roles I would have to give him are very powerful indeed. With them he could conceivably shut off critical things like the cyno jammer or jump bridges, or any SBUGÇÖs we have out. He could unanchor and walk off with every other POS we have. He could really make a mess of a whole lot of stuff if he wanted to. I didnGÇÖt suspect this guy of being a spy, but he had only been in the corp for a short time so I don't know him well personally. The current implementation of corp and alliance tools is not simply annoying to CEOGÇÖs and Directors. It actually raises barriers to all players in experiencing entire areas of the game for themselves. The system is complicated and ambiguous enough that many players are not confident in the implications of handing out roles (assuming they have access to do so), and lacks the granularity to allow individuals to undertake their own enterprises without compromising the security of whole corporations and their members. The irony is that POS were originally conceived as a form of player housing in EVE. The reality is that most players wonGÇÖt be given the ability to ever use them because the roles system is so inflexible and open to abuse. I think its time that changed. http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/
Velicitia Open Designs 427	Posted - 2012.01.03 21:49:00 - [2] - Quote +1
yopparai ASTARTES CORP 12	Posted - 2012.01.03 21:55:00 - [3] - Quote I completely agree with you, I hate when people ask me for roles or what each role does. My usual response is no you can't has, because you might break something, & then I say the roles really don't do anything; it's the titles that hold all the power. Then I give them a title like super star, and a friendly pat on the bum. Yopp ASTARTES CORP Human Resources Officer
met worst Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2012.01.03 22:00:00 - [4] - Quote I totally concur with the OP. To setup corp/ally permissions and responsibilites for hangars and POS mods, particuarly if you are an industrialist, is quite possibly why many small corps remain as soloists. Trust must be earned - not simply handed out because it's too damn hard otherwise.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 517	Posted - 2012.01.03 22:05:00 - [5] - Quote Thanks for making this topic to remind CCP about this. Right now I do not believe there is a single bigger aspect preventing more recruitment of potential customers for CCP that can help them than the lack of settings to isolate potential spies. The POS system needs to be COMPLETELY redone into a modular system for 2012. Every module and every aspect of that module should be configurable. A member should be able to be given either a tab or a small module in the POS with his personal space and ship space and no access to anything else to prevent theft. BTW do you have the link to that crowd sourcing result. I have forgotten where they put the link.
Elessa Enaka State War Academy Caldari State 8	Posted - 2012.01.03 22:23:00 - [6] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Thanks for making this topic to remind CCP about this. Right now I do not believe there is a single bigger aspect preventing more recruitment of potential customers for CCP that can help them than the lack of settings to isolate potential spies. The POS system needs to be COMPLETELY redone into a modular system for 2012. Every module and every aspect of that module should be configurable. A member should be able to be given either a tab or a small module in the POS with his personal space and ship space and no access to anything else to prevent theft. BTW do you have the link to that crowd sourcing result. I have forgotten where they put the link. this would make things so very much easier, I think I would cry tears of joy Devour to survive, so it is, so it's always been
WhaleCommander Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2012.01.04 05:01:00 - [7] - Quote The main problem i have with POS access and configuration is that when you allow someone to be able to online and offline a pos module, you also give them the role to online and offline the ENTIRE TOWER.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 519	Posted - 2012.01.04 08:16:00 - [8] - Quote WhaleCommander wrote: The main problem i have with POS access and configuration is that when you allow someone to be able to online and offline a pos module, you also give them the role to online and offline the ENTIRE TOWER. It is an issue that spans the entire system of corps and POS management. As I said before due to the POS mechanics I was given roles that could have let me bring ruin to the corp. This harms recruiting badly and makes every noob character look like a spy alt. This is why in my opinion. Before almost anything else (Except maybe FW changes) Implementing a modular POS and Corp system needs to be priority one.
Jita Alt666 851	Posted - 2012.01.04 08:40:00 - [9] - Quote Good post OP. Now is the time to prompt them - nice one.
Syphon Lodian Fabled Enterprises 20	Posted - 2012.01.04 09:52:00 - [10] - Quote Agreed. Some would argue it would be too complex, for a UI already overly complex. But I think it's necessary. By the time you start fiddling with POS, in a corp, with other members.. then you should have an idea of what you're doing, and the more tools at your disposal, the better.

Cryten Jones Advantage Inc The Matari Consortium 19	Posted - 2012.01.04 10:39:00 - [11] - Quote And while we are at it.... I want to be able to rent out LAB slots to the public! There are basicly no lab slots in the entire universe so why can't we have a player driven market in research also ? -CJ
Skydell Space Mermaids 87	Posted - 2012.01.04 11:12:00 - [12] - Quote CCP can't fix this because 8 years of exploitation by us and lack of trust even in the largest player groups makes sabotage and meta gaming the most powerfull weapons in EVE. It doesn't matter what CCP does, if we lie the mechanics will work in our favor.
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 182	Posted - 2012.01.04 20:46:00 - [13] - Quote +1 That's all there really is to say. I do hope the POS revamp brings lots of shiny nice things.
Ugleb Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan 137	Posted - 2012.01.04 21:31:00 - [14] - Quote Skydell wrote: CCP can't fix this because 8 years of exploitation by us and lack of trust even in the largest player groups makes sabotage and meta gaming the most powerfull weapons in EVE. It doesn't matter what CCP does, if we lie the mechanics will work in our favor. If you want to spend time infiltrating a corp and playing the meta game to win my trust so as to screw me and my corp over later, yes that is a part of EVE. The problem is that the current corp roles mechanics force me into giving any corp members either huge levels of access that can be used in a variety of ways or next to no access at all because I just can't 'take the risk' on someone I haven't known for years. The system can be redesigned to give corps greater granularity in empowering their members to run their own activities. The mechanics should not encourage player behaviour where only a tiny handful of players are granted the ability to operate basic infrastructure. This places burden on a few players and denies others opportunities to experience and share in areas of the game, which can mean that fewer players can get to use certain game content. A better system would not mean less meta gaming, the biggest and most attention grabbing scams are perpetrated by the supposedly 'trusted few gone bad' as it is. That is unlikely to change, but opening up the doors to more players might lead to some more interesting situations, perhaps we'd see more starbases in use and whatever effects may stem from that. http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/
Ira Theos Viziam Amarr Empire 25	Posted - 2012.01.04 21:49:00 - [15] - Quote God forbid that we let any but the Beta Vets actually play this game. Regarding the OP's post, on a scale of 1 to 10... +20
Knug LiDi N00bFleeT Numquam Ambulare Solus 33	Posted - 2012.01.04 21:55:00 - [16] - Quote Just make it so a CEO can hand out keys, just like the granular api key we have for accounts you want POS modules online/anchor - done POS password change - umm no. trivial, given they already know how to do this. Its just a question of giving players who manage players the same tools that players who manage accounts get. In my most humble opinion, make a POS a ship. you can anchor this ship, and when exited stays put. Like a ship it has slots, CPU and PG limits, has fitting option that speaks to its role. Moon mining POS, research POS, Storage/fitting POS, etc. Hell, make it use subsystems like the T3 systems. There is already a tie in (sort of, with the rorqual) to industry. YOU CAN DO THIS. reuse your existing game infrastructure assets - you know how they work. Oh, and let us name POS structures, for WH folks this would go a long way. If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 182	Posted - 2012.01.04 22:00:00 - [17] - Quote Knug LiDi wrote: trivial, given they already know how to do this. Its just a question of giving players who manage players the same tools that players who manage accounts get. ... What? Sure, in broad concepts it's a similar mechanic, but API permissions and in-game POS permissions are absolutely different things code-wise. This would not be a trivial change at all. Some sort of "key" system would be pretty great, but what happens when the person you trusted with the key gives it to someone else who you don't trust?
Esan Vartesa Samarkand Financial 152	Posted - 2012.01.04 22:52:00 - [18] - Quote Forget keys. For each distinct function of each distinct structure, have Allow/Block lists. Allow for groups like Alliance, Corporation, as well as custom-made groups. There's a reason network security uses this model. It works.
Halcyon Ingenium Prometheus Research LLC 119	Posted - 2012.01.04 23:29:00 - [19] - Quote +1 Would "Like" again. That which always was, and is, and will be everlasting fire, the same for all, the cosmos, made neither by god nor man, replenishes in measure as it burns away. -Heraclitus
Xearal SOL Industries Black Thorne Alliance 232	Posted - 2012.01.04 23:41:00 - [20] - Quote I totally agree, POS access needs to be granulated, as well as expanded so parts can be rented out to the public or at least on alliance level. I am a trusted member in my corp, thus I have access to the POS facilities, I can set up new posses, reconfigre existing ones, etc. I asked for this role because I wanted to play around with my own POS. And while we don't have the massive assets or things like a cynojammer, which are very sensitive pieces of a corp/alliance infrastructure, the fact remains that I have very broad access to a lot of our shinies. What I'd like to see is that certain parts of a POS, or even a specific POS/set of posses, can be deemed 'sensitive', meaning they can't be accessed by a regular person who has access to a POS. So while I could set up my own pos for a little playing around with it, I would not be able to deactivate a cynojammer, or SBU's or what have you. There's many more parts of the roles/security in a corp that need addressing but this is a big one.

Jenshae Chiroptera 400	Posted - 2012.01.05 00:13:00 - [21] - Quote Ugleb wrote: ... Corporation roles and permissions suck. The system is painful to use and convoluted, ... Just picking on this point for now and playing Devil's Advocate. The permissions can be set right, after a bit of a hiccup we tested and got it done correctly. If you are managing a corporation and have access to the roles and permissions then one would hope you can work something like this out ... otherwise other things to do with corp leadership might be a bit of a struggle. Edit: I almost see it as a Darwin effect on corporations. Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down.
Morganta Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia 763	Posted - 2012.01.05 00:46:00 - [22] - Quote wall of text makes sense +1 The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy
Thrawn Nostur Impulsive Anarchy Talocan United 10	Posted - 2012.01.05 01:42:00 - [23] - Quote I'd love to have the ability to add more divisions to a CHA. I've always wondered why configure starbase is needed to give someone the gunner role.
Potamus Jenkins The Lucky Bible Company 42	Posted - 2012.01.05 02:10:00 - [24] - Quote this will have to coincide with them fixing alliances in general since alliances were pretty much an afterthought and are kinda messed up and half baked.
Rellik B00n Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage 118	Posted - 2012.01.05 02:57:00 - [25] - Quote the main flaw as I see it is that high sec POSes are currently invulnerable. forget 3rd. my war dec solution
Mistress Motion Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2012.01.05 05:42:00 - [26] - Quote Rellik B00n wrote: the main flaw as I see it is that high sec POSes are currently invulnerable. forget 3rd. Stop trolling, this is a good thread. +10000 for OP. Even though It doesn't directly affect me now, I know the hassle too well.
Jita Alt666 851	Posted - 2012.01.05 06:01:00 - [27] - Quote Bumping thread to keep a great post by OP near top of front page.


Pages: [1] :: 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.