Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Maor Raor
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 00:38:00 -
[1]
After some playing around with PoS caretaker roles and access ive found myself somewhat unghappy with the results.
As far as my testing goes ive found that if i give someone care taker access to fuel the PoS that works fine. I can set it up so a cartaker can Fuel the pos and do not much else.
But now trying to set up a PoS so a cartaker can look after a reaction chain has prooved more tricky.
All i realy want to do is give them view take acces to silos and coupling arrays and PoS guns so they can move the product around to keep the reactions ticking over and check and reload the guns if nessessary (along with fueling the tower)
The trouble is that in order to empty a silo they have to have online/offline access also and permisions for that are global. So in theory the Careteker could offline everything not just the silos and realy cause me a headache.
Not only that but any permissions give them access to the management window they could delete links in the reaction chain also causeing me a headache.
So in order for an corp to alow someone to look after a PoS, over and above just fueling it, the only advantage to not giving them starbase config is that fact that they wont be able to unanchor anything. But if they were inclined to rip you off they could in theory offline the tower hire mercs to blow it up then unanchor all the mods anyway so again.. no great boost to security.
Now i understand that PoS chains and such will always be prone to sabatage and the best option is to do it all yourself or only use people you know in real life but i was hopeing that the caretaker role would address the all or nothing roles that PoSs have..
Did i fail in my testing or did i do it wrong?
Please .. thoughts
|
Tamia Clant
New Dawn Corp New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 01:08:00 -
[2]
You are correct, you would indeed need to give him Offline rights to the entire starbase in order to allow him to maintain the silos.
Though to be fair, it's not likely he/she would sabotage the tower by shutting it down and letting someone destroy it and take the structures, as that would involve quite a lot of people shooting at the POS and structure modules aren't generally that valuable. The main risk would be in being able to unanchor the structures, as that would present an actual easy profit opportunity for the thief.
Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
|
Seragon
Caldari VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Carpe Universitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 01:08:00 -
[3]
I believe you can set the permissions on a pos to be very promiscuous and let anybody fiddle the silos. Once you've done that, you can lock the POS down with a password. With this at least your caretaker can only screw over one POS.
|
Maor Raor
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 03:42:00 -
[4]
So it is as i feard...
With the addition of Caretaker the burden of Running my pos networks was, in theory, going to be able to be shared.
But because of a short changeing in assignable permissions its become only slightly less than pointless. lacking seperate offline/online access permissions per mod and locking option for reaction chain links is very poor.
Originally by: Seragon With this at least your caretaker can only screw over one POS.
I understand what your saying with regards to PoS passwords but once that PoS is part of a production network .. you screw one .. you screw them all. Not only that but i know many Corp members would be peeved if all of a sudden they couldnt enter a fair number of our PoS bubbles.
Im realy not to worried .. i can continue to maintain them myself .. Its just unfortunate that CCP didnt quite take this caretaker all the way to the touchline.
|
Juraka Furo
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 06:28:00 -
[5]
I guess the only thing I can say is "Make sure you trust your caretaker"
I know that seems obvious, but hey, you never know about some people. I also understand that in eve it is...rather hard to trust people, even people you think you know very well.
CCP probably should change the options to give people permissions.
Best of luck with that :)
|
Kane Kaldorei
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 12:39:00 -
[6]
To be honest if you're running a reaction chain and you don't trust the person you have managing it to not steal the POS equipment, you shouldn't have them managing the reaction chain. Nothing to say they're not stealing a sneaky % of the reaction products and siphoning it off into the market, especially if you think they're a liability.
If you're running a multi-million/billion isk operation, you need to have total faith/trust in your operators, or they don't work it at all.
|
Maor Raor
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 00:34:00 -
[7]
I understand that there is no substitute for trust and even then your always going to be open to betrayal. BUT with somthing as expencive and time consueming at PoSs some futher form of graduated access shouldnt be to much to ask. We almost have it with the caretaker role ..
With the kind of networks that are going to be needed to feed the future of eve for the next few years the network operators are going to be forced to trust more and more people. Jump freighters, T2 BSs, and what ever else CCP will add .. its all about the moons.
Sure Caretaker is nice.... But its still all or nothing.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |