Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Vengal Seyhan
Sten Industries
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 03:14:00 -
[1]
"Blueprints can now be unlocked if a vote times out with zero votes. This fix is the result of blueprints getting locked down when the vote is proposed but time elapses with no votes. The same mechanic is now used to unlock blueprints."
I really ubject to this change. If consistency is desired, why didn't CCP instead change this so that BPOS require an active vote result to lock down in the first place, as well as unlock.
As the CEO of a corp with a large BPO inventory, I'm concenred. And I'm even more worried for friends of mine who run capital ship production with BPO inventories in the mutliple billions of ISK. This effectively means that if the CEO or many directors go away from the game for 24 hours, their BPO collection is vulnerable to theft by default no-vote expiry.
24 hours is absolutely crazy.
I would at least like the vote expiry changed to 7 days, so that people aren't required to do daily logins to protect their BPO supplies. This ties people to the game too much.
Is this a deliberate move by developers to make large scale corp thefts easier again?
|
mamolian
Madhatters Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 03:47:00 -
[2]
Does it still require the CEO to action the event tho? Should all be fine if thats the case? -----------
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 08:16:00 -
[3]
make read only division ? And ponly as ceo have take from ? they can sttill research as corp and manufacture as corp.
Quote: It's not a good idea to place a Exotic Dancers in a Giant Secure Container. The Exotic Dancers will not survive intact, if transported in such a container.
|
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 11:30:00 -
[4]
I thought about this, but then I realised. Is it not like this already ? If you go away for more than 24 hours and someone else has at least 1 share, they can vote and approve lockdown etc.
From what I understand this change removes the need to 'vote' when that vote would have made no difference anyway. (ie, 1 positive vote already outweighs all abstainers).
As long as CEO approval is still required to sanction the unlock, the only difference here should be that voting isn't necessary unless you wish to block the CEO from performing an action.
Also. Giving out shares is really a fairly universally bad idea TBH.
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans CCP is a greedy money chewing monster
|
|
CCP Mephysto
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 12:29:00 -
[5]
This is correcting a bug that could potentially leave a bpo in a situation where no-one can access it after a vote timeout.
|
|
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 20:55:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CCP Mephysto This is correcting a bug that could potentially leave a bpo in a situation where no-one can access it after a vote timeout.
While that may be true, have a look at this thread.
|
Mag's
MASS
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 21:48:00 -
[7]
Originally by: CCP Mephysto This is correcting a bug that could potentially leave a bpo in a situation where no-one can access it after a vote timeout.
It still begs the question:- Does this mean that someone could get there hands on BPOs if they set a vote in motion and no one votes?
Mag's
Originally by: Avernus One of these days, the realization that MASS is no longer significant will catch up with you. |
Msgerbs
Gallente Imperial Assualt Guild
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 00:43:00 -
[8]
I'm afraid I don't get it... Someone needs shares/director/ceo to initiate/vote on a vote, yes?
Warning: Simple solution ahead! Don't give people you don't trust shares/director.
Simple indeed, yes?
|
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 01:00:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 10/11/2008 01:07:29
Originally by: CCP Mephysto This is correcting a bug that could potentially leave a bpo in a situation where no-one can access it after a vote timeout.
Just an idea.. that I suggested 2+ years ago..
introduce the concept of a quorum (majority) vote for certain functions:
- unlocking locked down BPO other than the person who locked it
- offlining POS modules
- etc.
If you introduced quorum voting along with corporate & alliance security policies (templates that can be customized and then applied by default or during wars etc. see window's secpol.msc and group policy in-general) you could give corporations and alliances much finer control over key assets and critical functions.
Would really help larger corps.
Well, OK, not 2 years ago and.. ~~~~ There is no parody in this thread. Honest. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |