Posted - 2003.06.21 19:27:00 - [3]

 

nobody is testing that right now, we are going to war.... ;-)

Posted - 2003.06.21 21:34:00 - [5]

 

OK...

First things first, this is really really good. Great job...

Can't state enough how good it is to see you guys taking note of the suggestions and then feeding back into the process...

BUGS:

- Tried to join corp with all options selected but it refused to generate a join corp request (tried several times with relogs). Joining with no options selected did generate an app (didn't try the other permutations but something wrong here)

- Despite assigning all roles, when trying to use a research slot it complains you need factory manager rights again (factory is fine)

- Not sure if this is a bug, or design, but in the select input/ ouput section of the factory wizard it wasn't returning the contents of the selected hangard in the main panel. I'd assume it should show the contents of the hangar here so you can verify the information at each stage

- I'd remove the "OK" button. Isn't it totally redundant up until the end, and by the time you reach that point its more inutitive to just keep clicking "Next" (although you may want to rename the button on that final screen)

SUGGESTIONS:

- Assigning roles looks awful now (from a whoa - a lot there perspective). I'd expect a lot of negative comments on that alone (given the fact people were complaining about having to assign security access in the last patch - duh). Sheesh - these guys should see SAP security ;-)

Graphical representations are always better than words. How about a traffic light system for assigning/ viewing assigned roles (red = not assigned, green = assigned) in tabular form. Roles along the top and divisions down the left..

i.e.
..........VIEW | TAKE
_____| A | H | A | H
Div 1 | y | n | y | y
Div 2 | y | y | y | y
Div 3 | y | n | y | n
etc

where y/n is a red/green toggle radio button, A/H headers are Accounts/ Hangars etc

... this effectively combines roles assigned to date, and the option to assign new roles, into a single tab thus saving on real estate and end user click actions ...

---

- With this level of complexity it would be nice for corps to be able to create a "generic" profile which is assigned by default to all new recruits. Perhaps a separate tab where you can define the standard profile.

"Apply to all employees" might be an interesting extension of this (i.e. change profile, click apply and it updates all corp members profiles with the changes), but it would have to be done in a way that wouldn't mess up the other areas of an employees profile.

Ideally you would want a "generic" sec profile for each employee, plus an "extended profile" to keep them totally separated (with the generic being set by the corp standard profile) - but this would require two DB profiles per employee..

---------

- As mentioned in previous post we need a tab for filtering all individuals assigned specific roles (e.g. view all members assigned view rights to division 7). Edit member should be a right click option off the returned list

Edited by: Eldariel on 21/06/2003 22:48:13

Posted - 2003.06.21 23:13:00 - [7]

 

Selling from Corp Hangar?

Any idea on if that is planned in future? Would really let ppl act as corps better.

Posted - 2003.06.22 08:50:00 - [9]

 

I think only the CEO can give director rights now?

And just so I'm clear. If you give the right to take from factory but not the right to see. Someone could build from the factory window but they couldn't take anything from the factory hangar ( like BP :P ) because they ofc couldn't see them.

If thats the case it's a big step in the right direction. It'd be nice to have a role where they can see and take anything but BPs and ore

Posted - 2003.06.22 10:32:00 - [11]

 

All well and good but I'm suprised the project managers haven't assigned issues like this a relatively low priority.
When, for example, does factory/research slot issues feature on the gant? 8-)

Posted - 2003.06.22 11:54:00 - [13]

 

Well, to begin with, I cannot find that button to change the hanger names. Is this a CEO only function (I am a Director)?

Posted - 2003.06.22 13:39:00 - [15]

 

User management is much too unwieldy.
We really need a drag-drop list of corp members with group folders that contain settings.
(like the bookmarks)

We also need a multi-screen application form, which shows less of the mechanical items that people want to apply for or is simply based on some application text. Since the applications where you ask for the right to be able to assign new personel mangers don't mean anything anyway, the fact that the whole window is too big to fit in the default screen size means that the applications really just need a goood rethink.

Posted - 2003.06.22 18:44:00 - [17]

 

Everyone, this is a Long post so please forgive me… anyways …
Here's the penny for my thoughts...

I want to state… for the Record “CCP has listened - and implemented - MORE User input than any other company I have seen and this gives me hope that Eve will be the greatest game that has yet appeared out there”.

THOUGHTS ON CORPORATE CHANGES:

I like the new Corp Changes, and the ones proposed on TEST Server, they are nice and they help us setup things better... However, I agree with Eldariel it is very unwieldy and with a larger Corporation it could take a Poor CEO hours to go through this beast. The idea is solid, the implementation is "NOT user friendly". My suggestion, let Dev team make a 100 member Corp and try to wade through that much menu grinding and they will understand what we are talking about.

My only real gripe with the “Corporation system” as it presently stands… it reminds me a great deal more of a "guild system" than a "business system". Please think about this...Corporations are not really setup yet to do "business" they are setup to bring players under a banner. That is not what a Corp does, that is what a Guild does.

Key Corporate Changes I believe are Much Needed:
1. The ability for the Corporation itself to buy and sell products.
2. The ability for Corporations to engage in Business Trade Agreements,
Alliances, Loans, and shared costs of research / production.
3. A system of Corporate Taxation that works and helps us to monitor members contributions and donations.
4. A system whereby we can “Pay” our employees for their Contibutions.

1. The Ability of a Corp to Buy and Sell:

I believe it should be absolutely top priority to give the Corporation the capability of SELLING it's own products, instead of having to have a member use their own account. Why is that so hard?? Why cant I put a cruiser in the Market slot and say sell... and the money go strait into the Corp acccount?

2. Ability for Corporations to enter into Business agreements, Alliances, and trade Agreements:

It would be great if Our Corporation could “loan” an Allied Corp our “factory or research slots”, have the ability to "loan money" with "Bank Backing" so that they Our Corp would guaranteed to be repaid directly some % every time the Debtor Corp makes cash or from that Corps sales proceeds...

I think this is important…. And this is why…. Last night, one of my allies asked me if I could loan him a research slot...(they are so precious right now becuase 80% of them are owned by people who bought them to sell them.... CCP needs to put an end to this practice of hoarding slots NOW)... but…. I could not “loan it” without “transferring it” and risking Our Corp loosing one of our precious few Slots. Since I am honorable and I really wanted to help, I offered to make him some copies... HOWEVER Fathom the Magnitude of this.....he had to TRUST me with a 20 Million dollar Bp…. What would stop me from saying, “Thanks for the BP, FOOL” as I laugh and take an entire groups precious lifeblood? Of Course I would never do such a thing, but there are many who would.

3. A system of Corporate Taxation that works and helps us to monitor members contributions and donations.

It would be far less stressful if CCP would create a system to help us deal with the problem of tracking the Dedication and Donations of every Member.

Why does this worry me? It is very hard for the Corp to buy something for one member, and not for another. It causes unrest, it makes people feel "in or out" of favor, it hurts feelings. Yet, if member 1 gives 10 giga credits to the Corp, and member 2 gives 10 mega credits... The guy who gave more thinks he should get more. He will, he will get promoted faster and he will get first dibs on the newest Cruiser etc…. But what if member 2 gave us 20000 Zydrine that doesn’t show up? His “contributions” look lower…but are they really?

One way to solve this:

Why can’t the CEOS set a tax rate of 0 - 100% if we desire that? ...and... Why doesn't that tax rate apply to each and every transaction the Corporate members make? In other words if they sell Isogen for 64 and had 200000 units, the corp gets whatever % the tax rate is….. Why cant a member “deposit” 5000 Omber into the Corp account and have that logged as a “donation”. That way I can be certain that each member is pulling his "fair share" without having to track each and every thing every member gives. That would be fair to all members,across the board... and there would be no accusations of "favoritism" going on.

4. A system whereby we can “Pay” our employees for their Contibutions.

I have owned a corporation and I have worked at some large ones....In the business world, letting employees KNOW what others make is a fast way to loose employees...but how do you hide it when Member one gets a XX Crusier...and member 2 asks for one and doesnt get it?

The way you handle that is that every m

Posted - 2003.06.22 20:08:00 - [19]

 

I know others have said similar things above, but I want to reiterate the desire for corporation buying and selling. I think it is rediculous that I have to take someting out of the corporate hanger to sell it, and then give the money back to the corporation. Same goes for refining. I want to be able to let people in the corp refine things in the corporate hanger, but not be able to take them out. I also want people to sell things in the corporate hanger and have that money automatically go to the corporation wallet.

Posted - 2003.06.23 11:19:00 - [21]

 

After reading this thread, it seems nobody noticed Redundancy's idea. But I believe he hit the nail right on the head with his suggestion. A group based roles system. I've yet to play with the new corp stuff, but from what people are saying there are still, how do I put this, 'issues' with it.

So, Onto the idea.

You would first setup a group, lets say a Miners group. This group would have access to put ore into a hanger.

Then you could assign all the miners in your corp to this corp. They all instantly get access to the relevant hangers, and if you use the idea suggested by Redundancy and use the layout similar to the bookmarks, with folders, the CEO will instantly be able to see who has access to what.

All groups should be CEO creatable only, or you would need a role to create/modify groups and this could get very complicated very quickly, but then again, I could be wrong :)

I was also thinking about allowing a member to be in more than one group, but this could lead to problems, ie. not noticing you put the new guy into the Accountant group. The only way around this I can think of is allowing the view of rights to be, by group AND by member, eg.

by group
| - Group 1
| | - Member 1
| | - Member 2
|
| - Group 2
| | - Member 2
| | - Member 3

by member
| - Member 1
| | - Group 1
| - Member 2
| | - Group 1
| | - Group 2
| - Member 3
| | - Group 2

(sorry for my dodgy ASCII art)

This idea also make Eldariel happy, as the groups are profiles :)

I also agree with allowing Corps to sell items aswell, and face it dev's, we're not gonna shut up 'till you put it in, so just give in now :)

This is just my 2isk, but I strongly urge CCP to sit down and think about this, and forget about how much work it would be, and just think about what would be the best way to implement this.

*Edit: I've just noticed Latta's post, I must have missed this. sorry for the duplication*

Edited by: elFarto on 23/06/2003 11:24:12

Posted - 2003.06.23 23:35:00 - [23]

 

This is really starting to take shape. Unfortunatly, I haven't been able to log onto the test server and check it all out yet, but I like a lot of the changes I'm reading about and would just like to add my 2 ISK.

The first thing that I see is in the "factory manager/accountant" roles. I would recommend removing these associations from the hangers/accounts for specific hangers.

I see the Accountant responsibility is to manage the funds to and from all the accounts. Another words, the accountant would put or take cash from the main account to/from the hanger accounts. In general he would have access to all Corp Cash. This responsibility should not be tied to a hanger. It has the potential of wasting a hanger for incorrect security rights to the accountant.

The factory manager should be modified slightly. while I can see the association with the a factory hanger, there really isn't a factory hanger anymore. This person's responsibility is to configure the hangers and factory for corp manufacuring. This is the one person that should configure which corporate hanger the minerals and bp's should come out of and which hanger the created items would go into. The same should be done with research facilities.

When an individual begins a manufacturing job, they should only be presented with 1 question. "Is this a corp or individual production run?" If is is a corp run it uses the paramaters setup by the factory manager. If it is an individual run, then it uses the person's hanger to take and put the mineral/finished product in. That way they can't configure the system to use the corp hanger for bp and minerals and place it into their personal hanger for sales at a later date.

The last recommendation here would be to add a Market or sales manager that configured corp sales and buy orders hangers and Accounts defaults similar to the factory manager.

This would leave the station manager to setup the paramaters for the station defaults such as charges etc.

Next I would like to add a little to the accounts in general. It would really be nice if there were more than just the hanger accounts. I see the division or hanger accounts as petty cash or operating expense account. I would like to see additional accounts such as savings accounts for specific goals.

I would like to be able to setup specific "goal" accounts that are not associated with a hanger. These accounts anyone and contribute to, but not withdraw from. One example would be a Battleship bp or a cruser bp fund. It would be nice if these accounts would have the same rights...take or query. That way general population could see the balances of these accounts and how well a corp is doing towards a goal.

Finally, I would make warning on one item. That is that the CEO still has God like powers. In some corps thats fine, but in some corps, people would like to run it differently, where the board of directors has control of who gets what access and the ceo is the director of activity and doesn't have access to everything. This would safeguard the members of the corp form division heads as well as the ceo as the changes thus far have protected the management(and the rank and file as well) from someone new to the corp (i.e. not a director or above)

Posted - 2003.06.24 00:19:00 - [25]

 

Ack, Jarune, one big prob with your post, though I agree with the vast majority. No placing sell orders with just query access. That should require take access. Otherwise folks with query and not take could just sell an item from the corp to themselves personally for 1 ISK.

Posted - 2003.06.24 09:01:00 - [27]

 

I posted this in a seperate post before I saw this one, but here goes anyway:

In addition to the 2 types of access to the hangar (Can Query, and Can Take) we should also have "Can Drop".

Why you ask me? well here's why: to be able to have Query/Take only hangars where players wouldn't be able to put the items back. Why again you ask again? Well here's why:

If for example, you have a corp who pools everything in the corp hangar, and provides its members with what they need... you don't want every member to have access to every type of items (noobs getting easy access to very rare drop when they are only in a frigate?), so you want to sort items in different sections depending on their level, and only allow take access to some of them depending on the rank of the member. The problem with this and the current system is for the hangar manager that has to sort everything...

If everymember that can take an item from a hangar can also drop anything in that same hangar... well no matter how many times you tell them to always repack the items, and only put everything in 1 specific hangar for you to sort it later (common drop hangar), there's still some lunatics that will drop junk where it doesn't belong, and the poor hangar manager will have to take 20 minutes to repack/resort everything..

It's hard to explain right, so I hope you get what I mean.

By having the choice to give separate Query, Take, and Drop access, you could have a setup like this:

Hangar 1: everyone can Query and take, only hangar manager can drop
(basic loot, small ammo, and other abundant items)

Hangar 2: everyone can Query, but only higher level fighters can take, only hangar manager can drop.
(cruiser gear, more advanced modules, more advanced ammo...)

Hangar 3: everyone can query, everyone can drop, but only the hangar manager can take.
(Common drop for haulers and every member. Place where the hangar manager can sort everything from)

See what I mean?

Someone also asked me why I wanted to have "showcase" hangars (in my other post)... Well, as I replied to him: How can a noob requests for a better item that we have in our possession, if he cannot see what's available?

Edited by: Ehxo on 24/06/2003 09:03:06

Edited by: Ehxo on 24/06/2003 09:04:54

Posted - 2003.07.01 04:04:00 - [29]

 

Sounds pretty good, but putting the new functionality to the test will be the true indicator.

Two thing I didn't see mentioned that are paramount:

1) Allow corps to unrent offices. Mergers cannot work since the acquiring corp can't get the offices. Also, some corporation are defunct and have no need for offices yet they can't be given up.

2) Allow people other than corporate directors to establish offices. We have players who want to rent offices, but we have to allow them to be directors to do so. That is insanely risky and can only add to the threat of thievery.