open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Corp Role Granularity
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Andrev Nox
SOMER Blink
Cognitive Development
Posted - 2011.05.10 05:38:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Andrev Nox on 10/05/2011 06:46:33
The issue:

Over the years, the corp role system has become increasingly antiquated.

At it's inception, it was designed around fairly resource-poor corporations with 10-50 members and 1-3 offices. Even at that time, the roles were a bit too sweeping, but we've always made it work.

In modern day eve, when corporations and alliances can have a dozen offices and hundreds of billions in assets, it is far, far too wide a scope.

Currently, there are certain roles which are carte blanche.

Contracts: Allowing someone to make one contract on behalf of the corporation means they can delete any outstanding corporate contracts

Delivery Hangars: Unlike corp hangars, there is no per-station control. Access to one means access to all.

Science/Industry Jobs: Like delivery hangar, there is no location restriction. If someone wants to build some ammo for the corp, you have to trust them not to cancel the titan build 57 jumps away that they didn't even know about.

Wallet Journal: Currently, to allow someone access to view the wallet journal, you also have to allow access to delivery hangars. Equally, granting any type of view role means showing the current contents of all wallet divisions.

Corp Hangars: The current system is based on 3 choices. "Headquarters" "Based at" and "Everything else in the entire universe" - need to give someone POS hangar access? You also have to give them access to every hangar everywhere that isn't the HQ or their based at location.

POS access in general: Giving any type of access to one pos means the same type of access to every pos.

The fixes:

Granularity.

Contracts - "Can Create" and "Can Modify" roles. "Modify" can even be broken down to "Created from Wallet Div X" - but even without that change, just a "Can Modify" flag would eliminate 90% of the problem.

Delivery Hangars - at the least, enable the same flags as currently in place for offices. Ideally, the flags as suggested below for office role reform.

Science and Industry - the same as contracts. Can Install, Can Cancel. Cancel can be broken down to "Installed from location X" for further granularity.

Wallet Journal: The same as hangar roles. "View" and "Take" roles, per division.

Corp Hangars: There is no issue with assigning a contract or market order to a specific station. Why not expand hangar roles in the same way? Allow roles to be set on a per-station basis. Ideally, the above Science and Industry roles would fall into this as well.

POS access: If not possible to assign roles through the corp interface for a specific POS, then at least make it possible from the POS equipment itself. An "Allowed" list, rather than an access role.

Overall, these seem to be fairly low-hanging fruit from an outsiders perspective. Yet any one of them alone would represent a massive change in the ability for larger scaled operations to function in a more decentralized way.

Roles, as they stand now, remove the ability for any significant asset usage delegation, as the trust must be nearly-all or none. It provides no opportunity for newer players to work their way upward in their corporate responsibilities in regards to corporate assets. With these changes, the importance of trust in Eve is no less important - but the ability to place a more finely tuned value on that trust becomes far more possible.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.05.10 05:58:00 - [2]
 


Planetary Genocide
Gallente
White Sail Anarchists
Yarr Collective
Posted - 2011.05.10 06:03:00 - [3]
 

+1.

Being able to have station-based roles for things like Security Officer and whatnot would be really cool but slightly unncessary, but I agree that for things like hangar access it'd be nice to not have to rely on basing someone somewhere and limiting them to one station because of it, or giving them carte blanche access to everything that isn't the HQ

Andrev Nox
SOMER Blink
Cognitive Development
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:36:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Planetary Genocide
+1.

Being able to have station-based roles for things like Security Officer and whatnot would be really cool but slightly unncessary, but I agree that for things like hangar access it'd be nice to not have to rely on basing someone somewhere and limiting them to one station because of it, or giving them carte blanche access to everything that isn't the HQ


Agreed, some roles would usually be set universally instead of per-station. But that would be the beauty of a "All" or "Specific Station" flag - the ability to choose. :)

Tobiaz
Spacerats
Posted - 2011.05.24 17:25:00 - [5]
 

Dividing some roles in separate tiers like senior and junior posguy/production/contractguy where the lower tiers can not access the higher tier's work should do the trick. Also being able to divide the corp in several branches (dividing stations, pos, assets, access) where roles on the same tier can't access the work of those in other branches, would also help big corporations. A thief/saboteur would then only be able to affect a single branch of the corporation.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles

Posted - 2011.05.24 19:42:00 - [6]
 

Just so that people realise what they're asking for here:

This isn't going to happen until CCP reworks an enormous amount of stuff and completely replaces the existing system. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to suggest that this proposal would require an entire expansion's worth of technical work, possibly more.

At present, all corp roles, GM roles and Dev roles for each character are stored as individual bits in a single 64-bit variable (or some other fairly limited length). There is not a lot of room to manoeuver, and this affects nearly every part of EVE in some way, including many areas of code that haven't been touched for several years, such as the POS code. It all just about works for the time being, although many people are unhappy with various aspects of it, and there's every chance that lots of things will break if any attempt is made to change it, just like the UI.

Consider the last time sovreignty was overhauled. CCP did not create any additional roles relating to TCUs or SBUs, even though using them is a crucial part of the new system, which should really be separate from everything else. Instead, they re-used the existing role of Station Manager, which also allows corp members to fiddle around with refinery taxes and docking fees at corp outposts. To me, this indicates just how much they wanted to avoid having to mess around with these systems.

That said, they're going to find it hard to add more features at some point without adding more roles to control them, so I suppose this will eventually become a priority. Supported.

Orb Vex

Posted - 2011.05.25 10:46:00 - [7]
 


Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
Posted - 2011.05.25 12:23:00 - [8]
 

Seriously..

fix it.

Ere Colliseru
Etoilles Mortant Ltd.
Solyaris Chtonium
Posted - 2011.05.25 13:02:00 - [9]
 

supported

couriertrading alt
Posted - 2011.05.31 20:36:00 - [10]
 

Supported/bump.

Yumi Masae
Posted - 2011.08.22 02:05:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Yumi Masae on 22/08/2011 02:05:07
Necro'd, bumped, and supported.

Even running a relatively small corp in a relatively small alliance, the lack of role granularity combined with the inability to properly allow alliance use of POS facilities has made this a nightmare. Everyone in every corp that doesn't have its own set of research POS's wants an alt in the owning corp. While that's fine with us, there are plenty of things they simply shouldn't be given access to. We've already had to tell some people they can't use our spare ME research slots for a reason ultimately boiling down to "You don't need to know about all the other stuff we have researching/building," due to the inability to set these flags with proper ganularity.

Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
draketrain
Posted - 2011.08.22 16:57:00 - [12]
 

you know it would be pretty difficult to infiltrate any organization if all roles could be restricted to one particular item.

what you're failing to see here is that maybe roles were probably meant to be "dangerous".

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.22 19:32:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Magnus Orin on 23/08/2011 16:26:46
Supported

Darryl Ward
Posted - 2011.08.22 19:37:00 - [14]
 


DeftCrow Redriver
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2011.08.23 15:59:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: DeftCrow Redriver on 23/08/2011 15:58:52
Masterful use of necromancy. Supported.

mxzf
Minmatar
Shovel Bros
Posted - 2011.08.23 17:13:00 - [16]
 

I know it'd be a decent amount of work to do, but we really do need better roles.

Eperor
Posted - 2011.08.29 11:56:00 - [17]
 

fully support this, i had in mind the smae ting almost. that way i wil nto psot it in forum. but fully support this topic

Overs
Posted - 2011.08.30 03:20:00 - [18]
 

...and let corp thieves use their hacking skill to breach this security.

Eperor
Posted - 2011.08.30 10:08:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Overs
...and let corp thieves use their hacking skill to breach this security.


that to wuld bo good and get soem notifcation to corp CEO and directors if they have beter hakcking skil or make new corp skill hoo decrieses using that hacking skil to break it but stil posibleto break it if use multiple ppl so to say. IF tiefs are 3 guys in corp they have lvl5 hacking skils but directors are 5 ppl and have that defence skil like 5 al off them after soem trues with used tief leadership off corp get notified and they can harash tiefs to not only tiefs can harash them, that agein corp tiefing not turns in risk free ting.

Marara Kovacs
Posted - 2011.08.30 21:21:00 - [20]
 

yes please


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only