Topic for a collection of complaints about Corp Role Management

(Lady Ayeipsia) #1

I doubt this will work as this will most likely just turn into a trollfest. Still…

What would people like to see changed in corp role management/structure?

I know I always had problems with how few roles could actually kick someone from a corp. Only CEO and Directors can. I understand the original logic and the ease of programming for this set up. Still, it sucks. One reason some large corps never trim the fat unless needed, it’s just too much of a pain. It has to be the CEO or a Director and generally those people have better things to do then to clear out accounts who have not logged in a month.

I dislike seeing last active being limited to over a month. EVE’s almost 15 years old. Give me 3 months and 6 months to cover summer lull.

I hate the hangar management system. I can grant access to main office hangars, all other hangars, or assign a player a home and grant access only at the players home. This system kind of works if you know what you are doing, but is limited and the interface is confusing. Add to this the fact that you can grant access to a hangar but not the containers in a hangar and it gets really confusing if you are not careful.

These are just a few gripes that come to mibd when I remember my struggles with the system. Any other comments on the system?

Corp Management Thoughts & Suggestion
(DaReaper) #2

eh? i don;t even look at that, i look at ‘last log in’ and just use the date when i kick people.

Corp skills should be cut. They are a bit useless and should be available from the start to anyone. (I.e. you don;t need the skills to make a corp, just an isk fee)

Roles blow

Stocks are useless, time to remove them or make them useful.

(Nasar Vyron) #3

Corp hangar roles were made worse by the release of citadels for how many things didn’t just carry over, like locking down BPOs. It’s actually kind of funny. But anyway…

With the new ACLs that came with citadels you’d think they would have thought to apply them to corp hangar access as well. Which would have removed the need to completely rework corp roles by simply allowing CEOs or directors to apply an ACL to a entire hangar or can(s) within to broaden or restrict what the base roles allow for. Industry players get access to one hangar, but market can have access to a station warehouse container within it where finished products are delivered. The industry players are actually blacklisted to pull from that container, but not the others.

A CEO may want a certain players to have the ability to kick or invite, but not be a director. That’s currently not possible. Or they may want a player they have put in charge of Indy/Structures to have the ability to grant/remove the roles of those under them, but not put them on the pedestal of directorship which would then grant them far more power than just removing related roles.

I’ll stop there. I listed out a good deal of other problems I have with corp roles in that other thread. The long and the short of it is CCP needs to allow for more control outside of the broad strokes that roles currently do.

(Trespasser) #4

We Need more titles,hangers and wallet divisions.

The ability to direct incoming isk to corporate wallets to different divisions, so for example i can make a ratting tax wallet and have all ratting taxes automatically put in that wallet. Same with install fees, rental fees etc.

Much more granular roles, so for example allow me to give someone just the ability to fit a citadel or the ability to have access to just 1 can in a hanger as opposed to the whole hanger / all containers. Access lists can be a way to fix this

Citadel transfer mechanics / roles are completely screwed and its causing alot of alliances to restrict who gets them and to what types because at any point they can be instantly transferred with no warning to anyone.

I suggest adding at least a 24 hour transfer period and anytime in that period it can be cancelled.

(LouHodo) #5

Ideally corps should be broken into 3 broad groups.


Industrial corps would be your typical manufacture and mining corps. They would have a very fluid structure allowing for leadership changes with little interruption in the day to day operations of the company. The stocks/shares generally will be spread out and have little actual value individually but provide voting and controlling power over the corporation not to mention profit sharing.

Military corps, will be VERY ridged. Leadership will be with a strict chain of command, there will be no board of trustees, no comity, and no share holders. The leader will control 100% of the corp and has final say in EVERYTHING done. These will be your primary PVP corps as they have little chance of a single person destroying the whole corp.

Private or Privately owned. These arent really corps, they can be setup how the own feels but most will not have shares and will be like military corps but with more options by the owner of the company.

(system) #6

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.