Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eldariel
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 13:16:00 -
[1]
Hellmar,
One quick question. I vaguely remember from test (at work atm, so can't check) that the edit member profile only listed one sec clearance level setting.
From the blog it reads as if granting a member sec level 3 allows them to *only* see sec hangar 3, not sec 1 or sec 2. Is this correct? When I tested it I thought a user assigned sec level 3 could see hangars 1,2 and 3...
Also, if it genuinely is configured so you can only see the hangar matching your sec level - presumably this means you have to manually assign each sec level to each employee (potentially 5 separat sec level assignments for a director for instance), yet the edit member profile only shows 1 sec level. Shouldn't it show all profiles assigned to date?
Cheers
|
Redundancy
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 14:23:00 -
[2]
The assignment is for a single sec level (discounting the allowances for the sec levels that that member can then grant), and they can see all the sec level hangars equal to and below that level.
Redundancy |
Eldariel
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 16:29:00 -
[3]
That's what I thought, the ...
Quote: As the clearance "levels" are basically roles, then having clearance 5 doesnÆt imply that you have clearance 1, each lower clearance has to be assigned
...comment had me confused though :)
Edited by: Eldariel on 10/06/2003 16:31:53
|
Hippey
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 17:10:00 -
[4]
Yeah the comment shows that you could have sec level 1, 2 and 4 but not 3 and 5. But I guess this now makes sense. ------------------------------------------- If you kill them, they will die!
Sport the war, war support The sport is war, total war When victory's really a massacre. The final swing is not a drill It's how many people I can kill! |
Hellmar
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 17:16:00 -
[5]
Hmm, this is actually an implementation mistake. We are looking into reversing it. These are essentially roles even though the naming sort of implies them being levels but at the heart of the technical implementation they are roles and forcing them to be something else breeds confusion and bugs.
Actually when we started to do the accounts also the security levels become more akin to divisions with in the corp, with no hierarchy implied (apart from maybe calling one recruitment).
So currently I am a bit tempted to take out the implied hierarchy derived from calling this Security Level and change the 5 levels to 7 divisions (i.e. Recruiting, Management, Purchase and sales, Manufacturing and Research, Military, Liaison, Logistics). It would be easy enough to change it so that the division names could be user definable per corp so basically we define that you have 7 hangars and 7 accounts + 1 general and you give them names and assign access to one or more account/hangar combo per employee. Note that 5 levels become 7 divisions as we had already added 2 special purpose hangars (market and factories).
As both solutions have + and - I would value your input on the matter. The role/division one allows for more flexibility and is therefore less directing, while the Security Level one is less flexible and more clearly defines the climb up the corporate ladder.
|
Morkt Drakt
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 17:26:00 -
[6]
Player manageable "options", even down to the extent of free naming of hangar areas (and thus divisions) HAS to be the way to go.
It provides a gameplay option for people.
Need anything more be said?
|
Nekayah
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 20:01:00 -
[7]
Please separate manufacturing from R&D.
Blueprint originals are the single largest capital investment that most corps make, and those original BPs require the tightest security.
Manufacturing can run off copies without risking the loss of originals if this split is implemented.
This means there needs to be a 3rd special category: one attached to labs instead of factories.
Edited by: Nekayah on 10/06/2003 20:01:56
|
Eldariel
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 20:14:00 -
[8]
Well it depends on how you've architected the solution ...
If you've implemented a solution which allows renaming of hangars/ accounts, *and* each employee can be assigned *more than one profile* (i.e. can be assigned access to all seven hangars through the use of independent roles) then this is the most flexible solution (as this allows corps to "custom build" as per below).
If you are restricting employees to a single role (i.e. access to one hangar only) then this totally changes the scenario. In this case I'd be inclined to follow the security profile route rather than the divisional route..
If we take research as an example:
We have a research division within the corporation, to which we assign one of the hangars/ account profiles. We then drop all our BP's in the research hangar to restrict access to employees assigned the research role only
What happens when we employ a new employee to research? They have access to *all* of the sensitive BP's in addition to those we may want them to have access to as a junior employee. We can't simply move it across to another hangar, since this just makes it visible to other divisions, and also prevents all research employees from accessing the BPs.
Effectively what this approach does is dilute out the exploit problem into separate divisions, but doesn't tackle it head on.
The security approach *does* tackle the problem head on, since in the above scenario you could place low risk BP's in a low security area for training, which you then assign to new research employees. Access to more sensitive material is limited to those of a higher rank. Over time the new employee would be assigned a higher security access profile, and hence access to the more sensitive BPs. The flaw in this approach is that it enables corporate wide visibility at each level, but I assume by the time we assign someone sec level 4 (for instance) that we trust them....
From what you've said in the blog it sounds like your heading towards the first option (i.e. each employee can be assigned more than one role granting hangar access). However, when I last checked (1071) the edit profile option only allowed you to increment the sec level - whereas if each employee can be assigned multiple roles I'd expect to see a yes/no option against each hangar/ account profile ...
Hope that helps...
Cheers
P.S. I assume you saw the comment on the Members hangar exploit in my 1070 bugs & comments post.. :)
Edited by: Eldariel on 10/06/2003 20:23:57
|
Hellmar
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 20:59:00 -
[9]
You can assign more than one role per employee, the nature of roles, although we have had too many over loaded roles; I want to break them up to have the most flexibility.
I take it then that you prefer the division approach (with 7 customisable division names)?
|
Galfrey
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 21:07:00 -
[10]
Absolutely! Separate roles/hangars please, even for my little corp it is a far better solution than we have now :)
Galfrey |
|
Eldariel
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 21:15:00 -
[11]
Absolutely,
If corps can name the hangars/ accounts as they please (relative to profile), and can assign hangars/accounts to employees as they please (with multiple roles per employee) then you have already implemented the most flexible solution possible :)
Essentially the above allows corps to implement *either* the division approach or the security approach depending on how they configure it...
Is there additional configuration to add on the security level assignation (per employee) then - as I said it currently only allows you to increment. This wouldn't fit with the multiple roles/ employee model (in this context)
Edited by: Eldariel on 10/06/2003 21:19:05
|
Hippey
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 21:19:00 -
[12]
Yes yes.. what they said above.. that would be great.. and once again, thanks for listening and hell, ASKING :) That's phenomenal. ------------------------------------------- If you kill them, they will die!
Sport the war, war support The sport is war, total war When victory's really a massacre. The final swing is not a drill It's how many people I can kill! |
Eldariel
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 21:29:00 -
[13]
Just as an aside...
When you roll this out I recommend you knock together a "how to" guide for setting it up. The last thing you want is a load of complaints because people hadn't configured it properly, and this is pretty fundamental to corporate operations.
Simple HTML guide would suffice (but viewable via the in-game browser)
Edited by: Eldariel on 10/06/2003 21:31:28
|
Hippey
|
Posted - 2003.06.10 21:34:00 -
[14]
Yeah that's right. You don't wanna a flood of petitions because all the corps got robbed due to misunderstanding of the system. ------------------------------------------- If you kill them, they will die!
Sport the war, war support The sport is war, total war When victory's really a massacre. The final swing is not a drill It's how many people I can kill! |
Ga'shitan
|
Posted - 2003.06.11 02:06:00 -
[15]
Yes, I definitely think the division approach is a better way of handling it. No need for me to say why because the folks above have said it for me :)
Also, would it be possible to implement some kind of basic categorisation system for the hangars? Maybe some sub-containers within the hangar, so that for example the "military" hangar could separate ammunition, weapons, ECM etc. It would help to reduce the clutter.
|
Ralimenua
|
Posted - 2003.06.11 13:04:00 -
[16]
Yes, please!
5 corp-defined hangar names and 5 corp-defined account names would be fabulous, and allow some of us more outrÚ Corporations a flavour all of our own... it's just not enough to have industrials called Fattest Camel Around and Another Fat Camel, I would love to have an Oasis and a Seraglio in all my offices.
On a side note, will it ever be possible to see the names of ships that are flying by? I want to share my bountiful nomenclature with the universe.
--------------=o0O+O0o=-------------- Grand Vizier and General Factotum
Hazara Khan's Haphazard Bazaar The Finest Camels in all EVE! O0o=------------------+------------------=o0O |
Hellmar
|
Posted - 2003.06.11 13:22:00 -
[17]
Ok we are going ahead with the sec group/divisions approach. First cut will be on the test server in a couple of hours (marginal change over the levels). Next layer of features will be pushed over to next week to have time to do them properly. Next week update will include divisions accounts, naming of divisions, selectable account/hangar for market orders, in/out for factories and a system to allow for the use of blueprints without taking them.
|
Memphis
|
Posted - 2003.06.11 13:45:00 -
[18]
Hellmar, this is brilliant!
Thx for the effort.
|
Steini OFSI
|
Posted - 2003.06.11 16:36:00 -
[19]
Maybe I'll grap the chance when I know Hellmar is watching this post to ask one thing about skills. Ok so I ask when I have lvl 1 in some skill that gives say 5% bonus per skill lvl, will lvl 2 in that same skill give me 5% extra bonus total 10% or 5% extra bonus from base and 5% of that 5% from the first lvl?
|
Hellmar
|
Posted - 2003.06.11 16:52:00 -
[20]
Please don't mix topics Any way the sec level -> sec group change is out along with the last batch of balance changes 1074 is the code (save some mini fixes) that will go out tomorrow.
|
|
Eldariel
|
Posted - 2003.06.11 20:06:00 -
[21]
OK had a quick scan tonight when I got in...
Looks like the role assignment for the sec groups has yet to go in - I'll try again when that's available... currently can't assign the sec group roles to my alts etc..
Cheers
|
qeySuS
|
Posted - 2003.06.11 20:52:00 -
[22]
Are you saying it's missing from the "Edit member" window or from the application process window (where you ask for roles and grantable roles)?
|
Eldariel
|
Posted - 2003.06.11 22:35:00 -
[23]
Missing from the edit member window (haven't checked the full app process yet since 1072), in the roles/ grantable roles for the member
Factory etc are there as per previous design in the edit member profile, but the incremental sec level assignment that was there in 1072 is gone, and there doesn't appear to be anything that replaces it.
e.g. I would assume (?) I'm looking for a tab that has 5 sec group checkboxes for each sec group hangar, or something equivalent - correct me if im wrong...
Edited by: Eldariel on 11/06/2003 22:39:22
|
Helen Baque
|
Posted - 2003.06.12 06:18:00 -
[24]
Okay, I'm going to ask a question and hope that I'm not the only one who can't figure this out: what is the difference between "roles" and "grantable roles"?
-- Helen Baque Baque Industries
|
Quasel
|
Posted - 2003.06.12 06:51:00 -
[25]
wowo Hellmar you are great ! those Divsion thing and the option to use BP¦s for Research/Production without the ppl to be able to take it GREAT - you can let ppl let do their work without risking the loss of Bp¦s.
So if i understand right we can say Hangar X to take Minerals from - Hangar Y to take BP¦s from and Hangar X to put items in ? and the Producing guy needs no Accses to one of those Hangar?
Edited by: Quasel on 12/06/2003 06:52:54 - - - like a little ant :D |
Blackout
|
Posted - 2003.06.12 09:48:00 -
[26]
Helen, a role is given a character. A grantable role allows the character to give a role to another character.
-Perfer at obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim. |
Hellmar
|
Posted - 2003.06.12 11:19:00 -
[27]
Eldariel are you sure you were using 1074+?
|
Greeble
|
Posted - 2003.06.12 11:32:00 -
[28]
A quick point about access to blueprints.
How about restricting access to blueprints such that placing them into a ship's cargo hold or factory-slot that's not rented by the corporation requires the BP to be "signed out" by another member of the corporation?
This would effectively mean that someone wanting to do a rip and run would have to have help to do it. It would mean that legit BP-users would have hassle using them, though, on a day-to-day basis.
And there would have to be a check on the destination of the BP when it leaves the corp-owned factory slot, too (so the ripper can't move it from the corp hangar to a corp slot, and THEN his cargo hold, say).
- Greeble Polaris BugHunter |
Miphor
|
Posted - 2003.06.12 11:54:00 -
[29]
Hmm, last idea on blueprints I am definately against. Consider a corporation of 1 player, or in my case spending a lot of time online with no other corp member about - it would stop me from doing anything. Ideally a 'role' that allows removal of BP from hangar would be sufficient, assuming that BP can be 'used' (ie factory/lab) without having to first be removed from said hangar. Ie I want to let people use the BP to make items and also I want them to be able to research originals, but I dont want them to be taking the BP out of the appropriate hangar location. This makes it a pain to get BP's around to different stations (need someone with the correct role) but allows corps fine control over who has possibility of 'stealing' BP while still getting maximum benefit of owning BP.
it's a thought, maybe not coherent.
|
Helen Baque
|
Posted - 2003.06.12 15:11:00 -
[30]
Blackout, many thanks!
-- Helen Baque Baque Industries
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |