Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 11:18:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 27/05/2010 11:20:17
Introduction
During the past two years, the CSM has raised dozens of minor UI fixes. While a small handful of these issues have been implemented in-game, it remains obvious that the EVE UI is fundamentally flawed. CCP has stated that they intend to revamp the UI at some point, but as we have seen the past years, they never get further than band-aid fixes. Rather than raising another dozen specific UI issues which will either get ignored or are just band-aids, I would like to ask CCP to just revamp the whole UI once and for all.
Why Commit Resources?
* The UI is one of the major turnoff points of the game from the perspective of new users. * Improving the UI positively impacts all playstyles and all areas of the game. * Much less subsequent resources required to make changes and additions. * UI improvments will render certain existing content in EVE more accessible (science, industry, POS management, etc). A lot of players do not bother with this content due to a needlessly complex UI. * The current UI gives EVE a very dated and inaccessible appearance.
What is Needed?
* More context-sensitive one-click buttons to replace the drop-down menus. * Modular functionality so players can customize their UI. * Clipboard-like lists where players can put links (solar systems, bookmarks, locations, people, items) so they don't need to have lots of windows open at the same time to access these. * No needless functionality duplication (Example, having a reset camera function in the rightclick menu when selecting your ship, when there is a one-click button in the main interface doing the same). * Means to tell items apart (BPO from BPC, Meta Levels, Faction/Officer modules, type of item) * A readable font, which scales properly. * Better hotkey support.
Feedback Please!
Please provide general UI improvements you believe should be included. Arguments to convince CCP to commit to a UI revamp are particularly welcome.
|
Ophias
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 12:42:00 -
[2]
Sorry, not supported. In my opinion too much work for too little reward.
Some of your other proposals are more important.
1) Fix factional warfare 2) Address lag. We all know it is technically impossible for the system to scale up smoothly, ultimately there needs to be a mechanism by which having many ships in the same system is either actively prevented, or somehow discouraged via some other mechanism like weakened sensors
|
CommmanderInChief
Comply Or Die
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 12:49:00 -
[3]
Edited by: CommmanderInChief on 27/05/2010 12:49:06
Originally by: Ophias Sorry, not supported. In my opinion too much work for too little reward.
too little reward? are you serious? this is why nothing gets done because of comments like this...
The UI is outdated and does need a change, but yeah it is a bit of work. But so what....
If not then allow the UI to be modded then CCP dont have to revamp the UI.
|
Furb Killer
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 12:53:00 -
[4]
CCP cant make a UI, allow player modification please.
But yeah a good ui needs less drop down menus, and with the menus you keep only show on default the most used ones, most of the right click options are never or barely used and clutter the important ones. And when busy also remove the ones that cannot even be used, like renaming ships you arent in, bookmarking stuff on directional scanner, etc.
|
I'thari
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 14:33:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Please provide general UI improvements you believe should be included.
There was more than enough threads about UI, one of most recent ones: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1280781
Still, most of the stuff covered in PDF: almost two year old thread
Apart from that more tooltips and explanation in UI would be nice: why do I have to go to wiki to understand WTF falloff or explosion velocity is?
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Arguments to convince CCP to commit to a UI revamp are particularly welcome.
What arguments? They poven that they can't/won't/don't want to do it... every time they introduced somehting new they followed same parth: make clickfest mini-games, add delays between clicks and call it UI.
And don't tell me that they did it so they can scrap it later and re-make all UI from scratch - that's utterly stupid thing to do if they really intend to revamp UI. |
T'Amber
www.shipsofeve.com
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 19:25:00 -
[6]
:) Lots of posts on this subject, most of them good.
Aslong as there wouldn't be anyway players could get an advantage over others (ie. mods and macros etc.) I'm in, like everyone else will be unless they're ******ed.
CCP knows, we know they know, and they know we know they know.
-T'amber
SHIPS OF EVE FIVE
|
Trebor Daehdoow
Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 19:56:00 -
[7]
Obviously I support UI reform, though I disagree with T'Amber about the mods (but not about making sure they can't be abused).
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 20:13:00 -
[8]
The ideal would be a moddable UI. I know CCP has already said no, but push them for it anyways(informally). It would, bar none, be the single best change to Eve that could be made. Failing that, do what you can to get them to improve it. Large amounts of data always devolve into spreadsheet form sooner or later, but there are spreadsheets and there are spreadsheets. Also, some of the little things that are just appallingly bad - Eve's text chat, for example, makes me pine for the Yahoo Messenger client I had in 1997. They're working through these - the new mail client is actually pretty good, and the new IGB is at least somewhat usable - but there's still a lot that need work.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 20:47:00 -
[9]
Supporting this, but you should also push for a moddable UI.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Neti Keire
Amarr Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 21:27:00 -
[10]
Not supported. Or rather, I wouldn't mind UI improvements, but like some of the others I'm against allowing player mods. Keep the playing field level for everyone, thanks.
|
|
Argo Pyxis
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 21:53:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Ophias Sorry, not supported. In my opinion too much work for too little reward.
Some of your other proposals are more important.
1) Fix factional warfare 2) Address lag. We all know it is technically impossible for the system to scale up smoothly, ultimately there needs to be a mechanism by which having many ships in the same system is either actively prevented, or somehow discouraged via some other mechanism like weakened sensors
Whoa there, you seem to be under the impression that the same team which maintains the EVE UI are also the same people who would be tasked with improving the game play and server design/performance aspects.
I honestly doubt this is the case, so I don't think your fear of time resource/project time dilution is realistic.
/AP
|
mkmin
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 22:27:00 -
[12]
Considering CCP completely sucks noodles every time they touch the UI the general "UI revamp" proposal is not supported. Seriously, 1 out of 20 things they do with the UI is actually good, and it's never their own idea. The reason it needs to be revamped is because they flunked their interface usability classes in college. Who's to say they'll make it any better instead of completely breaking the functionality that's still there? The only thing I would support is letting it be completely customizable so people can make it not suck on their own. Problem with customization is easier macro access, which is another problem CCP fails at dealing with.
|
Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari Hull Tanking Elitists
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 04:15:00 -
[13]
This UI is beyond fixing. It needs to be burned down and rebuilt from scratch, with a team of competent UI designers and HCI specialists in charge.
|
Fellhahn
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 04:27:00 -
[14]
Need for a scalable font is a big one for me, it's tiny to the point of unreadable when playing at 1920x1200.
More customization would be nice too, move things around etc.
|
Spirulina Laxissima
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 05:23:00 -
[15]
By renaming the BPC/BPO as outlined in http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1325356 they could be easily separated. And lots of other items too.
Do look into revamping the UI, please.
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 07:29:00 -
[16]
Rolling too many items into a single proposal like this makes it tricky to support - so I won't
I support many of the UI fixes. I do not support attaching the modular UI into a fixes proposal. Modular UI should be a totally separate proposal so it doesn't cause the other UI fixes to be rejected. It certainly can't be left as a single bullet point in a list of "fixes"
I will outline my objection to the modular UI right now and why I can't support this proposal whilst it is included.
- It creates a huge opportunity for exploiting (see below)
- It needs some kind of limited scripting support (using python whilst bits of the UI already use it could end badly)
- If CCP have to vet all modules then it requires a significant effort from devs who would be better utilised elsewhere
- There would be continued pressure on CCP to vet new versions of modules - They can't even find the time to put Alliance logos into game let alone hundreds of random UI Mods.
Modular UI is a gateway to "exploits"
Yes I've used addon modules in other games, but they were either PVE or PVP-Lite (no consequences to dying other than waiting up to 30 seconds for a respawn). Even then people came up with hundreds of unique ways to game the addon system. In Eve where ship loss has consequence any module that gives somebody an edge over a player using a vanilla client is damaging to the game as a whole. Yes anyone could use the same module but then you get into a cycle of having to upgrade modules every few days etc. I've done this with other games and it was annoying as hell.
"Join fleet, make sure you have CTA_FleetAssist V1.234 and CTA_NeedArmour V2.34 installed"
*shudder*
Other people (with detailed ideas on a modular UI) have suggested that CCP could vet all addons and only allow "certified" ones to load thus reducing the possibility of exploiting. This would take a significant amount of time from technical staff at CCP and would have to be repeated for each version of each module.
The next question is what you could actually do with a modular UI? It is pretty clear that modules shouldn't be able to take action on your behalf so no automatically shield boosting when you get to a certain threshold and then turning off the booster again at another threshold. But without the ability to take action in your scripting what are you actually adding?
Even if a module can only modify / filter UI elements you can get an unfair advantage over a "vanilla" client. For example, one of the suggestions made would be to add grouping to local chat so making it easier to highlight war-targets/reds in system. Sound reasonable? Unfortunately it makes local even more powerful as an intel tool. Add a likely ability to pop-up a warning message and you've just built a replacement for BACON which was deemed an exploit.
Of course you can argue that such a module would never get past CCP vetting, but again that kind of checking implies CCP spending hours of dev time on it then the inevitable forum threads calling out CCP for blocking it.
CCP have already rejected a modular UI a number of times, don't try to shoehorn it into a general UI fixes proposal. If you must raise it again please split it into its own (and sufficiently detailed) proposal.
TeaDaze.net |
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 08:06:00 -
[17]
MODULAR UI has nothing to do with MODDABLE UI. The major difference is that with the first, CCP makes all the elements and with the second, the players run off to make their homebrew UI.
Modular UI would be that players can pick from pre-created UI elements what their UI looks like, so combat pilots end up with a totally different UI than a miner if they so wish. Players can also say if they want drop-down menus as they exist now, or a totally different type of interface.
The reason why this proposal is very general is because there have been dozens of UI fixes proposed already and they are just band-aid fixes. I can re-raise 50 issues or just create one issue that covers it all, your choice.
The proposal is a request for tearing down the UI as it is, and building it from scratch, with hopefully including as many features as listed in the proposal.
---
|
Crazy KSK
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 08:40:00 -
[18]
Crazy: Supporting all that has to do with fixing stuff that is broken ~o~
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 09:18:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 28/05/2010 09:18:14 Poasting in a lol ankgjfkdfsdhfhdsfs thread, ha ha.
I have one major gripe with the proposal, which is no moddable UI, thank you. There are two (or three, if you allow third party addons) problems with this: 1) Added complexity. With the goal of making EVE more daunting, adding UI customization makes it, in fact, more daunting. Particularly if the default UI is not very usable (and it should be said, default UI layout/settings/overview settings are as of now very unusable and require you to practically spend 15 minutes whenever you reinstall to get to "workable" level).
2) It offloads fixing usability problems from CCP to the players. As much as customization is on one side nice, making players do CCP's job is not. Making people unable to play well/compete without special UI-foo is also very bad, and ties into problem (1). Adding "fix the UI" as something a new player must do in addition to learning the numerous game mechanics EVE has adds extra complexity/annoyance factor.
3) If you allow third-party addons, you get something which is exploitable/provides a unfair advantage. Some addons (eg. sorting local by standings, automated intel gathering from local, automating many many tasks, etc) would not only become completely mandatory but would also imbalance many game mechanics which work just fine now. Having to download 5-6 mods to be able to compete also adds to annoyance factor, really.
In addition to this, CCP has a certain vision of how EVE should visually look like, and if anything that is a major reason why they won't go for moddable UI/etc.
So while general UI improvments are good and nobody can really argue that they are not (which is why it's very popular to propose UI fixes among wannabe internet politicians), I cannot support the original proposal.
It would be nice if first and foremost CCP made the default UI/etc/overview settings more functional. Explaining to newbies how they should set up their UI for the 100th time gets boring fast. Improving the coverage of overview customization in the tutorial would be good, as well as making overview customization less clunky (tabs, I'm looking at you here).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Bernadictus
Caldari Divine Retribution Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 10:05:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah longbigwalloftextaboutui
Not supporting. The interface, although it has it's ups and downs, is the least important. When I install I import my old/alliance overview setting, join some channels and I'm set.
A modular UI would take time and resources away from truly important matters such as LAG reduction (both traffic and grid).
|
|
Lord Cath
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 10:39:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Lord Cath on 28/05/2010 10:39:08 agreed
and dual screen support !!! __________________________________________________
|
Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 10:56:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah MODULAR UI has nothing to do with MODDABLE UI. The major difference is that with the first, CCP makes all the elements and with the second, the players run off to make their homebrew UI.
The problem I see with this distinction is that it is more a matter of degree than of kind. Just rearranging the buttons and menus a bit isn't going to put band-aids on many of the potholes in the UI; to do that requires being able to rewire what the UI elements do, and that shades into addon territory.
Originally by: TeaDaze I do not support attaching the modular UI into a fixes proposal. Modular UI should be a totally separate proposal so it doesn't cause the other UI fixes to be rejected. It certainly can't be left as a single bullet point in a list of "fixes"
I am totally in agreement with TeaDaze here. Since "the perfect is the enemy of the good", CSM has to keep updating their list of potholes that need to be filled, and make "building the hyperspace bypass" a separate issue.
I further agree that the biggest concern about addons is the potential for exploits. One idea that came out of the election campaign discussions was this:
- If CCP is going to refresh the UI anyway, then take a little extra time and build in addon capability. The official UI is thus the official set of CCP addons.
- Allow player addons only on Singularity.
Then people with UI concerns can build and test potential fixes, which makes it easier for CSM and other players to debate and refine them. Even if no player code ends up in the official client, the utility demonstration and implementation skeleton should be useful to CCP. And I think you will agree that it limits the potential for exploits!
The questions are: (a) can a business case be made for such a proposal (ie: will it save them money) and (b) will such limited addon capability be a useful tool in getting UI changes implemented?
|
T'Amber
www.shipsofeve.com
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 14:53:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah MODULAR UI has nothing to do with MODDABLE UI. The major difference is that with the first, CCP makes all the elements and with the second, the players run off to make their homebrew UI.
The problem I see with this distinction is that it is more a matter of degree than of kind. Just rearranging the buttons and menus a bit isn't going to put band-aids on many of the potholes in the UI; to do that requires being able to rewire what the UI elements do, and that shades into addon territory.
I think theres quite a few different ideas as to what these words mean and It may be confusing the subject a little.
Making the UI modular and creatively dynamic would then allow it to be modable, and so would be the first step (I think this is what Anhk is getting at) and allow much easier changing of existing problems. Making or allowing CCP/ player mods would and should be a later development. Although I'm still of the mind that "player made anything" that effects the game shouldn't give anyone an advantage to those that don't code or cannot use these mods properly, and would need intesive CCP scrutiny.
-T'amber
SHIPS OF EVE FIVE
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 16:31:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Supporting this, but you should also push for a moddable UI.
-Liang
|
Jerid Verges
The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 17:06:00 -
[25]
Agreed. The UI needs desperate fixing. It's far too clunky.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 17:44:00 -
[26]
I don't understand the fairness objection to a moddable UI. Basically, what you're saying is that CCP's UI is so markedly inferior to what players can create that anyone who uses it is at a significant disadvantage. How exactly is that an endorsement of the status quo?
I agree that moddability is rightly a separate proposal from the more small-scale fixes. You don't want to conflate the two when presenting the idea to CCP, because they're fairly different. But moddability would be good. CCP has already said no, and I know that re-raising issues isn't the best use of time, but if you can ask around over lunch or something, I'd appreciate it.
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 18:26:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 28/05/2010 18:25:39 as much as i would like to have moddability, that opens out a whole can of worms, and CCP seems to be unwilling to deal with that. WOuld be nice to have, but elt's get back on topic. I would like to have a UI that is as adjustable and personasible as possible, so yes. I would like to have new ui. I would like for one expansion cycle to be commited to it, or for it to be done gradually Full support, it needs to be done, sooner or later CCP will need to bite the bullet.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 18:45:00 -
[28]
How many right-click menus should I have to navigate through to advise my fleet to warp to a moon?
|
T'Amber
www.shipsofeve.com
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 20:16:00 -
[29]
Edited by: T''Amber on 28/05/2010 20:28:49
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I don't understand the fairness objection to a moddable UI. Basically, what you're saying is that CCP's UI is so markedly inferior to what players can create that anyone who uses it is at a significant disadvantage. How exactly is that an endorsement of the status quo.
An example of unfair:
Someone makes a mod + to make mass bpo researching capable at a couple of clicks of your mouse, and then doesn't release this tool to the rest of the community.
I can't see how this would be fair to people who have no programming skill, everyone should have the same advantages. If however every mod had to be vetted through CCP and then downloaded from one of there sources then everyone would have the same chance, although this would cost CCP resources.
If however you're just talking about making the UI Skinable with no scripting or macros (Which is what I think anhks post is about); I can't see any possible issues (other than CCP saying they're not going to do anything with the GUI).
EVE GUI skins available as ingame items would be awesome, skins for each race, pirate faction, rare skins... I have a whole post on this somewhere in these halls... probably on page 128 or something
Tbh, modular to me means something more like this:
but whatever
-T'amber
SHIPS OF EVE FIVE
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 21:10:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 28/05/2010 21:12:13
Quote: Yes I've used addon modules in other games, but they were either PVE or PVP-Lite (no consequences to dying other than waiting up to 30 seconds for a respawn). Even then people came up with hundreds of unique ways to game the addon system.
Yet RTS games, which can also be pretty hardcore, can have custom UIs without everyone *****ing about that it would be unfair?
Modular UI would add more work for people to get right, and i would agree more options isnt always better. But then CCP could just make a feature to export/import XML of UI, and people can just take some standard ones.
Fully moddable UI is however the only thing that will result in a good UI. And if CCP would make a reasonable UI themselves the advantage of other people wouldnt be too large. Besides that it is just a matter of downloading the UI yourself if you also want that advantage. I dont see anyone here complaining that if i go to a belt to pvp with normal overview settings in a fleet i might as well self destruct, there it apparently is okay for people to customize it.
|
|
Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 21:24:00 -
[31]
Originally by: T'Amber If however every player submitted mod had to be vetted through CCP and then downloaded from one of their sources then everyone would have the same chance, although this would probably cost significant CCP resources.
A possible solution for the fairness issue is that all addons be public, open-source, digitally-signed by CCP and revokable by them. So no secret I-win buttons. The half-life of an abusive addon would likely be days, but the issue of the cost to CCP of responding to abuse complaints is a significant one.
Very pretty skin, BTW.
|
Mynxee
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 02:08:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Mynxee on 29/05/2010 02:10:03
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah I would like to ask CCP to just revamp the whole UI once and for all.
I agree the UI is often cumbersome, annoying, quirky, non-intuitive, difficult to use, irritatingly fiddly, and unnecessarily redundant. I agree it needs work to correct those things. However, "revamp the whole UI once and for all" is too nebulous to support. That nebulosity is reflected in your "Needed" list, which ranges all over the place from redesigning global elements (menu replacement with buttons) to new features (customizable UI and clipboard-like lists) to changes to specific features (hot keys support, font, redundancy on menus) to things CCP has already said cannot be changed (differentiating BPO icons from BPC icons) and yet is not a comprehensive list by far. A revamp of the whole UI would need to cover much more territory. Furthermore, the categorical changes you suggested don't address the need to streamline all those cumbersome tasks in Eve that involve too many clicks, too many steps, and too many show-stopping obstacles that are completely unnecessary--which I believe any comprehensive UI overhaul would need to address to be truly beneficial.
For those reasons, I suggest it's better to break out UI fix proposals in a more modular way, with each proposal covering a given area (Global Fixes, Market Window Overhaul, POS Management Overhaul, Contracts Overhaul, etc.). Focused discussion for a given area of the UI is not only likely to yield a more coherent, on-track discussion, it is more likely to attract experts whose feedback is very valuable.
Of course, all that involves some hard work. First, it makes sense to find related proposals so you don't duplicate effort. However, finding them in the turbulent quagmire that is AH is a chore. Then it makes sense to research EVElopedia to see what CSM has already proposed and what has disappeared into the the Mystical Backlog of Infinite Holding. So a good, well-researched, informed proposal takes a lot of effort. But without that effort, all we do is end up doing is spinning the same old **** in non-specific threads like this.
CCP demonstrated with the Fitting Window that they are capable of wonderfully functional UI design that also looks cool and is fun (or at least non-frustrating) to interact with. I'd love for the whole game to reflect that same quality. But doing so would be a monumental task and in lots of cases, require touching code that no one wants to go near. Not really an excuse for avoidance but given the crushing weight of other stuff in the fix list, understandable. "Status of UI Fixes in the Backlog" will be on the discussion list for the CSM5 Summit in June. If we can get some insight on that, I think we have a better chance of assessing a realistic approach to proposing comprehensive UI overhauls. Meanwhile, there are a lot of smaller fixes already proposed and active in AH that could use and should get support (many related to the list provided in the OP).
Life In Low Sec |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 07:32:00 -
[33]
Quote: For those reasons, I suggest it's better to break out UI fix proposals in a more modular way, with each proposal covering a given area (Global Fixes, Market Window Overhaul, POS Management Overhaul, Contracts Overhaul, etc.). Focused discussion for a given area of the UI is not only likely to yield a more coherent, on-track discussion, it is more likely to attract experts whose feedback is very valuable.
I dont think you get good results by making lot of small changes, you need some large changes to entire UI.
|
Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari Hull Tanking Elitists
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 08:34:00 -
[34]
Unfortunately, Mynxee, the problems with the UI have as much to do with its poor architecture and code layout (and no, I've not seen either--but having seen the state of the UI I can deduce it). So it seems plausible that to actually redesign the UI would also require a full-scale refactoring of the entire UI code, which is frankly already outdated. They're better off just burning the thing down and starting over.
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 09:25:00 -
[35]
Mynxee, bringing small issues to CCP has proven to be ineffective in the past two years, when CCP does not want to touch the fundamental problems they rely on. CCP also stated repeatedly that they want generic "Big Picture" issues where they can fill in the technical details, and not dozens of specific small issues.
The UI is fundamentally broken and needs to be reworked from the ground up. Raising small specific issues will not work as those are band-aid fixes and will have to be torn down as well as soon as CCP realizes they need to redo the entire UI from scratch.
---
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 10:12:00 -
[36]
I like the idea of making the SiSi client freely moddable, with players then being able to submit those mods to CCP for approval. Put proposed mods out there for the dogs to sniff, and if they pass the "how can I exploit this" test then incorporate them into the options for the main client.
|
Lashnar
Caldari LEGEND OF THE SHADOW GUARD
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 23:03:00 -
[37]
The only thing I want changed about the UI is I want a bit more flash and fanfare. Welcome to EVE. |
Thaylon Sen
Tetra-Pac
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 06:21:00 -
[38]
Yes please
|
Stingray City
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 06:31:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah CCP also stated repeatedly that they want generic "Big Picture" issues where they can fill in the technical details, and not dozens of specific small issues.
I also would like to see Big Picture but it is hard to find. The fonts and other UI elements are too small.
Jokes aside, lack of font scalability is a major UI issue. There is no workaround. It will get worse with time as screen resolutions increase and EVE players get older.
Please keep bringing the font issue to CCP.
|
Nooma K'Larr
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 14:49:00 -
[40]
voted
------------------------------------------------ Urging CCP to work on current issues next expansion. |
|
Dariah Stardweller
Gung-Ho
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 15:30:00 -
[41]
Confirming complete UI overhaul is very much needed.
|
Aggelos Theristes
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 11:20:00 -
[42]
Agreed. Having to navigate menus and click 2 or 3 times for common, straight forward tasks is a bit daft.
|
RUS Comannder
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 12:07:00 -
[43]
After reading thru previous posts on this, my first visit to these suggestion forums, I think my suggestion is now kind of like going to a city council meeting in New York City and asking for a pot hole to be filled.... But here goes...
Please make the "Keep at range" options useful. For instance, make one option 2400m to keep ships just far enough away from an Orca to still stuff ore in it. Also make one option 5900m so I can keep my Log ship in range to RR. And without trying to stir up a lot of dust about exploits, how about making one option a player's designated default range option to replace or augment the difficult to be exact option of "current"?
I've only been playing since '04, but I've never encountered a good tactical reason to keep my range at any of the three permanent options available. I use 500m because it is better than nothing unless I happen to hit a desirable distance and manage to select "current" while busy doing everything else needed to survive or thrive.
Thank you.
|
Delilah Wild
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 20:24:00 -
[44]
Agreed. |
Matah Hari
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 21:07:00 -
[45]
I've always thought the UI in EVE looks from game from 1995. It needs to be redone to improve clarity, functionality and overall coolness.
|
Geek Freq
|
Posted - 2010.06.30 20:18:00 -
[46]
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust
|
Posted - 2010.06.30 20:45:00 -
[47]
Not supported because Ankhesentwhozawhatzis is simply taking other people's UI threads and making it hers
Or, also, the fact that the moment the EVE UI becomes anything like WoW, I will personally fire-bomb the server that stores my account info.
Quote: CCP Mindstar > Sorry - I've completely messed all that up. lets try again
|
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2010.06.30 21:16:00 -
[48]
Confirming that it has been a while since CCP was painfully reminded that the EVE client UI looks, feels and acts like FVWM2 and EMACS in linux distro from the middle of the nineties.
No, wait, I take that back and apolozige to fvwm2 diehards. It is better than eve.
|
Cerpn Taxt
LDK
|
Posted - 2010.06.30 21:49:00 -
[49]
Supported (but against mods..) There were like tons of UI fixes proposed up until now.. And what is interesting enough is that most of the players agreed to the most of those posts. I think we should look at this topic as a call for CCP to finally get a glance at those excising proposals and start implementing, rather then recreating IU as a whole. I don't hate eve UI, in fact i think that with the right tweaks it would be as good as new.
I hope you did understand what i meant :)
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.07.01 10:34:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Aineko Macx on 01/07/2010 10:35:44 "Once and for all"... How naive of you to think that something CCP makes will ever be finished/bugfree/definite. Nevertheless, the UI is by far the worst technical aspect of eve (among the things that are not obviously broken at least), so I can support this. Lemme just list what I think are the most annoying things of the UI:
- Randomly repositioning windows - Clicking buttons doesnÆt always yield a result at all (there is a right and wrong moment, which for a new players is not distinguishable) - Lists that donÆt sort as they should - Lists showing objects that should be filtered (yep, shoot friendlies) - Resetting scrollbar positions (the joy of trying to find a target beginning with M in a large fleet fight) - Trying to explain to a newbie how to set up his overview - The nightmare of corp member roles and rights management - The nightmare of managing and configuring POSÆs (includes non-descript options and access configuration which has no effect because the feature never got finished) - Missing visual differentiation of items with values differing by a factor of one million - Certain server requests make the EVE client hang until a response is given - 5th level right-click-submenus - Overlapping notification messages - No good solution for dealing with the proliferation of windows - The general amount of clicks or UI steps to achieve a result - When setting something up that takes 20 clicks, only the last click will give an error message if something is missing - No differentiation between alerts of varying importance (ôthis monument representsàö is displayed exactly the same way as one saying ôif you do this you will dieö) - The ugly font - A large portion of the key shortcuts cannot be remapped
The list goes on and on...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |