|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 88 post(s) |
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional
Virtue of Selfishness
23
   |
Posted - 2012.10.11 02:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'll second "don't like the circles cause they're confusing" The squares are great and the stacked shield over armor over hull bars are more intuitive than a 3 part ring. Two steps' terrible MSPaint picture would be better concept art if you're committed to circles though.
Love the pulses from damage and the targetable indicator bracket.
The log could stand to have more filtering options. (damage I'm doing, damage I'm taking, shield/armor sent/received)
Log messages should list damage amount first so I can guestimate the incoming DPS while keeping my log window thin. Currently I have to expand it really wide--and even wider if I'm using a gun with a long name.
"17 damage received from Focused Medium Pulse Laser I belonging to skills" for example.
Same thing for outgoing damage:
"250.9 damage hit to skills (Raven) done by your Scourge Torpedo"
|
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional
Virtue of Selfishness
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 01:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP karkur wrote:Myriad Blaze wrote:numerical DPS meter for incoming damage
Outgoing DPS
Instead of using absolute sizes for shield, armor and structure bars in the circular targeting bracket you could use relative sizes (again, if that isn't GÇ£too muchGÇ¥ information). That way a ship with 1000 points in shield and 500 in armor and structure each would show a shield bar from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock, armor bar from 6 to 9 o'clock and structure from 9 to 12.
It would be nice to get information about the damage type of incoming damage. In case you think about the above mentioned DPS meter you might preset the value with the icon of the damage type dealt by that target (or in case of mixed damage types the type that represents the biggest portion of the damage).
I personally think that telling you exactly how much the other guy has in shield, armor and structure is giving too much info. I like the idea of show the damage type, but I don't know, maybe that's giving too much info? (we did actually discuss both these things at our meetings on Friday)
The biggest issue with adjusting the visual size of shield/armor/hull based on raw HP is that the information isn't relevant to the damage you're going to do. For the sizes to be informative they would have to be based on EHP vs the damage type of the ammo(s) you have loaded and that gets complicated very fast.
Also, I agree that it might be too much information as it would effectively tell you the type of tank you're facing before you face it. That's good/important information to have, but currently it can only be acquired before damage starts flying through a ship scan or an educated guess based on velocity+ship type. Making it available earlier would change effectiveness of surprising fits.
Incoming damage types is an interesting idea. Currently we have a visual effect that tells us incoming damage type for missiles and lasers (if you know your crystal colors). We can sorta tell hybrid types based on range/tracking. but I don't think we have any indication for projectiles. |
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional
Virtue of Selfishness
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 02:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP karkur wrote:Soden Rah wrote:... Would it (in your view) be giving too much info to colour the angular velocity / transversal/ ect in the overview based on the tracking speed of your turrets as outlined in this post post 679 page 34 so that you can tell at a glance which targets are going too fast for you to track? To be honest, I don't think I know enough about angular velocity to answer this, but I would be a bit scared of adding to the overview work by doing the calculation that you suggest for everything on the field (although I have not looked into it at all). We have talked about how cool it could be to let the rotation speed of the arrows that rotate around the active target be based on that, but we first want to get everything else solid.
Can someone add the radial and angular tracking speeds to the tooltip for gun modules please?
I prefer radial, but I know others like angular.
I like the tracking+radial velocity indicators idea though i'm not sure exactly what it should look like. There is no visual indicator of tracking vs radial/angular velocity anywhere right now, only raw numbers for the radial/angular velocity that have to be compared to what the Show Info window for your modules says before the fight.
Also if you're being tracking disrupted or change the scripts in your targeting computers you probably don't have time to show info on your module again to see what your new tracking number is--especially in smaller ships. A tooltip line would make this accessible, and a visual indicator would be even better.
Third party programs like EFT are currently the only way to see graphs of what tracking vs radial velocity does to your DPS output and that's not very practical during a fight. Is this too much info or making EVE easy? The info is already there it's just very hard to see and use. Show this info to the player in an easier to read way just makes the game more about flying. |
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional
Virtue of Selfishness
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 08:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Atomic Option wrote:I prefer radial, but I know others like angular. That's because radial velocity has no bearing on anything in the game (other than the question of whether the other guy is getting away or not) whereas angular velocity is the key figure in trackingGǪ 
...I just looked this up because I always thought radial velocity == angular velocity only in radians per second instead of m/s. Turns out that is called Radial Motion so you are correct and I should have known not to make assumptions in English based on latin roots. Thanks.
Point being I prefer to see rad/s rather than m/s since I'm used to it from Pyfa and the number of digits displayed is more consistent so I can set a less forgiving width for that column in the overview. But others may prefer m/s. Add both. There's room. |
|
|
| |
|