|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
0
   |
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:55:46 -
[1] - Quote
Hey guys, CCP Surge here. I made a lot of these new bracket icons while I wasn't working on the new Opportunities UI, and wanted to chime in and explain a bit about the project, plus thank you for a bunch of useful and feedback you've given in this thread.
First off we knew going into this that messing with these fundamental bracket icons people had come to love and rely on was bound to cause a stir in the community. The project started out as an experiment on our internal server, but after seeing them in the game for ourselves it grew into something we wanted to show and validate with the larger community.
In general there were some guiding principles we used to unify the icons across all in-space objects you might encounter: ships are triangular, structures are square, celestials circular, and drones are the little claw/space invader guys :) There are a few exceptions that bend the rules here and there but in general these are the guidelines used to make the groupings distinct across all item types, not just ships. This might help explain some of the changes to the older icons without going into detail for each one.
As for making them simpler/more geometrical, there were a few directions along those lines we explored early on but in the end we decided to leverage the existing ISIS ship group icons for their familiarity. I wouldn't rule out more improvements to them before we release them to TQ, and we're not taking them out of the testing phase until we're also satisfied with their in-game performance and usability.
Up next: I'm really curious about how the new icons perform in the field. We will be scheduling a mass test on Singularity for this on Thursday (more info on exactly when to come). And I'd be happy if you guys jumped in there and posted your reactions after checking them out in a live fleet engagement. |
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:59:48 -
[2] - Quote
Emilia Istis wrote:Because it will be harder to distinguish neutral NPC from another player, the result may be that instead of icons as now most of the players set in the first column name or type of ship in the overview rather than icons, and probably will fall out of the picture entirely.
Already on the infographic it is harder to find "+".
This is really nice, but the NPC should be in a much greater way to distinguish.
Unless you add something to the overview that will show another player in the superior manner, always first or something extra that will tell you "This is the player" (or NPC)
We're aware that the [+] for NPCs is a rather tiny sub-indicator that might be hard to pick out at a glance, but a rather important one at that. We're looking at ways of making it more prominent or change NPC indication to something else entirely. |
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:04:55 -
[3] - Quote
Paddy Finn wrote:How about putting a numeral 2 or 3 in a corner for Tech 2 or Tech 3 ships to differentiate them in a fight.
We realize thereGÇÖs a huge strategic differences between ships of different tech levels and faction ships even though they carry the same base hull. And we want to figure out how we can include that information as well. One option on the table is simply adding a new overview column for tech type. This way the info can be toggle-able for those who want it, and wonGÇÖt further complicate the already attribute-dense icon space. |
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:18:21 -
[4] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:A lovely Idea in theory, I applaud the idea. However In real life with eyes older than 25, anything smaller then a capital is a fat full stop. completely illegible and on my laptop screen virtually invisible. Now I am sure you all have nice 27" screens in the office, but just so you know what it is like for others, put on your colleagues glasses and view it on a laptop. all your work is wasted because there is clearly an assumption that everyone has got 20/20 vision and large monitors. love the idea, the execution does not account for players defects.  Solution :- make them bigger.
Thanks for this ;) the bit on imperfect vision was actually something I hadn't considered until reading this thread. While the icons are displayed at the same 16x16 pixel size regardless of what resolution you run your game in (we don't scale the overview), that said it can still be a bit too small for some, and adds to squinting and eyestrain for others. I'll just say now we're considering an option to allow you to control the scale of your overview icons, so you can adjust them to your preferred comfort level. |
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:14:31 -
[5] - Quote
Thanks again guys, your feedback isn't lost on us. Especially with regards to redundancy in the Type column as well as decluttering the already-dense icon space as it currently stands.
While I can't promise a full overhaul, I can also sympathize with the position that the ISIS icons were an inappropriate base to start with, since the requirements for those icons when they were first created were wholly different. It's a well-reasoned argument with form follows function at its core, which prioritizes raw gameplay functionality over holistic unified look concerns. It's a valid point to keep in mind and I'll certainly bring it up at our next design meeting and see what people think!
In the meantime, here's the official thread for the mass test of these schedule for Thursday, March 5th, at 17:00 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5544670#post5544670
Please log in and give us your impressions from seeing the icons in action. The more feedback we get the more it will help inform our next steps with these. |
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:46:43 -
[6] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:I have a great deal of sympathy for your situation, CCP Surge: you're trying to shoehorn a large amount of functionality into a 19x18 pixel square that's a small part of a hopelessly overloaded UI widget.
You'd be surprised at how much is possible to communicate with a 16x16 canvas :) That said good design is often about clarity and choosing what to communicate, as opposed to trying to fit in as much as possible.
|
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:59:56 -
[7] - Quote
Crash Lander wrote:
This is the first time in a long time that I've seen a CCP employee give an intelligent and honest answer to feedback while pointing out the constraints. Well done sir, and good luck!
Thank, appreciate the good feels! And I want to stress that communication is definitely a two-way street, especially with the new release cadence which allows us a shorter cycle for trying things, getting your feedback and iterating from it. Hopefully leading to more such positive feedback loops where you guys can help us develop a better game, be happier as a result, and making us devs happier in the process. |
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:00:45 -
[8] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Pretty big missed opportunity in not making icons reflect module states such as Siege, Triage, Bastion, Industrial Core, Warfare Links, and now Entosis.
I'll look into it :) |
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:01:54 -
[9] - Quote
RavenNyx wrote:CCP Surge wrote:Thanks again guys, your feedback isn't lost on us. [...] Awesome. :) Now that you're here, could you please comment on the consistency of the icons? Why do mining frigates have one icon, while haulers (T1+T2) and mining barges share one? Why are there two separate icons for fighters and fighter bombers, when there's no separate icons for the launch-platform - why are drones suddenly all that important on the overview? etc. (see more here - previous post in this thread) Also, anything more solid on when POS-modules are re-worked? And, how about player deployables?
Also good to know. Plus a super-carrier class icon shouldn't be a big problem :) |
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 19:25:30 -
[10] - Quote
Hey guys, checking back in with news. First of all thanks everyone for participating in the playtest and giving us your impressions of the new icons.
Your feedback actually prompted a lot of interesting internal discussions (hail all-powerful EVE community  ) And while the new icons certainly didn't perform poorly for many of you, there were many legitimate concerns over readability and areas of improvement we've identified as well.
As a result but decided instead of pushing these immediately out to TQ with the Scylla release, we will leave them in the oven a bit longer for additional testing and iteration.
What this means in the short term is we have to revert the new icons back to the old brackets on Sisi. Afterwards we will be conducting more tests with new icon sets in the coming weeks. I'm actually curious to hear how many of you would like to keep the ISIS-based brackets on Sisi for reference (or learning) in the meantime? Let me know, and again thanks for helping us test these out! |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|