| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
9
   |
Posted - 2015.02.27 01:00:28 -
[61] - Quote
The full size icons, i.e. ISIS use case, look very nice. Once they get shrunk to bracket/overview size not so much any more. As many others before me have pointed out, they are really hard to differentiate and as such not very useful.
I understand the desire to use icons, that are not just abstract boxes, circles, triangles, etc., because on the one hand, abstract icons require memorization of their meaning and on the other hand, EVE is still a game, and as such wants to and should convey a certain sci-fi style. No one wants newbies to memorize wether circles or boxes are the bigger ships, they should just be bigger...
Maybe the ship icons would be more readable if they were to be rotated 45 degrees? This way you could keep the initial design philosophy but you could also slightly enlarge the icons without distorting their general shape too much. As far as differentiation between players and NPCs is concerned: Just tilt one to the left and the others to the right (i.e. horizontal mirroring) and you are all set. With generally wedge shaped icons rotated 45 degrees you would have the added bonus that the rotation makes some more free space for those all important standing markers...
Another idea, why not keep closer to the original design of the NPCs icons and do something with star shapes with a different number of trails on each star? like this... |
Scythi Magellen
Marmite Archaeologists
8
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 01:11:46 -
[62] - Quote
Very nice from what I've seen so far. User friendly, clear...until I try it on a laptop.
I think the Dev's should play around with them on 17" monitors some more, and perhaps even smaller than that.
Also, will there *ever* be Salvage Drone II? |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
292
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 01:17:50 -
[63] - Quote
Getting used to the new NEOCOM symbols still, but I think over time, everyone will adjust, nice work. |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 01:22:58 -
[64] - Quote
CCP have you gone absolutely insane?
Still getting used to the neocon and its undifferentiated icons.. and now you bring this? Scores of icons which look pretty similar across groups, let along within groups where there are minute differences?
The icons for drones and structures is just overkill.. see if the ship one makes any sense in the first place, before making a mess of the UI... |
Noriko Mai
2076
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 01:25:22 -
[65] - Quote
Or how about going a totaly different way and use different shapes?
Come On Everybody, support Dark Opaque theme
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24996
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 01:52:47 -
[66] - Quote
Guess which icon is which size and which type within that size bracket.
Not saying it looks any good, but it just illustrates more ways of conveying the different axes of differentiation you're looking for. Oh, and by the way, that's the size they have to be and still be crystal clear.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Svarii
Acclimatization
66
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 02:13:29 -
[67] - Quote
Pretty cool. But, can you make the pod icon closer to the classic egg shape, please? IMO, it looks more like a ship than a pod now.
Does this mean you are working on the overview then? It would be nice to be able to drag the tabs apart, you know, multiple overviews. |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
51
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 02:28:48 -
[68] - Quote
I love the new icons, but if you're going to keep this then PLEASE change the icon for wrecks. At a glance, it's harder to tell what's a ship on field and what's a wreck. |
StabHore
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 02:31:07 -
[69] - Quote
Just two comments after messing around on Sisi.
1) This is a bit of an over design for the use case. Lets not kid ourselves, no matter how awesome you make the icons, people will still have Distance, Name, and Type in their overview. Make the icons a bit more general. One icon for each class of drone (combat, sentry, ewar, fighter) Combine rookie ship, shuttle and the small frigates into just a single icon, Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, BC, then BS is all fine. Don't change the pod icon to something less descriptive, please. We all know and like the old one
2) Why does a wormhole now look like a compression array/reactor? WTF is the pos turret icon? Seriously, some icons actually worked |
Firnas
Stephen Hawking Treadmill Experience
Snatch Victory
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 02:54:20 -
[70] - Quote
I don't need flipping new icons on my flipping overview because I know what all the flipping ships are.
Oh wait, an Archon is a capital? Thank you icon! Without you I'd be totally lost! |
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
30618
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 03:02:31 -
[71] - Quote
The unique ship class icons is a huge misstep, and a missed opportunity for conveying tactical information.
The current / old cross system was nearly ideal, if the crosses were dynamic according to signature radius. Relative signature radius, even.
The new icons are also redundant, since ship name is another overview column in itself.
While redundant, they also fall short of the ship name column (and are no improvement over current crosses) because you can't distinguish between cruisers as Heavy Interdictors, Heavy Assault, Logistics, T3, Recons.
This is a jumble.
If you make the icons bloat in size according to signature radius bloom (due to target painters or MWD use), that would be a step in the right direction.
The other icons are fine enough, but the ship icons being made different... while it's technically correct, you've just made things more confusing.
My assessment of this update is you have once again taken a step backwards in the name of form over function.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
PAPULA
Black Aces
Against ALL Authorities
33
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 03:25:23 -
[72] - Quote
I think these new icons are totally not necessary. Current icons are ok, very good readable and understandable.
New stuff is just too much of it, it is very confusing, and my eyes hurt from looking at those.
 |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
30620
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 03:43:12 -
[73] - Quote
If ship icons were dynamic in showing things like siege, triage, bastion, or industrial core active, as well as bubble generator (hictors), thennn the new icons are worth having. EVE can be more than a pretty version of Excel, but you consistently fail to interpret information in list form.
You get as far as arranging data as a list or some other shape (hexagons of Opportunities Map), but then you stop short of assimilating that data...
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Shuckstar
Taking Inc
Swine Aviation Labs
292
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 03:49:50 -
[74] - Quote
Please add colour to the Icons and make them more distinguishable especially the sidebar one's there still doing my head in since they was changed. Even now I still click the wrong sidebar icons as some are too similar to others in the same bar.
Or allow us to add our own shape's and colour to the icons ourselves just like we do corp logo's.
CCP Greyscale wrote:"OK, I've read every post up to page 200, and we're getting to a point in this thread where there's not a lot of new concerns or suggestions being brought up. There will be future threads (and future blogs) as we tune details, but for now I want to thank you for all of your constructive input, and wish you a good weekend :)"
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
30622
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 03:57:09 -
[75] - Quote
^allowing us to customize our icons with player made vectorizations would be kind of awesome.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
987
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 04:01:36 -
[76] - Quote
Please fix the icons you broke CCP.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
30622
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 04:03:37 -
[77] - Quote
Hey there CSM hopeful, a quick image link would save time for everyone interested in your post.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
987
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 04:05:48 -
[78] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Hey there CSM hopeful, a quick image link would save time for everyone interested in your post. It has an image in it and I made these requests on the first page of the feedback thread.
The general response is, "Takes time, you will get used to it." Months later, they are still annoying me constantly.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Lelira Cirim
The Graduates
Forged of Fire
220
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 04:32:12 -
[79] - Quote
You can "convey" information but I don't think "transporting" it is an acceptable synonym in this case. /grammarpolice
The battleship icon is exactly the shape that CrazyRussianHacker says to cut watermelon slices. /omnomnom
I think the use of military stripes is pretty clever. I also can't wait for the first animations of EVE fights resembling classic arcade Asteroids [pew pew!]. This new UI scheme has roots, baby. Only vector-based video games survived the Gate collapse. 
Do not actively tank my patience. || EVE University Wiki Team
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Prolapse.
2108
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 04:45:46 -
[80] - Quote
I think this change is necessary, but you've ignored Robert Downey Junior's advice on winning Oscars here.
I have been expecting this move from CCP for the last couple of years, and it's good you are getting around to distinguishing, eg, destroyers, cruisers and battlecruisers, and battleships, dreads and carriers within those groups.
The problem you have is that you are using SIZE to distinguish the ships, not iconography. Remember - an ICON is a representative shape which the user recognises as having a particular meaning or function. In, for example, the toolbar above the text box for posting upon this here forum, the icon for BOLD is a bold B, italics is an Italic I, and Underline is a capital U with said underline.
You are NOT distinguishing these icons by sizing. No one would accept as a sensible foray into iconography that Bold is b, Italics is a B and italics is B.
Therefore what is the value of creating icons for frigates which are so small that eyesight problems, screen resolution choices, hardware choices (some monitors and screens don't go the whole way, or GPU's are incapable of max horsepower 1980++ resolution) will render the distinction between frigates and destroyers basically meaningless.
Admit it, you just googled up 'iconography for dummies' on the interwebs, spent 20 minutes skimming the book, and made a hash job of designing icons, and ended up with as said above, Space invaders.
Sadly, I believe you'll just go right ahead and make life terrible for everyone just like with Neocom icons have. It's been months and I still get confused between the bloody ship fitting icon, the contacts icon because they are too bloody similar from the corner of my eye (and for the record, twin 27" monitors and max res).
I cannot fathom how you think that the frigate, rookie ship and capsule icons could possibly be distingishable at either small-screen resolution on laptops, or at the other end of the scale as a tiny red/white dot in a list of other tiny red/white dots.
You need to divorce yourself from the ego and pride invested in your work with ISIS, and begin moving to icons for ships that are completely distinguishable from one another by shape, versus size.
e; frigate = triangle
destroyer = square
cruiser = open diamond
battlecruiser = solid diamond
battleship = hexagon (blops or marauder = solid)
capital = star (filled = carrier, empty = dread)
supercarrier = open circle
titan = filled circle
HOW SIMPLE IS THAT?
Further, your drone icons are going to be basically useless. For a start, no one uses anything except DPS or ECM drones 99% of the time. It's irrelevant from a gameplay perspective to know whether someone is using hull bots, armour bots, or shield bots. No one, ever, says "Shoot his armour bots but leave those hull bots alone!"
ECM drones and utility drones are too rarely seen for me to lose sleep or pay attention to what the crap they are. medium SD drones? hahahaha. Who cares, you may as well make trollface.jpg the icon because if anyone uses them they are a fool and are dying to your rifter.
You risk putting too many arcane icons into a game and causing intense confusion and attention-sapping annoyance.
Right now, if drones are launched i mouseover them to see what they are (DPS usually hobgoblin II, hammerhead II, Warrior II or Valkyrie II and heavies are almost always Geckos; ECM is always either Hornet EC-300 or Vespa EC-600) and that's that. I don't need to have visual information in my eyes which my brain struggles to comprehend because it's a tiny drone with an inward-facing wiggle and a round or is it square or is it triangular thingy, and then it's got a red plus or an orange plus.
Blergh. Sorry - too convoluted and unneccessary and hence this undermines the whole purpose which is to convey information in a visual format that is easy to understand at a glance. Drones are drones are drones.
The part of the whole iconography for dummies book you apparently didn't read was the part where it said "If there are too many icons, in this case, over 200 before you even get to structures, then the system breaks down."
Finally - pods are eggs. Leave it alone.
Prolapse. Taking fights since 2014.
Sudden Buggery. Got duumb? Hola, Batmanuel!
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
|
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1462
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 05:11:46 -
[81] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:You need to divorce yourself from the ego and pride invested in your work with ISIS, and begin moving to icons for ships that are completely distinguishable from one another by shape, versus size.
e; frigate = triangle
destroyer = square
cruiser = open diamond
battlecruiser = solid diamond
battleship = hexagon (blops or marauder = solid)
capital = star (filled = carrier, empty = dread)
supercarrier = open circle
titan = filled circle
^^ This.
The overview in the sample image looks like the Default tab is weeping tears of blood, because everything is more or less the same shape, and at that scale the size difference is not much more than noise.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3185
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 05:16:47 -
[82] - Quote
2 pixel difference between shuttle and capsule is not enough.
If you want to stay this small you will have to work with shape recognition. You can't make it all look like triangles in this size. Take a look how homeworld solved it. They had triangles, squares, prisms, etc etc. scales perfectly.
http://s4.photobucket.com/user/Ammonra/media/Homeworld_symbols.jpg.html
http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/2810/manuals/X3_Reunion_Manual_Steam_English.pdf page 24
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
158
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 05:17:23 -
[83] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[...]
That's not really a solution, partly because it would defeat the purpose of giving a better overview of the field since less can be seen at once; partly because, if that's what you want, you can already turn on scaling.
No, the solution is to make them more distinct, more simplistic, and crystal clear when scaled-down on a low-res monitor GÇö then add in (meaningless) decorations at higher resolutions if need be. In other words, almost the exact opposite of what's been done here.
Come to think of it, we've been here before, and the error was the exact same back then. When they tried to change the module icons to depictions, it made the icons useless and indistinct becauseGǪ wellGǪ they weren't icons any more. Instead, they were just pictures of what they were meant to represent. Iconography does not rely on absolute, accurate portrayal GÇö it relies on clarity of conveying an idea. You make icon easily distinguishable by making them distinct, not by cramming them full of tiny details.
You do not need a ship-shaped shape to represent a ship. Anything will do, as long as you can establish that GÇ£this represents a shipGÇ¥ and offer something that is uniquely recognisable enough that people don't forget it. When you try to represent 30 different ship types, you need to employ more than one shape to do so. Same with the 30+ different drone types.
So, solution: broaden the visual language; step away from simple depiction; start with the tiniest possible size and work up rather than the other way around; and stay the **** away from minute details as a way to convey meaning.
Tippia nail it down. Please check her posts cause she KNOWS what she is talking about... and give the lady a PLEX.
The icons you propose are confusing and hard to read outside of your little reference pictures. It may seem easy to tell the small from the medium when they are side by side. But if I see one of them on their own I can't tell what it is. You can not rely on one shape and simply vary its weight slightly.
Also, why change some of the more recognizable icons (sun, asteroid belt, corp hangar array)? Just for the sake of changing them? What was wrong with the ones we had? They conveyed the idea. That's all you can ask from an icon. They do not have to look like what they represent. The military has been using the square with a dot inside to represent an artillery unit for ages. Does artillery look like a square with a dot inside? No. But the icon does it job not because it looks like an artillery unit, It does its job cause its *different from every other icon*.
I know all the effort you put into these, but they are not clear and different enough.
I'm utterly and terribly sorry because of all the labor and love you put into the new ones, I know, but frankly, I'd rather keep the ones we have today.
|
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
187
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 05:42:17 -
[84] - Quote
This seems like a good direction to improve the overview, never was a big fan of the empty brackets for every player. however, as the other prople have pointed out, the differences can be hard to spot at the small overview icon scale. We'll have to see how it looks to make the judgement but at least it won't be worse than it is now.
This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
|
VeryChic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 05:45:31 -
[85] - Quote
Please do not do this. Constantly "fixing" things that aren't broken isn't necessary.
An option to choose which icons you would like to use would be nice if you are going to roll this out regardless of the opposition. |
Kel hound
The Desolate Order
Brave Collective
114
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 05:55:06 -
[86] - Quote
You need a special icon for Super Carriers. Would suggest making Titan icon the S-Carrier icon and making new Titan icon from Dreadnought icon with 2 chevron through it.
Small and medium industrial icons feel too similar to destroyer and battle-cruiser icons. Suggest further blunting of tip and slight increase in the gaps to bring them more in line with large and extra-large.
Rookie ship icon also feels too similar to shuttle icon at a glance. Suggest sharpening corners by slight deepening of the cut.
Sensor dampening battery and warp scrambling battery icons appear to be the same. Suggest perhaps using the " * " icon instead of the " = " icon?
On your example screenshot all these ships appear to be NPC, yet they lack the " + " in the top right corner that should differentiate them as such. Is this intended? Will we be able to tell at a glance if what we are shooting at is a player or NPC?
On the whole I love this. The direction you have gone with for the ships feels reminiscent of the way other games like World of Tanks differentiates between different classes of vehicles. I will probably need to see for myself in-game but I feel reasonably confident that I will be able to learn the difference at a glance fairly quickly. |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct
Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
305
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 06:15:53 -
[87] - Quote
That looks interesing! Although you'll have to concede those icons reveal a lot of things  ... NPC capitals? |
Alexis Nightwish
89
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 07:05:40 -
[88] - Quote
Thoirdhealbhach wrote:The full size icons, i.e. ISIS use case, look very nice. Once they get shrunk to bracket/overview size not so much any more. As many others before me have pointed out, they are really hard to differentiate and as such not very useful.
I understand the desire to use icons, that are not just abstract boxes, circles, triangles, etc., because on the one hand, abstract icons require memorization of their meaning and on the other hand, EVE is still a game, and as such wants to and should convey a certain sci-fi style. No one wants newbies to memorize wether circles or boxes are the bigger ships, they should just be bigger...
Maybe the ship icons would be more readable if they were to be rotated 45 degrees? This way you could keep the initial design philosophy but you could also slightly enlarge the icons without distorting their general shape too much. As far as differentiation between players and NPCs is concerned: Just tilt one to the left and the others to the right (i.e. horizontal mirroring) and you are all set. With generally wedge shaped icons rotated 45 degrees you would have the added bonus that the rotation makes some more free space for those all important standing markers... This is brilliant, and as such, will not be implemented.
Thoirdhealbhach wrote:As a side remark: Many of those terrible icon scaling issues stem from the fact, that the main interaction/selection happens in a rather generic list box (aka "The Overview"). If the overview would be something more clever, more elegant, more adaptive to the massive differences in engagement scales, then maybe you could put those beautiful ISIS icons in their original size inside the overview. In all honesty, simply letting me have more than 5 tabs would improve my EVE by about 9001%. I get nervous whenever they mess with the UI as everything ends up different, but not really any better. Like with the Neocom icons. The simplification was good, but the monochrome was not. And the new brackets still suck.
To the feedback on the topic at hand!
I understand you're trying to modernize the UI and that's great, but change for that reason only, isn't a good reason to do so. On the whole I more or less actually like the direction, but like others before me have said, there isn't enough to distinguish between similar ship types, seeing them on a small monitor will put a lot of money into optometrists' hands, and a lot of these icons are totally unnecessary.
Despite my snarkiness earlier, use Thoirdhealbhach's idea. Rotate NPC icons 45* to the LEFT, and player ships 45* to the RIGHT. Why? Player ships have icons (fleet, corp, suspect, etc.) and if the icons are rotated to the RIGHT for player ships, the icon won't obstruct much or any of the ship icon.
Leave the drone icons as they are for light/med/heavy, but keep the new sentry drone icon. Give fighters the proposed rookie ship icon, and put rookie ships (which are frigates) with the rest of the frigates. Give FBs an icon that's an upgraded version of the proposed rookie icon.
Leave all the sentry turret icons alone. They're perfect. Use the new icon for batteries if you like, but leave the sentry turret icons as they are. Move the battery icons towards the bottom left corner so their type is more easily seen (puts their type near the center).
I like the new WH icon since now it'll be the only thing that looks swirly.
Swap the proposed web battery and warp scram battery icons. The '#' lends itself much better to scrams as it looks something like the module icon. The web battery would need a new icon. Three lines like engine trails?
Give target painters a circle with a cross inside instead of just a circle.
Customs offices could stand to lose the little bits on the left and right sides since they're a rather vertical structure.
And lastly, get rid of those brackets in space (the four triangle thingies). Like there isn't enough clutter. Or on second thought, keep them but only for objects you have targeted.
mad mspaint skillz (doesn't have the ships rotated 45* cause mspaint can't do it  )
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns
Triumvirate.
404
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 07:36:54 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Arrow wrote:We look forward to hearing what you think and hope you try them out on SiSi 
These are well thought and definitely needed little improvements. Solid design. |
McDarila
Delusions of Adequacy
Get Off My Lawn
15
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 07:36:58 -
[90] - Quote
Your looking at informaition over load, The Icons are too close to each other. Its not a good way to go, I see my self disabling all and depending on the overiew. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |