| 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) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
5351
   |
Posted - 2015.02.26 18:43:07 -
[1] - Quote
While the EVE Online user interface just recently saw some upgrades with a streamlined and improved NeoCom, we continue the modernization now with new in-space icons.
Instead of the small red or white crosses in space representing hostile or neutral ships, you will see new icons transporting additional information. Also icons for structures and other objects will be improved.
Read (and especially see) more about the new icon strategy in CCP Arrow's latest dev blog UI Modernization - Icon Strategy.
We welcome all your constructive feedback and opinions!
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager
|
|
|
CCP Arrow
C C P
C C P Alliance
659
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:03:05 -
[2] - Quote
We look forward to hearing what you think and hope you try them out on SiSi 
CCP Arrow | Director of User Experience | EVE Online | @CCP_Arrow
|
|
Noriko Mai
2073
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:04:50 -
[3] - Quote
first!
Come On Everybody, support Dark Opaque theme
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
117
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:08:19 -
[4] - Quote
And the first question...
Medium mining drones?
ED: Oh, harvesters are considered mediums, didn't know that... well, they aren't really used anyway.
Noriko Mai wrote:first!
EDIT: I would prefere more simple icons. The new icons are nice and all but the difference and the details are barely visible/distinguishable on 10x10 pixels.
And, as already mentionen in another thread, icons are not centered properly. The smaller ones are offset to the right.
Yes, distinguishing them seems too hard for me as well. On a 27" monitor they all look the same from 1 meter.
Not being centered properly is actually making it easier. Shifting inside the brackets in a row is easier to distinguish than variations of a triangle.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Dominique Vasilkovsky
BFG Tech
189
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:09:13 -
[5] - Quote
This will take a while to get used to after the old icons have been there for over a decade.
Looks promising though.
Dominique Vasilkovsky EVEboard
Once known as:
Mashie Saldana sold - Anastasia Rigel sold - Monica Foulkes sold
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Brave Collective
1622
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:09:59 -
[6] - Quote
Breaking news: NPC pods confirmed! Secondary suns confirmed! Medium mining drones confirmed! Well.. maybe.
Also, favorizing shape over color has yielded more than mixed results from everyone I ever got to discuss with. Including brand new players that only knew the old icons through my videos without ever having been used to them.
Furthermore, the shape over color logic is not realistic in a overview bracket environment with so few pixels and so tiny icons.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3185
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:22:08 -
[7] - Quote
will be interesting to see it in conjunction with the coloring caused through agression and standing flagging.
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
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3168
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:26:35 -
[8] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:And the first question... Medium mining drones? ED: Oh, harvesters are considered mediums, didn't know that... well, they aren't really used anyway. Noriko Mai wrote:first!
EDIT: I would prefere more simple icons. The new icons are nice and all but the difference and the details are barely visible/distinguishable on 10x10 pixels.
And, as already mentionen in another thread, icons are not centered properly. The smaller ones are offset to the right. Yes, distinguishing them seems too hard for me as well. On a 27" monitor they all look the same from 1 meter. Not being centered properly is actually making it easier. Shifting inside the brackets in a row is easier to distinguish than variations of a triangle.
Try it on a 17" laptop.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
14041
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:27:54 -
[9] - Quote
So many new... this could get messy haha especially on small screens.
/c
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
Aliventi
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
826
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:28:29 -
[10] - Quote
Why is there no special icon for a supercarrier? I feel that they are substantially different enough (EHP, EWAR immunity, FBs, etc) that they should warrant their own icon. |
Emilia Istis
Alter Ego Inc.
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:33:59 -
[11] - Quote
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) |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra
The 99 Percent
1135
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:36:32 -
[12] - Quote
Blood Carrier confirmed. But the icon was for an industrial of some sort.
I'll be sure to check these out at some point in the near future. But at first glance, I love those drone icons. Space Invaders confirmed!
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Corey Grim
Flagrante Delicto
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:39:18 -
[13] - Quote
Remove the icon "border dots". Yes the 4 white thingies around the icon.
Would make it so much cleaner and better.
Only get them appear when the ship/drone/structure is locked or selected. |
Steijn
Quay Industries
640
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:39:56 -
[14] - Quote
might look better when seen in space and on screen but first impression is that its going to look a bit yuk.
As Chribba says, on small screens some of those are going to be bad to work out. |
Winter Archipelago
Furtherance.
347
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:42:48 -
[15] - Quote
On the "Existing Icons" image, the Sensor Damp and the Warp Scram batteries have the same icon listed in their "New" column: http://puu.sh/gdYlN/bddab1a8f8.png
Is that intentional, considering they're two very different arrays?
Ransoms are accepted in Isk, Mods, Ships, and Dolls.
|
Dave Stark
7394
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:43:25 -
[16] - Quote
most of those icons all look the same except like 1-2 pixels, this is honestly not an improvement.
you're trying to cram the mona lisa in to like a 5 pixel by 5 pixel box and have just made a mess. whoever thought about 15 identical looking icons was an improvement on the current system is a ******. |
Noriko Mai
2074
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:47:09 -
[17] - 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)
I don't think neutral npcs will be that much of a problem because no one has them in thier overview 
Come On Everybody, support Dark Opaque theme
|
Greygal
Redemption Road
Affirmative.
349
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:49:52 -
[18] - Quote
Overall, I'm very much liking these changes. Do please make sure that the edges of these icons are as crisp as possible and that they are not affected by transparency settings, as that would kill their usability (for example, the buttons on the button bar currently are somewhat transparent on a transparent background, which makes it difficult for those of us such as myself with old eyes to discern them).
There is one proposed icon change that I do NOT like at all: Capsules. Please, please, leave the capsule icon as it is! It's, well, iconic! It really looks like a pod! The proposed capsule icon is just meh and bleh and doesn't look like a pod at all.
Keep up the good work!
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
295
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:08:30 -
[19] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Breaking news: NPC pods confirmed! Secondary suns confirmed! Medium mining drones confirmed! Well.. maybe.
Also, favorizing shape over color has yielded more than mixed results from everyone I ever got to discuss with. Including brand new players that only knew the old icons through my videos without ever having been used to them.
Furthermore, the shape over color logic is not realistic in a overview bracket environment with so few pixels and so tiny icons.
Secondary Suns exist in (some) WH's.
Harvester Mining Drones are medium. They are also collectors items, but regardless, still exist.
On to the icons.
One, I think they are a vast improvement over what we have now. Great Job. But I do echo the comments of others, that such small icons the detail is lost, again making some of them hard to distinguish.. But then again that can also be done by checking ship type :)
One comment though, I'd like to see a Supercarrier Icon. It's not a Titan, and it's for sure not a Carrier, it really does deserve it's own Icon. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
4748
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:09:15 -
[20] - Quote
This is something I would never have thought to do, and that will be *very* annoying for a couple of weeks after rollout, but should be a good change in the medium to long term.
Edit: With respect to small screens - these will look bad, but probably still provide more information than the current icons do, particularly for ships. Cruisers and battlecruisers having the same icon at present is particularly bad.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
97
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:11:26 -
[21] - Quote
Sentry Gun icons? WTF? They currently resemble a Gun Turret....makes it easy to identify with...
Now they look like "c" ...ummm, okay, why? How does that remotely resemble a gun?
If the reasoning was because the POS's E-war mods needed to be different...great, well, you can make them different still...with the current Sentry Gun icon for the things that go boom. Just change the E-war stuffs.
ALso, why make the Custom's Office more complicated...just keep the same simple design.
Again, some of this seems like just change for change sake with no real thought or logic. |
Gorongo Frostfyr
107
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:11:28 -
[22] - Quote
They seem to be designed mostly for an aesthetics aspect.
While on paper they look quite good, they look ingame far too similar. Drone type indicators are far too cryptic, but thats not the main problem, because that can be learned. The type indicator in the top right corner will be too small ingame.
In general I would add more asymmetrical features to the icons to distinguish them easier. Cruiser and frigate look almost the same, a little bit stretch does not help there. |
Snucklefruts
Dirty Stinky Pirates
28
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:14:09 -
[23] - Quote
I absolutely love the new structure icons.
How difficult would it be to add color/other something else to them to allow players to differentiate between structures that are unanchored, anchored, online, and incapacitated?
Sometimes there will be blobs of modules and if you are calling targets from over 100km it can be very difficult to determine which modules have not be dealt with.
Awesome work!! |
Michael Pawlicki
Oath of the Forsaken
Half Massed
4
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:16:18 -
[24] - Quote
Welp, there are NPC Titan and capital icons. Capital PvE confirmed/ Sleeper dreadnoughts. |
Abon
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
215
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:16:41 -
[25] - Quote
mmh looking around the image quickly it all melts down to a bunch of triangles with no clear differentiation. 
We don`t need little pretty ship icons with barely any detail we need crisp and clear symbols. Identifiable as easy and quickly as possible. The eyes will tire very quickly trying to make out the tiny details on those....
Not trying to sound like a ****...but this seems a little lazy. You can do better boys!!  |
Kopaka Newton
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:21:35 -
[26] - Quote
I like the change, especially for structures and iconless objects.
I would need to test it for a few hours, but the ship icons might be difficult to distinguish. I did like the old squary ones, but I'm sure there is some way to improve this! I also think the capsule icon should remain as it is.
For the icons in the "Existing Icons" image, I have to say I like most of those, in particular items that where all the same or simply didn't have an icon (asteroids and cloud icons god yes! <3). However, I think the sentry gun icon should remain the same (plus the new icon distinguising them, that's neat) as they convey the idea of a gun better than the new one you are proposing. I also think that the new customs office icon brings nothing new and should remain as it is, as it's more simple.
And finally, as a wormholer, please let the wormhole icon as it is. It fits with the stargate and jump bridge icons, it's very iconic, easy to distinguish and don't really like the new wormhole icon you are proposing. It's blurry and less "clean". |
BeanBagKing
The Order of Atlas
314
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:31:18 -
[27] - Quote
I think this is a huge step in the right direction. One thing I would like to see, looking at the huge existing icons image with the current and new overview icons, is trying to leave recognizable icons alone. Most of the ones I'm thinking of don't have a new icon yet, for example, star gates, planets, control towers, and wreaks. Most of these are very common things we see every day that already have a unique and recognizable icon. It would make the transition much easier if these were left as they were.
I feel like it's going to be easy to confuse a lot of the ship icons. It's still better than it is now, where you can't tell the difference between the majority of ships, but maybe there is still some work to be done here by the art department. For example, Carrier vs Industrial Command, or Mining frigate vs destroyer. Both of these icons, once reduced to a size small enough to fit on the overview, will be almost indistinquishable. I'm no UI designer, so I doubt this is a good suggestion, but maybe if the industrial ships weren't the same triangle appearance as the combat ships, so round or square off the nose? Or make them hollow?
Also, hostile NPC pods? 0_o =D
One person on Reddit pointed out that there is no super carrier, and while that is technically a carrier, there is a huge difference between a carrier and a super. If CCP goes down that road (which is something to consider), is it worth differentiating other classes? There's a big difference between T1 destroyers and the new T3 destroyers...
Love the look so far! |
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
532
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:35:14 -
[28] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:While the EVE Online user interface just recently saw some upgrades with a streamlined and improved NeoCom, we continue the modernization now with new in-space icons. Instead of the small red or white crosses in space representing hostile or neutral ships, you will see new icons transporting additional information. Also icons for structures and other objects will be improved. Read (and especially see) more about the new icon strategy in CCP Arrow's latest dev blog UI Modernization - Icon Strategy. We welcome all your constructive feedback and opinions!
I'm usually very supportive of CCP new stuff.
But this time I have to say it - it's c&@p. Once I opened that devblog I was "could you f-kin not?!"
Sorry but it is - you're trying to reinvent the wheel when the wheel works just fine.
Personally I find the current icons to be superbly efficient (especially since you introduced those overlays).
But this is just noise - a lot of noise, very frustrating. Me no likey.
But as we all know, first step in the change process is denial/revolt so...
(BUT I still think it's too much and there's no need for it - especially when a lot of us wont distinguish between them anyways because 3 sq pixels...)
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
Voxin Tulon
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP
The Marmite Collective
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:39:11 -
[29] - Quote
Another visual pollution.
Congrats. |
Kim Jong Lui
HC - Galactic maniacs
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:39:45 -
[30] - Quote
lol the drone icons look like one of the ccp teams had a space invader session ahahahaha i almost died laughing if drones look like that i dont think eve will be so painful as too many people would be laughing there ships into self destruction lol |
SamuraiGhost
Capts Deranged Cavaliers
Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:39:57 -
[31] - Quote
NPC (neutral or enemy) icons don't need a "plus" just the color red or white to differentiate... use the same icons as all the rest. |
Oberine Noriepa
1641
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:40:45 -
[32] - Quote
I've been waiting for this ever since the update that included the ISIS feature. Being able to identify a ship simply from its on-screen icon will be nice.
Gêâ
|
|
CCP Arrow
C C P
C C P Alliance
662
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:42:00 -
[33] - Quote
It is worth mentioning that all these icons are designed in vector and we store the icon sheets for that special day sometime in the future when we can start using vector icons instead of raster (bitmap) ones.
With 4K and even 5K monitors on the horizon we need to be ready and we want to be. So even though our current overview only gives us so much to work with, our design effort is to have icons that have a good base logic for their style and shapes which can work in various sizes once it becomes possible.
CCP Arrow | Director of User Experience | EVE Online | @CCP_Arrow
|
|
Myriad Blaze
Common Sense Ltd
Nulli Secunda
330
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:45:06 -
[34] - Quote
On Ship Group Icons:
It seems CCP is a) priorizing pretty over function and b) is working with large icons in the design process and then apply them to the overview and squeeze them into 12x12 pixels. The result can be seen in the picture linked in the devblog... all icons look more or less the same.
Please start the design process with the 12x12 pixel matrix (or whatever size it is), make sure that you have working icons that are easily discernable and then start making them pretty for usage in a large symbol. Alternatively and probably easier: Use different symbols for the overview and ISIS (and related views with large symbols). That way you could use very simple icons for the overview and small pictures elsewhre.
Also there's no need to reinvent the wheel: Tactical Symbols.
On Drone Icons:
Frankly, drone icons for the overview (and brackets) are hardly needed. In large engagements you remove drones from the overview anyway. Also the new icons use a lot more pixels than the old icons, which means that (almost) my whole screen will turn red (with brackets on) when a group of carriers deploy drones - no, thank you.
I'd suggest to make it way more simple. Stay with the old icon for standard S/M/L drones. Consider extra icons for Sentries, Fighters and Fighter Bombers, but make them much smaller than what you have now (make them comparable in size to the standard drone icon). And an extra icon to show the subtype of S/M/L drones is needed neither, imho. Logistics drones (when active) are easily recognizable by the "repair beams", for example. And if you intend to go with the "+ in the upper right corner to identify NPCs" idea, you'll get bad results if you also intend to use the upper right corner to have a sub type icon. (And don't forget that you already have an icon based on standings, which is actually important.)
On Icons for Structures:
We already have icons for various structures, why not use them?
The new icons neither look good nor do the seem tol be functional. And please don't try to show size by just making the icon bigger. Instead slightly modify the icon, for example by adding a line or a point to show size tiers. Check the picture I linked for examples: Tactical Symbols
General Issues:
More icons in the overview does not neccessarily means more information. There is information overload, which is actually a real problem in the real world in areas where lots of information needs to be processed fast. If you go through with your idea to add icons to everything, please at least make it optional to use them. Atm I'm a little worried that the sheer number and size of the suggested icons will make the game nearly unplayable in certain situations... like large fleet battles with literally huindreds of drones on the grid.
J'Poll:
EVE doesn't hand out cookies to you.
EVE kicks you down, steals your cookie and then laughs at you for bringing a cookie in the first place.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24989
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:45:51 -
[35] - Quote
YeahGǪ put me in the Gǣtoo similarGǥ camp.
The current icons are ridiculously simplistic, which is why the small differences work: relative to the (non-existant) complexity of the icon, the mere shift in size and weight makes a significant and immediately recognisable change.
These seem to do the exact opposite: the icons are more complex, with less to differentiate them (sometimes as little as a 1-px lineGǪ which will be a sub-pixel difference on a scaled UI GÇö and no, removing the option of scaling the UI is not the right solution even though it will be the one that your teams will instantly suggest). The question I immediately ask is: does this differentiation offer any information that's 1. necessary, 2. valuable enough to warrant the clutter, and 3. not better obtained through other means?
What's the value of being able to differentiate a mining frigate from a frigate? Why would you want to make it much harder to differentiate between NPC and PC?
But more than that, and assuming that the differentiation you're looking for is actually valuable: why have you chosen such a limited palette of cues to communicate these differences? You really only have two: size, and single-pixel decorations. Yes, there are some minor differences in shape, but they work completely at counter-purpose and just make it easier to confuse one size with another.
Why not use completely different shapes? Different directions? Better use of negative space? Sure, vary size with ship size, but let different categories within each size bracket be represented by something that isn't an arrow pointed up, with some squint-required markings to convey crucial differences.
The argumentation seems to be GÇ£it'll be familiar from ISISGÇ¥ but that just suggests that the largely irrelevant ISIS icons need to be fixed, rather than that the game-critical overview and brackets should be infected with the same muddied malady.
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.
|
Lokai Lassilis
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. ACADEMY
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:47:33 -
[36] - Quote
The screenshot looks fantastic - just not sure how practical it will be |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
332
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:51:27 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:While the EVE Online user interface just recently saw some upgrades with a streamlined and improved NeoCom, we continue the modernization now with new in-space icons. Instead of the small red or white crosses in space representing hostile or neutral ships, you will see new icons transporting additional information. Also icons for structures and other objects will be improved. Read (and especially see) more about the new icon strategy in CCP Arrow's latest dev blog UI Modernization - Icon Strategy. We welcome all your constructive feedback and opinions!
How does one give feedback on wasted time.
You say it took a "team" to develop this, what a waste of valuable resources.
PS; CCP Falcon, the new modernized Neocom - is simply bad.
Nothing says cheap shoddy workmanship more than monochrome icons that all look similar.
- - - - - - - -
EveOnline based in the future of living in space but with the added look of having been designed in the 70's by bored chimpanzee astronauts.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
161
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:52:45 -
[38] - Quote
I pity the poor bot developers who have to adjust to these changes ... NOT!
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
470
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:54:40 -
[39] - Quote
Michael Pawlicki wrote:Welp, there are NPC Titan and capital icons. Capital PvE confirmed/ Sleeper dreadnoughts.
They've been there for a while. They appear as "backup" on some select missions. |
Circumstantial Evidence
168
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:12:30 -
[40] - Quote
I have trouble distinguishing today, between some overview ship types, based purely on their bracket shapes. This counts as an improvement. But a triangle icon is... close to the same problem with a different shape. We demand they be as small as possible, to maximize amount of info packed into our overview lists.
As much as I like triangles, (they scream "this is a spaceship game!") - I think we need some additional shape variation. Consider rotating some of these triangles. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24992
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:14:28 -
[41] - Quote
Oh, and by the way: what will these look like when you cover them up with the standard set of overview- and bracket colourings and tags? How does a blue-listed, fleeted, S-flagged battleship look compared to a same-corp, fleeted, bountied cruiser?
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.
|
Sylvanium Orlenard
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
72
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:17:45 -
[42] - Quote
What I like :
- You are trying to give the player more information faster, instead of having to read the ship type column simply looking at the icon would give you a pretty darn good idea what you are up againts
- You are trying to make the game more accessible to more players (color blind)
What I like less :
- When these icons are placed in the overview or in a bracket they are ridiculously small, which negates their intended purpose (if you need a magnifying class to distinguish the icon from an other one, then they may as well not be different)
- The distinction between NPC and Player ships on the icons (+) is not enough and makes the icons that much harder to distinguish.
There is something to be said for simplicity and what we are playing with now is simplistic (if not as informative) So instead of going so far into "We need to give all the info possible" camp, maybe looking into finding a middle ground between the simplistic approach we currently have and the information overload approach you are suggesting?
Overall I like that you are looking into this and will be paying attention to further developments. |
Dunkle Lars
Lemon Half Moon
55
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:30:41 -
[43] - Quote
Capital NPC ships confirmed!
But otherwise it looks good. Yes it'll take some time getting used to, but hey, so did the current icons when I first started.
But maybe you should consider making a seperate icon for super-carriers.. Since they're a group for themselves.
So +1 for a job well done. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
515
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:31:57 -
[44] - Quote
honestly i love all the icons except the generic battery icon, i would love to know where a battery or turret having a 'c' shape came from. i would have even understood the electrical circuit symbol for battery but imho even the old symbol for the pos batterys makes more sense.
though i dont want to put a downer on the whole thing of course, the art team has done a great job, though my eyes are gonna hurt on my little 17inch laptop screen! =) |
May O'Neez
Flying Blacksmiths
42
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:32:00 -
[45] - Quote
I can't distinguish between small and medium size ships except (hardly) the size which differs very slightly, where previously the difference was obvious. Previous were simple and allowed fast decode of class of ships. To my opinion these are too much detailed and confuse decoding, I think I will probably have to frequently use text as fallback. XS icons are also identical to me, which is an issue since pod and shuttle are definitively not to consider the same.
Asteroid belt also looks like upside-down ship and could confuse
Same for Beacon, which looks like a destroyer
Mobile Reprocessing Array looks like a drone
Symbols above batteries are almost unreadable even after zooming
Wormhole looks like the previous reactors arrays
I know that you have to update the icons, but assuming that everyone use Isis and get used to the icons is a mistake: I barely take attention to the icons since they are too complex and similar and they were not used outside except in ships infos where actually the real info is the list of stats under (so not taking account of it anyway, same issue with the "ammo" / "category" icons which are too much abstract. By the way I'm still confusing a lot with the new neocom, I can't make the difference between assets and inventory and miss the 2 regularly because the symbols don't mean to me). I know this is a matter of habit but let me also explain my feeling as I took a look at the overview.
I was not able to decode clearly except large/very large ships and some peculiar ones (like destroyers or freighter).
On the overview, having to analyze the difference of 3 pixels in the form of a flat or round roof or the orientation of a 3 pixels-wide exponent (ewar, npc), or the width which is 2 pixels more will be very tedious. In previous forms the size and the bold of the cross were different plus the color if NPC, that was only 3 things to compare. Now you have to compare shape, size, width, exponent, color, ... If you add background color or icons for status the amount of data to process is greatly increased. When some icons overlap it gets even worse.
For young people with good vision it may not be an issue, but with older ones and/or with impaired vision which have issues distinguish this amount of detail, specially on medium-sized screens, I'm rather doubtful. |
Darkblad
Hilf Dir selbst in EVE
751
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:34:42 -
[46] - Quote
Michael Pawlicki wrote:Welp, there are NPC Titan and capital icons. Capital PvE confirmed/ Sleeper dreadnoughts. Like Republic Fleet Harkal which at least is a Mission Minmatar Republic Carrier (also seen as Stolen Nidhoggur during the SoE Epic Argh).
EVE Infolinks GÇó Mining Handbuch GÇó Colortags/Timer
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
98
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:35:14 -
[47] - Quote
CCP Arrow wrote:
With 4K and even 5K monitors on the horizon we need to be ready and we want to be. So even though our current overview only gives us so much to work with, our design effort is to have icons that have a good base logic for their style and shapes which can work in various sizes once it becomes possible.
This argument feels like a straw man....
What % of your clientele do you believe will own 4k-5k monitors in that time...versus the number that will still be running just over min-specs?
Of those that will be running Eve on 4k-5k monitors, how many of them are doing it for the sole purpose of enlarging the icon column of their overview, versus the number that will have their overview take up the same space as now, but use the extra resolution for...SPACE SHIPS AND SPACE!
|
Eileen Black
EVE University
Ivy League
9
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:35:32 -
[48] - Quote
Looks great, certainly a good direction, BUT:
1. remove the 4 brackets around the icon - messy.
2. Instead of making all those different icons, make a base and a modifier :
Base small hull with a destroyer modifier
Base medium hull with a battlecruiser modifier
Base combat drone hull with size modifier
Modifier can be similar to the ISIS one. Those looked decent. But You can do better than those I guess too.
This will make immediately apparent what class it is, and then what type within this class.
Generally a good direction,
Cheers! |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
153
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:35:48 -
[49] - Quote
Is it just me or do the drone icons look like Space Invaders?
Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE
Check out the Youtube Channel and be sure to subscribe!
|
Azahar Ortenegro
Astromechanica Maxima
Astromechanica Federatis
39
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:37:15 -
[50] - Quote
Still waiting for the old Neocom and the old Theme selection to be back. Having seven flavours of green/red/blue/whatever on screen hurts the eye. |
Darkblad
Hilf Dir selbst in EVE
751
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:37:50 -
[51] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Oh, and by the way: what will these look like when you cover them up with the standard set of overview- and bracket colourings and tags? How does a blue-listed, fleeted, S-flagged battleship look compared to a same-corp, fleeted, bountied cruiser? A few weeks ago a proposal was made to use the ISIS Icons as Brackets/OV Icons (in the German Features & Ideas forum). To showcase what those would look like when used with colortags, I created this mockup. It'll probably look pretty much like that.
EVE Infolinks GÇó Mining Handbuch GÇó Colortags/Timer
|
RangerGord
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
30
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:38:03 -
[52] - Quote
So about the sentry turrets... yeah, why change from a small circle to a square "c"?
What else in the game has that icon? As is the current sentry turret/pos gun icon looks like that, a turret or something with a gun.
One thing that has always bugged me about the turrets is the differentiation between missle sentries and non-missile sentries. Why are missiles special enough to receive their own icon? Other than sucking horribly and making it more clear for anyone checking the POS defenses that it is an easy target. And no, I'm not asking for even more variations to the sentry icon, just 1, thats all we need.
I can understand where you guys are coming from with the idea behind this but with the sentry turrets and drones I think you went a little overboard, that would be like having a different icon for each different 'tier/role' of ship inside of each 'class' of ship too...
If we really wanted to know what kind of drone or turret a sentry was, well it kinda says it in the NAME field. Next thing you know they will be putting lore stuff into the overview icons and fields in addition to all the stuff that is already there now.
I thought you were trying to make the game less horrible complex, not moreso? |
Kerrat Braban
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:41:59 -
[53] - Quote
Much too small, many are hard to distinguish and have to be memorized instead of being intuitive... and if you are going to such (unnecessary) extremes, why are sensor dampening battery and warp scramble battery the same icon?
And how does slightly increasing the size of the freight container matter?
Please keep the icon for guns, the new one doesn't make sense at all - except being the same base icon as the EW batteries. |
Paddy Finn
Greater Order Of Destruction
The Good Christian Society
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:42:21 -
[54] - Quote
How about putting a numeral 2 or 3 in a corner for Tech 2 or Tech 3 ships to differentiate them in a fight. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24993
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:49:52 -
[55] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Tippia wrote:Oh, and by the way: what will these look like when you cover them up with the standard set of overview- and bracket colourings and tags? How does a blue-listed, fleeted, S-flagged battleship look compared to a same-corp, fleeted, bountied cruiser? A few weeks ago a proposal was made to use the ISIS Icons as Brackets/OV Icons (in the German Features & Ideas forum). To showcase what those would look like when used with colortags, I created this mockup. It'll probably look pretty much like that.
That looks reasonable for the overview. I'm thinking more about the in-space brackets, where the differentiation they're going for here probably will change this to thisGǪ
GǪwhich raises yet another variation of the question Gǣwhy?Gǥ, since that's where the distinctions will actually matter (wellGǪ except that people use filters to do the same thing, since that's a functionality that's more suited for the purpose).
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.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1503
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:14:08 -
[56] - Quote
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.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Noriko Mai
2076
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:25:34 -
[57] - Quote
After a second look I must say that I really like the battleship icon 
After playing a little bit with it I noticed some things. Frigate and cruiser (not battlecruiser) icons are offset one pixel to the right. Cruiser and Battlecruiser icons are offset on pixel down.
It is even harder to recognise some items if there is an icon for standing/corp/alliance/etc.
Come On Everybody, support Dark Opaque theme
|
Smertyukovitch
Caladari CareBear Corporation
4
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:35:28 -
[58] - Quote
Another bad idea in regard to icons.
The only upside i can see: they might give players more information by themselves.
And now downside: other overview columns provide that information, 15 ship size icons are harder to analyze in a combat situation, harder to distinguish player from an NPC, might be even impossible if player has -10 SS. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24995
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:42:36 -
[59] - 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.
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.
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.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2021
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:58:32 -
[60] - Quote
SECONDARY SUNS????? :D |
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. |
Vorstellung
CTRL-Q
Iron Oxide.
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 07:51:10 -
[91] - Quote
awesome idea and the icons look neat and nice but u really need to change the design from "look good" to be "usefull":
right now the icons are awful! they are all way too similar. on the test picture all i see are red triangle shaped things.
if you want us to distinguish the shipsize by their icons u need find different icons!
they need to be catchy on first glance on the screen (the icons move around in space and even so in the overview when sorted by distance.
your icons for drones are fine and well designed but for the ships its imho horrible icon system
the design
u should use more defined symbols for the sizes for example:
pod .
shuttle ..
frig +
dessie +>
cruiser *
BC *>
BS O
carrier L
scarrier L>
dread 8
titan XX
this is just ascii and would be 300% more catchy on the eye...
represent a size with a specific icon, have a symbol for the "in between size like battlecruiser"
go on for industrial ships in same way.
|
Vintare
Jedi Knight's Orden
Jedi Path
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 08:08:17 -
[92] - Quote
Any chance we can get ability to switch between icon sizes? Because while they where just a cross with variable umph, icons are just too damn small on high-res screens (like 15" FullHD notebook). So, ability to have a bigger icons would be greatly appriciated and will make distinguishing them much easier.
Especially the drones. |
Sturmwolke
637
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 08:15:21 -
[93] - Quote
Combat ships line is passable.
Freighter/indy line is still a jumbled mess (more specifically L and XL). Those shapes still aren't distinct enough to pass a cursory glance*.
Sentry drone vs scout/hvy drone = clear distinction.
Medium scout drone vs heavy drone = blurry distinction.
Fighter vs fighter bomber = another blurry distinction that makes me seriously wonder if anyone really put any proper thought into this (wtf!?).
Structures, burn it.
* Compare these 2 lines, combat ship vs indy/freighter. Look at the L vs XL distinction for each line.
Big difference.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1775
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 08:15:30 -
[94] - Quote
Icons are too similar for small screens. The differences are too small for easy learning. Not enough use of colour to distinguish.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Dixie Mason
ZERO TAX MERCS
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 08:15:53 -
[95] - 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.
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
Everyone who plays this game understands the need to get fast and clear overview what's around. Scaled down representation of ships defines it. Make it simple
|
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1585
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 08:36:53 -
[96] - Quote
And yet again CCP surprises us with a redundant unneeded not asked for add on/change.
It's all been said by the why/unneeded/it works now fine camp so I have nothing to add but that I'm happy that those who designed this have zero sight problems.
Seriously 1 pixel differences between icons that ALL look the same?
Oh well you cramm it down our throats anyway, what's the point in asking to redesign/reconsider this?
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1775
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 08:39:39 -
[97] - 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
Please just do this. And leave the pod icon alone. My pod is never a wreck. Ahem.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Thebriwan
LUX Uls Xystus
215
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 08:42:36 -
[98] - Quote
+1000
Awesome! |
Vegare
Bitslix
83
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 08:58:06 -
[99] - Quote
So how are these new icons going to work together with colortags and bracket backgrounds? Seems to be alot of information on very few pixels. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1775
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 08:59:19 -
[100] - Quote
Thebriwan wrote:+1000
Awesome!
Edit: After reading some of the other comments:
That "I can not distinguish them from another" sound like bullshit to me. Why?
a) The new icons are MUCH better, then the ones we have now.
b) Small screen anyone? Get a life! (Ahem a new display?)
c) I need so memorize the different shapes! Seriously? Go play WoW!
There was a time when the line "Harden the f*** up" was what defined an eve player.
To much wining today!
You heard it folks. Get a life by, um, getting a bigger screen for your computer game.
"Harden the f*** up" doesn't sound like good design practice to me. Out of interest, was this run past the CSM?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Chiho Hareka
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 09:03:28 -
[101] - Quote
As has been said, but cannot be overemphasized, there is too much distinction among the new icons.
It is too difficult to distinguish between similar sized types. And the very small detail distinctions are almost useless, they make it far too cluttered.
Please, simpler shapes, fewer sizes. Use some sort of accent or top line above a basic shape to indicate a "heavy" version of a basic ship size (e.g., for destroyer or battle cruiser, use frigate with line above, cruiser with line above). The line could be contoured to match the basic shape. Others have suggested comprehensive schemes.
The point of a UI should be to simplify complex information, not preserve the complexity.
Could you use bright/dim distinctions rather than color to distinguish foe/friend ? Or use reverse "coloring", e.g., instead of a clear or empty field as background, use a filled or white field, with dark/black shapes?
Anyway, from past experience in other games, I can tell that your proposed new graphics scheme will be far more confusing than helpful. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Brave Collective
1625
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 09:09:26 -
[102] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:
Secondary Suns exist in (some) WH's.
Nah these are system-wide effects. Or did I miss something??
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
|
Yuri Pyrrhus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 09:11:38 -
[103] - Quote
I don't know if someone already have suggested it, but maybe it will be better if player ships' icons will be unfilled (just border) and NPC icons will be filled and without extra "plus" on the side.
|
Gregor Parud
Ordo Ardish
1211
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 09:13:09 -
[104] - Quote
Really good work, it's a welcome upgrade and it seems to be well thought out. However, using the same icon for mining barges and haulers is a bit weird, that really needs to be specified better.
I'm old Gregor.
|
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
537
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 09:14:34 -
[105] - Quote
Information overload from my point of view.
I am now considering my rejection/dismay step to be finished and I still don't like them.
If CCP wants to redesign the tactical info of UI I suggest drawing inspiration from Homeworld 2's super practical tactical overlay.
(that game was and still is too good in way too many aspects - think it was made by the gods)
However if there is an option to turn it off or keep the old one - I'm satisfied.
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
Nishachara
Stillwater Corporation
That Escalated Quickly.
25
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 09:43:18 -
[106] - Quote
The icons seem to small on first glance, or to indistinguishable on smaller screens, maybe by adding vertical one, two or three lines through the icon for various sizes would make it more distinguishable.
Also on your screenshot there is a true sansha battleship, can you put two +-s on npc faction ships, so they can be a bit more easely distinguished.
Also on your screenshot there is no +-s on the icons of npc ships. |
Merritt
Misfits of Eve
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 09:53:18 -
[107] - Quote
GÖª This is... a ship?
GÖª This is some kind of other ship?
GÖª Oh, this is a container. Yeah.
GÖª OOH, got this one, this is a drone.
GÖª Ah, yeah. NPC supercap.
GÖª Another container, but this one has a password set from 3 years ago and is currently on fire. (How?)
GÖª Corpse.
GÖª Pod.
GÖª Wreck!
GÖª Yup. Station. I'm getting good at this game! |
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP
The Marmite Collective
2020
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 09:57:40 -
[108] - Quote
I really like the new in-space icons. It has logic and structure. What I don't like is the lack of color in the menu's. If you want to click an icon, you need to find it first. A shape is a good start, but a color will make it stand out even more. So why would you remove something that makes it easier to select an icon ? I don't see the logic in this decision.
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - DELETE THE WEAK , ADAPT OR DIE !
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
30632
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 09:58:42 -
[109] - Quote
F
AF
BC
C
HA
HI
BS
DS
DN
CA
MS
T
RE
L
T3
ID
MA
JF
RQ
as an exercise in intuitive design, guess what ship classes those represent.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1506
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 10:45:07 -
[110] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:Getting used to the new NEOCOM symbols still, but I think over time, everyone will adjust, nice work.
I hate to break this to you, you will get older and your eyes will become less able to differentiate individual pixels.
So If adjusting means flying with your nose pressed against the monitor, then You may have a point but then ships attacking you from behind your left ear, will ruin your day.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1506
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 10:52:47 -
[111] - Quote
Thebriwan wrote:+1000
Awesome!
Edit: After reading some of the other comments:
That "I can not distinguish them from another" sound like bullshit to me. Why?
a) The new icons are MUCH better, then the ones we have now.
b) Small screen anyone? Get a life! (Ahem a new display?)
c) I need so memorize the different shapes! Seriously? Go play WoW!
There was a time when the line "Harden the f*** up" was what defined an eve player.
To much wining today!
Yeah! Toughen up you wimp get younger... What?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Geanos
V I R I I
Triumvirate.
11
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:10:29 -
[112] - Quote
I suggest you guys take a look at World of Tanks tank type icons. They are clearly visible and extremely easy to recognize at any resolution. |
|
CCP Arrow
C C P
C C P Alliance
673
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:16:29 -
[113] - Quote
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:CCP Arrow wrote:
With 4K and even 5K monitors on the horizon we need to be ready and we want to be. So even though our current overview only gives us so much to work with, our design effort is to have icons that have a good base logic for their style and shapes which can work in various sizes once it becomes possible.
This argument feels like a straw man.... What % of your clientele do you believe will own 4k-5k monitors in that time...versus the number that will still be running just over min-specs? Of those that will be running Eve on 4k-5k monitors, how many of them are doing it for the sole purpose of enlarging the icon column of their overview, versus the number that will have their overview take up the same space as now, but use the extra resolution for...SPACE SHIPS AND SPACE!
I was pointing out the fact that we need to be ready to support larger versions of all icons once 4K and 5K monitors become mainstream, because on those monitors, the current icons actually look much smaller than on regular monitors. So I was agreeing with the problem of the size but reassuring players it is our plan to address it because it will become an even bigger issue with 4K and 5K monitors.
CCP Arrow | Director of User Experience | EVE Online | @CCP_Arrow
|
|
V0LC4N3
Es and Whizz
Hedonistic Imperative
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:19:05 -
[114] - Quote
I like the stylisation but I feel you have overcomplicated them to they will actually make things more difficult. If you have the time have a read of: http://www.rogercooper.com/documents/FILE_N_1000508.pdf
It may not be directly applicable but the principles are the same. Good work though but I really recommend you move the "+" for neutrals to a colour designation. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1777
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:21:08 -
[115] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:F
AF
BC
C
HA
HI
BS
DS
DN
CA
MS
T
RE
L
T3
ID
MA
JF
RQ
as an exercise in intuitive design, guess what ship classes those represent.
That was my first thought, too. But it only works in English. Or possibly American.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
120
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:29:12 -
[116] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:This is something I would never have thought to do, and that will be *very* annoying for a couple of weeks after rollout, but should be a good change in the medium to long term.
Edit: With respect to small screens - these will look bad, but probably still provide more information than the current icons do, particularly for ships. Cruisers and battlecruisers having the same icon at present is particularly bad.
As if you PvF (player vs freighter) players need to distinguish them, freighters aside. Of all people you should welcome those, because they make your one and only target very distinguishable.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
538
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:37:33 -
[117] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Rain6637 wrote:F
AF
BC
C
HA
HI
BS
DS
DN
CA
MS
T
RE
L
T3
ID
MA
JF
RQ
as an exercise in intuitive design, guess what ship classes those represent. That was my first thought, too. But it only works in English. Or possibly American.
I'm pretty convinced that the vast majority of the other languages on planet Earth have indeed discovered by now the use of acronyms...and since most of them have an established designation for ships in their own dictionaries I don't see the problem.
(ex. RO: Distrugator [DI/DS], EN: Destroyer[DE/DS], FR: Contre-Torpilleur/Destructuer [CT/DE/DS] )
CCP could add the specific acronym for each ship class based on the localization.
Also see for more juicy bits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
333
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:52:09 -
[118] - Quote
CCP Arrow wrote:Lil' Brudder Too wrote:CCP Arrow wrote:
With 4K and even 5K monitors on the horizon we need to be ready and we want to be. So even though our current overview only gives us so much to work with, our design effort is to have icons that have a good base logic for their style and shapes which can work in various sizes once it becomes possible.
This argument feels like a straw man.... What % of your clientele do you believe will own 4k-5k monitors in that time...versus the number that will still be running just over min-specs? Of those that will be running Eve on 4k-5k monitors, how many of them are doing it for the sole purpose of enlarging the icon column of their overview, versus the number that will have their overview take up the same space as now, but use the extra resolution for...SPACE SHIPS AND SPACE! I was pointing out the fact that we need to be ready to support larger versions of all icons once 4K and 5K monitors become mainstream, because on those monitors, the current icons actually look much smaller than on regular monitors. So I was agreeing with the problem of the size but reassuring players it is our plan to address it because it will become an even bigger issue with 4K and 5K monitors.
Makes sense.. plan and implement something now so it looks good on monitors 4 or 5 years from now.
I wonder - when 4k and 5k monitors become mainstream, will eve still be running on single thread code?
Planning for something to be mainstream 4 or 5 years down the track, using 10 year old outdated single thread code. How much foresight CCP has shown, it just boggles the mind.
NB; yes value for $ 4k and 5 k monitors will be "available" in under 5 years (maybe) but certainly won't be "mainstream". Right now the benchmark is around $1 per pixel = $4,000 for a 4k television which most platforms won't support, unless you have a $3,000 graphics card to run your 4k @1080p (optimal settings). 4 years from now production will have caught up with technology so your new icons may be warranted and appreciated by a minority of the player base who play 1 character on a highend machine.
I actually preferred it when Devs didn't tell us their logic and reasoning - It just makes no sense and is not at all logical from a mass player base point of view.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Tiberizzle
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:55:03 -
[119] - Quote
the idea is good but the icons as they are all look blurry and misshapen, actually quite terrible
particularly on the frigate and cruiser images, the poor choice of angles (angles that translate into integer pixel ratio slopes are best for extremely low resolution graphics) for the low resolution and use of very fine angled detail for differentiating features are not scaling well at all to the low icon resolutions and the images become so blurry / antialiased after scaling that it's awkward to even differentiate between the cruiser and frigate icons, nevermind the cruiser and frigate subtypes
the design examples are rendered very poorly, e.g. the cruiser image appears to have its vertex like at like 2/5 - 3/5 of a pixel boundary causing it to lose vertex detail and appear to bulge on one side
basically they all looks like **** and are painful to even behold try harder or leave them the way they are |
V0LC4N3
Es and Whizz
Hedonistic Imperative
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:59:11 -
[120] - Quote
I was messing around with this ages ago into what was readable for a large body of tracks. Hence why I looked at the earlier link. Here are some examples: https://plus.google.com/photos/108351318484677285762/albums/6120491555049955457 (red hostile, blue friendly, green neutral etc)
Note the shape and colour change to identify hostility. The bottom right is deliberately notched so that something else could be placed in there eg a square or dot to show whether that ship has you targeted. Or a coloured dot showing what type of EW they have on you etc. The centre ship icon sucks compared to yours I know.
The point though is you can see at a glance;
Hostility - identified by different shapes and colours
Craft Type - identified by lettering and inner ship shape icon
Good luck with it all I loved looking at this type of stuff ages ago. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5881
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:18:54 -
[121] - Quote
At a quick glance, the industrial ship icons look too combat-like. The mining barge / industrial could be mistaken for battlecruisers, and the mining frigate for destroyers. The symbols for combat vs. (typically) non-combat ships ought to be readily distinguishable, not something you have to look closer at to be sure.
I also noticed what someone else pointed out - your POS mod dampener and scrambler icons were the same. If you're going to all the trouble to have different icons for every thing in the world, you ought to include differences in Scrambler vs Disruptor too.
More thoughts as they come....
Why did you drop the egg icon on capsules and turn it into a bullet?
I appreciate the different drone icons. Differentiating size may be tricky though.
The structure icons seem odd having the bracket on top. Most human beings I know of readily associate structures as having a firm flat base, not a flat roof. Why not put the bracket on the bottom? (Yes, I know we're in space but we still have up/down and we're already programmed to think in terms of buildings being on the ground)
I rather liked the mobile sentry icons we had - changing them to a squared-off "C" shape seems less intuitive to me, especially since you're using that C shape for POS Ewar batteries. POS guns ought to have a gun-like icon, not an EWAR-like icon. Again, these are modules you want to see the differences between at a quick glance when evaluating a POS. Staring at a cluster of icons that all look the same (more than they used to even!!) is going to be a PITA.
All in all, I like that you're making changes to the icons, but some of the choices seem off.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
The Obsidian Front
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:20:53 -
[122] - Quote
I'm going to be extremely positive about this.
Why? Because I am having no difficulty in making out the difference between the icons at a glance.
They all seem to be intuitive and are acceptable for the size that they are required to be.
Maybe it's because my eye has been trained to pick out very subtle differences in shape and silhouette. That doesn't mean that these icons have differences that are too subtle.
This is a large change to iconography and I think we should accept it and adapt to it. You will find it easy and helpful in the future and will think back to the "Good ole days" when the overview was mad up of red and grey + symbols and capsuleer ships were just an empty bracket of 3 different sizes meaning you had to actually read the ship type to know if you are about to fight a destroyer or a cruiser. Well guess what.... all you nay sayers and complainers just made "Bitter Vet" status. Enjoy wearing your medal.
P.S. The new monochrome neocom is way better than the old blurry images. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
House of Freedom
The Pursuit of Happiness
192
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:29:37 -
[123] - Quote
With the remastered version of HOMEWORLD available on steam and present on like every youtube channel,
I want to draw your attention (CCP) on the solution to the ship icon problem in that particular game francise.
It's very simplistic and relies entirely on shape to transport ship size information and it is a very robust system in every situation.
Don't get me wrong, I like what you have done very much, but the proposed icon set won't make it easier to distinguish ship classes via icons, maybe even harder.
There some nice examples in this thread already for more distinguishable icons, use these as an inspiration?
keep up the good work
o7 |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
991
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:34:30 -
[124] - Quote
Quoted for emphasis and linked back to the original post.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Marcus Gord
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security
81348
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:54:07 -
[125] - Quote
I don't even see icons anymore. i see THE COLUMN THAT TELLS ME WHAT IT IS BY NAME.
the fact that something is a cruiser is not as relevant as the fact it is a Guardian, for example.
why do we even have icons?
In a few moments you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed to your conscious awareness.
http://i.imgur.com/LM2NKUf.png
|
Geanos
V I R I I
Triumvirate.
11
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:04:52 -
[126] - Quote
Marcus Gord wrote:I don't even see icons anymore. i see THE COLUMN THAT TELLS ME WHAT IT IS BY NAME.
the fact that something is a cruiser is not as relevant as the fact it is a Guardian, for example.
why do we even have icons?
Hahahaha, epic! As long as the icons show only the class of ship, we're still ending up with a crowded overview (need for type column for ex). So I guess, the change is about making the overview more eye candy.
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2901
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:05:11 -
[127] - Quote
Once we all get used to the new icons, I am sure it will be seen as a good change.
Well done CCP
This is not a signature.
|
Memphis Baas
182
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:29:23 -
[128] - Quote
You know what the problem is?
The problem is that NONE of the ship icons look like any actual ships in the game. The icons look like Star Wars ships, especially the v-shaped star destroyers etc. But none of the ships in EVE look like that. None of the battleships are diamond shaped, none of the frigates are ^ shaped, none of your ships look anything like the icons.
We'd have a much easier time recognizing things if you took the outline of an iconic ship from each class and made it the icon for that class. For example, the Vexor, everyone will recognize a Vexor outline. Pretty sure we're all familiar with the rookie ships, pick one. Rifter, Magnate, Armageddon, Scorpion, Avatar, Moros, Nyx, are all recognizable shapes.
Basically, your ship icons kinda suck. Going by the system you've picked, the icon for an asteroid would be a sword - something completely unrelated to the shape or purpose of a roid.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25014
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:29:55 -
[129] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Once we all get used to the new icons, I am sure it will be seen as a good change.
Well done CCP
Echoes from the (rescinded) module icon change.
So probably not, since the same mistake is being made here: they're going for something that looks good rather than something that is functional and tell you at a glance what you're actually looking at.
Don't get me wrong GÇö the ship icons and brackets could use an overhaul, but they need to retain their absolute clarity in terms of conveying information, and the wide scope of that information and the lacking amount of cues used to convey it, simply will not do that. I'm also still very curious how these will interact with colourings and tags when used as brackets GÇö our current boring boxes work because they simply enclose those markings, whereas there's very little room to do so with the new ones without covering them up completely and rendering them pointless.
Memphis Baas wrote:You know what the problem is?
The problem is that NONE of the ship icons look like any actual ships in the game. The icons look like Star Wars ships, especially the v-shaped star destroyers etc. But none of the ships in EVE look like that. None of the battleships are diamond shaped, none of the frigates are ^ shaped, none of your ships look anything like the icons.
We'd have a much easier time recognizing things if you took the outline of an iconic ship from each class and made it the icon for that class. For example, the Vexor, everyone will recognize a Vexor outline. Pretty sure we're all familiar with the rookie ships, pick one. Rifter, Magnate, Armageddon, Scorpion, Avatar, Moros, Nyx, are all recognizable shapes.
As a general idea, that might work, but it runs afoul of the same problem as we're seeing with these icons: at 18+ù18px, those familiar outlines will become indistinct and blurry. It also kind of goes counter to the whole idea of iconography: representing something symbolically rather than as an accurate depiction.
Hell, I know people who only when the neocom icons were being changed realised (or, more accurately, were told) that the GǣInsuranceGǥ icon was supposed to be a chained-up VexorGǪ So betting on shape recognition might not be the best idea.
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.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
334
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:43:01 -
[130] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Once we all get used to the new icons, I am sure it will be seen as a good change.
Well done CCP
You do of course mean in years to come when the hardware they are specifically designed for is affordable for the masses and not just the rich and idle who want to play 1 character on maximum resolution.
With all these new changes being targeted at a minority of highend machines owners who can run all the pretty but mainly irrelevant bling effects, it is going to leave a lot of players with 2 options. Buy a new machine or find another game.
As others have pointed out - being able to easily recognize the difference between a cruiser and a battleship by icon size is pointless when you still need a column for ship type to tell which cruiser you should be shooting at.
Changes that add something useful are great but those like this that are just for the sake of change and or directed specifically at a minority group are more of a nuisance.
If your going to change all the icons, do it right the 1st time, make them useful.
When you land on grid you need to quickly identify the biggest threat, right now that is achieved by using a column for ship type. These new icons are not going to change that or help to change it in any way.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1510
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:56:12 -
[131] - Quote
CCP Arrow wrote:Lil' Brudder Too wrote:CCP Arrow wrote:
With 4K and even 5K monitors on the horizon we need to be ready and we want to be. So even though our current overview only gives us so much to work with, our design effort is to have icons that have a good base logic for their style and shapes which can work in various sizes once it becomes possible.
This argument feels like a straw man.... What % of your clientele do you believe will own 4k-5k monitors in that time...versus the number that will still be running just over min-specs? Of those that will be running Eve on 4k-5k monitors, how many of them are doing it for the sole purpose of enlarging the icon column of their overview, versus the number that will have their overview take up the same space as now, but use the extra resolution for...SPACE SHIPS AND SPACE! I was pointing out the fact that we need to be ready to support larger versions of all icons once 4K and 5K monitors become mainstream, because on those monitors, the current icons actually look much smaller than on regular monitors. So I was agreeing with the problem of the size but reassuring players it is our plan to address it because it will become an even bigger issue with 4K and 5K monitors.
Thank you, at there current size, the game was going to be "just shoot all the things" as my not all that ageing eyes, really cannot distinguish the details on a 22 inch screen. As for laptop? Just big dots.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
100
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:29:13 -
[132] - Quote
So, in 7 pages, 130 posts, and nearly 24 hours, we finally have one dev response saying they designed the icon base much larger than it was going to be used because they feel the need to cater to a small percentage of clients that will have transitioned to the probably still expensive 4k setups in what, 5+ years, and therefore making indiscernible when it was shrunk down to it's size in game.
So this change is not good for now, he just admitted that, but they still want to go ahead with it because if enough people spend enough money and go all in on the 4k craze in 5+ years it might be good?
Thanks CCP for making yourselves sound more insane with the poor choice of the only thing you decided to respond to in this entire thread.
Please address the more valid concerns:
1) 27 different icons for drones? All most of us need to see is that there is a drone on field, if we really care to know what kind we will mouse over it or select it (or just turn drones on in our overview list, because clicking on fast moving warriors is a pita)
2) POS sentry guns/station guns? Why the change from a very clear and unique current icon to something that is terribad?
3) Why do labs retain the icon looking like a factory, and factories look like, eh, maybe a power coil of some sort?
4) The lack of clear and distinct differences between ship icons. When the difference is only 2 pixels variance between 2 slightly differently slanted/angled triangles it is not very easy to see. Please make these icons unique and discernible. For example see Homeworld, it worked and that was near 20 years ago, and it still works.
5) The overview icons should be a quick guide to basic info, not a place to shove more info and therefore make it more confusing and cluttered. We only need to get the most basic info from a icon in the overview, why, because there are numerous other places in the overview for the more detailed info, like mouse over, selecting it, or looking at one of several columns with that info already there.
I would quote some of the better suggestions I've seen but there are so many, and different ways to do it too. Have you been reading those posts? |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3802
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:33:13 -
[133] - Quote
Well, I just read the devblog and I can't tell the smaller icons from each other, woo-hoo!
I'm waiting to see them at Sisi, but so far I fear the worst.
Meanwhile, here's the image test, according to my eyes:
Guess which red blob is which!
Currently I can tell the thickness of the crosses, even if the crosses themselves are fuzzy. But shape recognition is not exaclty my strong point.
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Alice Katsuko
Perkone
Caldari State
239
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:36:44 -
[134] - Quote
Looks good on paper, but the icons need a bit more work:
- The industrial and combat ship icons are almost identical. They're both basically triangles, and look nearly identical except when oversized. The slight differences in shape will not be easily noticeable in-game. Please consider using wholly different base shapes for industrial and combat ships. Squares, or rhombuses, or anything other than triangles.
- The little engine flare things on the bases of the destroyers and cruisers will blur into the image on all but the lowest resolutions. You can even see this in the posted screenshot. Little details are an awful way to distinguish icons in a fast-moving environment precisely because the player won't have time to squint to see the little tiny details. Merely increasing separation between the engine flare and the main icon probably won't work well because the icons are already too small .
- Triangle width is not sufficient to distinguish combat icons by itself. Especially on large monitors, where variance between a frigate and a cruiser may be just a few pixels.
- Icon size should correlate more with ship size so that small ships have small icons, and large ships have large icons. Such a system both very intuitive and is much better than simply adding more stuff to icons to distinguish them.
- Please add a 'large overview icons' option.
In general the icons seem like they were designed for an 800x600 monitor, and for a fairly slow-paced game. They rely too much on fine details, which will not work as a mechanism for easy ship identification on large monitors, and will doubly not work when the player has to do things other than try to figure out whether that triangle is stumpy like an industrial or pointy like a combat ship. |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
33874
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:43:04 -
[135] - Quote
for tiny icons these have a rather large amount of effort put into them.
I still don't see how one would distinguish between one ant-sized picture and another "at a glance".
Are we supposed to start using magnifying glasses and buy 4K resolution monitors now?
Founder of the Graycember movement and LAGL's pet cat.
Critically Preposterous is recruiting! please send evemail if interested.
|
Leyete Wulf
Rolling Static
Gone Critical
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:57:09 -
[136] - Quote
Rowells wrote:SECONDARY SUNS????? :D
Structure Groups? |
thowlimer
Roprocor Ltd
18
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:05:44 -
[137] - Quote
From the looks of it CCP has once again made the same mistake as they did with the neocom icons.
They look ok and are easily to separate once you have them at about 3-4 times the size that they
are in game, as they are now i would have to use a magnifying glass(not even pressing my nose against
the screen works).
I suggest that whoever is testing these things at CCP buy a 22 screen, set it to default resolution
place it in a dark or very little light room with a glass screen placed 1 meter in front of it to prevent
the tester from moving his head any closer. Maybe then we could get actual useful in-house feedback
for these changes.
As has been mentioned earlier in the thread icons should give a quick estimate of what is present, that means
that they need to be easy to tell apart at a glance. If that means fewer groups then so be it, i would rather
have something that actually gives me a few bits of useful info than the current new ones that try to give so
much info that it all gets blurred out. |
iforumizer Hamabu
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:13:24 -
[138] - Quote
I for one would use shadowless flat colors instead. Color gradient and shadows are so yesterday.
I'd even add a bit of alpha, like 95% or something. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25017
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:13:26 -
[139] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Well, I just read the devblog and I can't tell the smaller icons from each other, woo-hoo! I'm waiting to see them at Sisi, but so far I fear the worst. [GǪ] Currently I can tell the thickness of the crosses, even if the crosses themselves are fuzzy. But shape recognition is not exactly my strong point.
Just doing some testing of ideas, but, with your bad eyes, how distinguishable are these different icons? Are the gaps distinct enough? Can the difference in shape be seen? Are the tiny protrusions too tiny?
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.
|
Strata Maslav
V0LTA
Triumvirate.
120
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:17:43 -
[140] - Quote
These are definitely a step in the right direction and I would take these over the current implementation any day. In the concept space scene provided, I can make accurate classification of ships.
If am going to critique, in my opinion more emphasis should be given to the differentiation of the ship classes. Its nice to have a running theme, but for example the difference between the frigate and cruiser are too small. If I were looking to target frigate specifically they don't 'jump out at me' enough.
Of course this is all conjecture until we get a chance to use it in situ.
TL;DR POSSITIVE FEEDBACK
|
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
Low-Class
7506
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:30:04 -
[141] - Quote
in general all of this is awesome.
But the POS module icons become too difficult to differentiate when they are all attached to that magnet symbol and the tiny corner blur is the only thing differentiating them.
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Noriko Mai
2085
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:35:18 -
[142] - Quote
Nice icon set!
I tried a few of tippias icons from tonight and it would look something like this.
Come On Everybody, support Dark Opaque theme
|
TheLostPenguin
Surreal Departure
86
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:49:35 -
[143] - Quote
Ok first of all I agree ship icons have needed updating for more than the 7 years I've played, because for the whole time the frigates/destroyers and cruisers/bc issue has existed, so an attempt to fix that is welcome in principle... but oh god why must you throw out everything and start from scratch each time something needs a few small tweaks to work better?
Going by the image in the blog frigates/destroyers are still not super easy to seperate, sure at least there is a difference now but it could be better, cruisers should be much wider as they are still too close to the frigate icon for me, and if you do that then the battleship icon needs to change. Also are there any battlecruisers in that image? I looked several times to compare and couldn't see one but maybe it's just hiding. Also battleship/dreadnought/carrier are also all the same shape with very minor diferences between them.
Why not have different shapes per ship class? It would instantly fix alot of the problems, and you could have a larger distinction for the frigate/destroyer issue if you wanted to keep using the same icon for them, without treading on the toes of other classes.
Having a directional icon at all is silly and will lead to newbs asking why it isn't showing the direction of travel properly in space. I don't want them to rotate to do that, but making them so clearly directional as using triangle variations suggests it.
Why have SO many different icons, you are showing too much (useless) information, and as a result ending up making very small changes to the same base icon instead of a small number of clearly distinct versions.
A rookie ship and a mining frigate are both frigates, they do not need their own icons.
Drones oh god what are you doing, shooty drones, ewar/what you call utility drones and logistics drones are all the distinctions it's remotely usefull to make at the icon level (and mining/salvaging drones too for the sake of consistency, not that anyone cares what that icon looks like any time it matters), 5 distinct types (sure give fighters/bombers their own shape too as they are sufficently distinct from other shooty ones) and relevant sizes for them, rather than 14 types now.
Asteroids/ice really need size icons now? Does it show the visual size, how much resource is left in it, how much was originally in it?
Some of the changes seem needless/counterintuitive, why change the neut battery to a less-visually distinct icon? Ok you want to create a uniform set of icons for similar structures, but that's form over function 100%. Same with changing the sentry gun icon and ewar battery icons, firstly why change sentries at all? If you're worried about them looking too much like moons, put the dot for moon icons to a different side. Ewar batteries is making a whole bunch of things use the same icon again, with a tiny feature to distinguish them, essentially there are icons on icons which is getting into supertiny invisible details.
Sun/secondary sun, moon, customs office, corp hangar and wormhole are all being changed for seemingly no reason other than for the sake of it. Why change extra things and create additional stuff for people to relearn when there is absolutely zero reason for doing so?
Somehow I doubt much will be changed, but hey, we only post in these threads to have something to point to when people say we should give feedback rather than ***** about bad decisions, here's yet another whole thread of feedback where nearly everyone is saying the same thing, STUFF LOOKS TOO MUCH LIKE OTHER STUFF. |
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
541
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:52:45 -
[144] - Quote
Stylized designs of ships will clog the Overview (which needs to be redesigned first, before adding those elements, but wtv), plus their models are too small so most of them will resemble others.
Here's some idea of ship identification tags based on our already famous "red cross".
http://imgur.com/DSCFV6d
Just for kicks...
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
Jason Dunham
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
11
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:18:10 -
[145] - Quote
I asked for this when the ship identification system first came out. I thought it was a shame that the great icons you spent time on weren't being used in game. I've always felt that npc icons should have some relation to player icons so that new players would have an easier time relating the two.
I'd like to point out that currently the "brackets" in the overview give no information at all, so if someone doesn't want to learn the new symbols, they will not be any worse off. But for those of us that will learn it, it will provide more information at a glance. Shape identification happens much faster than reading.
I'm a huge fan of the drone icons especially. In engagements with smaller ships engaging your enemies drones can be pivotal in turning the battle. These changes would make it easier to identify what kind of drones are on field and where they are being directed. For example, you engage an enemy fleet and then observe them drop sets of ecm drones that fly towards your logi. You would see this all from a glance rather than having to hover over the small, moving brackets of the drones to identify their type, or worse, load an overview with drones and sort through all the drones on field.
For me the important thing is that currently icons give very little information, so a change will allow more information to be received at a glance, which I think is a vast improvement. And if you don't like the added complexity, you don't have to use it. You can still look at the ship's name in the overview or mouse over the drones, etc.
My only concern was that the icons were readable, which I think the screenshot shows that they are.
Overall I believe this is a fantastically executed ui change that will allow skilled players to see more information about what's on field than they have before. It's similar to having different graphics for different turrets, a skilled player can look at their enemy and see what turrets or launchers they have fit. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3189
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:20:25 -
[146] - Quote
after testing it in game i have to say it looks much better in game as the scaled version on the blog.
here a few screenshots (sadly not many where online at this time):
http://i.imgur.com/NHK9hmE.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/J6A2i1J.png
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
|
Bob Niac
Joint Espionage and Defence Industries
Preatoriani
54
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:22:03 -
[147] - Quote
Really cool but it is a lot of added complexity for little gain. You could easily trim 1/3 if those and get a better / same result. Also.. Just say no to that many drone icons.. Damn.
[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all -áT2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid.
I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.
|
Joran Sothos
H.E.L.P.e.R
Astraeaus
4
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:25:42 -
[148] - Quote
The current icons do not do enough to differentiate between various ship sizes, but the new icons... um... way too much info.
Without looking at the specific ship class, we need to know, from the icon, whether it's a destroyer, cruiser, or battle cruiser, for example. The current NPC icons don't differentiate between frigate and destroyer, or between cruiser and battle cruiser. The player ship icons are so much worse.
What we DO NOT NEED, is to differentiate between types of frigates or types of destroyers, etc. That's where player knowledge comes in in terms of knowing that a Sabre is a bubbler and a Cormorant is a DPS ship, etc. We also don't need icons to differentiate between industrials and combat ships. The same applies to structures.
Too many different icons are just as bad as having too many icons that look the same.
Perhaps we could have a balance between the current and proposed systems?
In terms of the shape of the new icons, I think we'll all have a better idea if they're working once we've had them to play with in-game for a bit. On the face of it, however, I don't see any problems with the new proposed shapes.
|
Mimiko Severovski
Zero Fun Allowed
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:13:20 -
[149] - Quote
These new icons remind me of a very good spaceship game.
It really looks like another great step into the future! |
IbbnSaifun
TerraNovae
Workers Trade Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:22:51 -
[150] - Quote
Good - but you should blunt the tips of the icons for the industrials/Mining ships... |
Freelancer117
so you want to be a Hero
265
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:32:39 -
[151] - Quote
Switching the Red Crosses for ship classes to the new icons is a great idea, since it links to ISIS.
However changing drones icons is a bad idea, it will crowd/convolute the presentation of flying icons in space.
So leave drones as Red Crosses, the size may vary according to size of drone used imho
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
|
Murashj
NorCorp Enterprise
No Holes Barred
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:39:57 -
[152] - Quote
Would be great if the icon for wormhole had diffrent collors/icons depending on its current state. Fresh/reduced/critical
Eye of sauron
The Serenity of EVE
|
Baljos Arnjak
Dark Praetorian Order
66
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:31:11 -
[153] - Quote
Overall, I think they look good and even on smaller screens they'll give more information than the present ones do. I do have a couple of niggles though:
1. Little plus signs aren't enough to differentiate between NPC and Player ships unless they shift the rest of the icon to the left causing the alignment to be slightly shifted (can't see it from the example given in the blog). Player ships represent a whole lot more potential danger than NPC's and it's imperative that we know the difference at a glance.
A couple of suggestions to fix this would be to make NPC's hollow like you do with looted/non-looted wrecks and have the plus sign added inside the hollow icon. You could invert the previous so that the icon is filled in but the plus sign is subtracted out. Whatever works as long as they are plainly distinguishable in a mixed NPC/Player environment.
2. I'd like to see the icons that are in space fade or move to the top left corner of the bounding box as the ship gets closer to the camera. For me, at a certain distance, the icons are no longer necessary because I can identify the ship class by the ship itself. At that point, the icon is only serving as a visual distraction and/or obstruction. |
TheLostPenguin
Surreal Departure
88
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:32:42 -
[154] - Quote
Freelancer117 wrote:Switching the Red Crosses for ship classes to the new icons is a great idea, since it links to ISIS.
I actually meant to mention that, is there any use or reason for anyone other than maybe complete newbs to use the ISIS thing? It seems like it's needlessly driving half the design decisions here and I don't get why a piece of fluff (as it seems to me) is deciding so much other game design, instead of making something that works and changing whatever needs to be changed in ISIS. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1785
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 19:52:51 -
[155] - Quote
I am waiting for a CCP post which tells us that the reason we think the icons are indistinguishable is that we haven't used them for long enough.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Lando Cenvax
State War Academy
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:19:43 -
[156] - Quote
This will be great on those supersharp 4K 24"-Screenson which you will scale up the HUD to 150% (given CCP uses vector images). On small screens it might really be better to allow a "fallback" to the old icons.
I also agree on the missing supercarrier-icon. Although, under the bottom line this icon-makeover may be a bit overkill...
There should also be second option for the Titan-Icon: a phallus shape. ;P |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
4640
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:24:41 -
[157] - Quote
Though I'm not crazy about the current overview "border" icons, I can at-a-glance distinguish them.
The proposed ISIS-style icons actually require me to look carefully, as they have fairly similar weight. Only in comparison or upon close examination can I differentiate them.
Truly, a single letter would be more useful for rapid recognition.
Challenge:
1. Create a random overview and view it for at most 2 seconds, and report on all ships in it.
2. Change one ship, and note if it is detected. |
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1587
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:30:13 -
[158] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Well, I just read the devblog and I can't tell the smaller icons from each other, woo-hoo! I'm waiting to see them at Sisi, but so far I fear the worst. [GǪ] Currently I can tell the thickness of the crosses, even if the crosses themselves are fuzzy. But shape recognition is not exactly my strong point. Just doing some testing of ideas, but, with your bad eyes, how distinguishable are these different icons? Are the gaps distinct enough? Can the difference in shape be seen? Are the tiny protrusions too tiny?
Yeah that looks like a lot into the right direction. Just don't get your hopes up you/me/we will be listened too a this dev was in large part responsible for the reworked unified inventory debacle (in its 1st iteration). And we all know how much extra work it took them to get that slightly on par to what there was before.
To be honest I think this is set in stone like the unified inventory, no matter how much data we bring up, its a done deal.
Wish I was wrong. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3805
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:50:26 -
[159] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Well, I just read the devblog and I can't tell the smaller icons from each other, woo-hoo! I'm waiting to see them at Sisi, but so far I fear the worst. [GǪ] Currently I can tell the thickness of the crosses, even if the crosses themselves are fuzzy. But shape recognition is not exactly my strong point. Just doing some testing of ideas, but, with your bad eyes, how distinguishable are these different icons? Are the gaps distinct enough? Can the difference in shape be seen? Are the tiny protrusions too tiny?
Interesting concept... I can tell them apart from their size and outline: the left ones have an angle on the top, the middle ones are double-angled and the right ones are rectangular, and they have different lengths. Can't see well the inner lines and barely can't see the tiny features of the middle ones (drones?) without focusing a lot on them.
The only potential source of confusion would be between 1st and 2nd in the left column, maybe one pixel more of length for the second or a pixel less for the first would help giving them more different weight.
BTW, left ones would be military ships and right ones be civilian ships? Would make sense that military ships had a general arrowhead shape...
Nice work.
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Retribution.
196
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:51:13 -
[160] - Quote
i think you did yourself and injustice showing a screenshot with loads of ships because it looks very messy. God what will jita look like. Great to see some new icons although quite a lot of the designs are questionable meaning I'm not sure why you chose some of those for that item.
I agree the capsule should be an egg shape.
I hate the plus/crosses for NPC it reminds me of the copy symbol in windows, i think i circle around the icon would look cool instead.
rather than a +
it would be nice later of we can set our own colours for these icons so we could say highlight all the jamming ships etc.
Ships just need more distinction
Structures just don't make sense at all, sorry. You should be able to look at an icon and know what it means.
Whats with the sentry gun icons for example?
But good to see something different. |
Kieron VonDeux
60
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:59:20 -
[161] - Quote
To be honest I don't see what all the fuss is about. The new Icons are nice. Who cares if they are similar.
When looking on overview for Target I read the Ship Type text and Name, not Icons.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25019
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:24:29 -
[162] - Quote
Kieron VonDeux wrote:To be honest I don't see what all the fuss is about. The new Icons are nice. Who cares if they are similar.
CCP does. After all, the whole point is to convey more information. If they are similar, they fail at the core purpose for having them to begin with.
Being GÇ£niceGÇ¥ is somewhere in the region of 99% irrelevant. If that's all they achieve, they are utterly useless compared to what we have now.
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:The only potential source of confusion would be between 1st and 2nd in the left column, maybe one pixel more of length for the second or a pixel less for the first would help giving them more different weight.
Fair enough. I wanted to use the same size chevrons for both the size upgrade to medium and to large ships, and if I made it any bigger, the double-chevron for large ones wouldn't fit. But skipping that arbitrary design constraint isn't particularly hard GÇö they're just the same for the sake of being the same right now, which isn't much of a reason.
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.
|
helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:47:46 -
[163] - Quote
Sorry if this seems harsh..
but frankly I feel that CCP Arrow is on the wrong path and out of touch with the player base with UI modernisation.
Each change brings more UI, more clutter, less customisation.
This is 2015. Maybe I dont want EvE to be a gigantic blob of red x's and spreadsheets....
maybe I want to see the space and the ships that Im flying in ???. Maybe I want the option to turn off UI elements that are not relevent to what Im doing in space at the moment. ??
What happened to the zoomed in picture in picture of the ship you were targeting/shooting at ? ( shown at previous fanfest.)
Less UI not MORE !!!!!!
"... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á | zoonr-Korsairs |-á QFT !
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
335
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:04:18 -
[164] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Well, I just read the devblog and I can't tell the smaller icons from each other, woo-hoo! I'm waiting to see them at Sisi, but so far I fear the worst. [GǪ] Currently I can tell the thickness of the crosses, even if the crosses themselves are fuzzy. But shape recognition is not exactly my strong point. Just doing some testing of ideas, but, with your bad eyes, how distinguishable are these different icons? Are the gaps distinct enough? Can the difference in shape be seen? Are the tiny protrusions too tiny?
In the format you have them there they are distinguishable with a bit of a study (and leaning forward to get closer to my monitor) but then I'm not looking at multiples of each in a cluttered combat environment.
The protrusions on the middle set are ok, as long as the same icon is not going to be used without them to represent something else.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
7935
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:05:28 -
[165] - Quote
Current Icons are worse than new ones.
Don't look any further for negative energy, you will find it by being lazy.
|
Kieron VonDeux
61
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:06:30 -
[166] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kieron VonDeux wrote:To be honest I don't see what all the fuss is about. The new Icons are nice. Who cares if they are similar. CCP does. After all, the whole point is to convey more information. If they are similar, they fail at the core purpose for having them to begin with....
You mean like Enlisted Rank Insignia of many nations,
You can have similar Icons that contains differences. Its simply a matter of the levels and sublevels of variation you want to convey, and getting used to it.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25019
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:22:26 -
[167] - Quote
Kieron VonDeux wrote:You mean like Enlisted Rank Insignia of many nations,
No. I mean that the purpose is to be able to distinguish them. If they are similar, that defeats the purpose. The proposed icons fall in exactly that trap: the purpose is to convey four or five different axes of differentiation using only two cues (and making those cues too vague to really properly capture what difference they could convey).
Quote:You can have similar Icons that contains differences. Its simply a matter of the levels and sublevels of variation you want to convey, and getting used to it.
No, getting used to it is not a factor other than to prove that the design is fundamentally unsound from an ergonomic perspective. Rather, it's a matter of ensuring that the differences are large enough that the variation is conveyed at a glance, rather than blurred together because things are too similar and with too few visual cues to offer a good GÇ£languageGÇ¥ for those variations.
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.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2031
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:54:49 -
[168] - Quote
Have multi colored icons been considered? Even if it's just a few contrasting colors it could easily make two similar icons (cruisers+battlecruisers) distinguishable |
Galen Dnari
Damage Unlimited
21
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 23:15:48 -
[169] - Quote
Two things. Well, maybe three.
1. Yes, some people are color-blind. Doesn't mean you shouldn't use color in designing icons.
2. The blog stated, in effect, that you don't want to give people a leg up by identifying the class of a wormhole by its icon. I agree with that, but I would suggest that once the class is identified, the icon should change. IOW, your display should reflect the latest best information you have. Not just for wormholes, for everything. If an enemy has a webber or scram it can use, it would be nice to know that. How does that get identified? The enemy uses it.
3. In fleets, information gathered by individual ships should be disseminated to the entire fleet (assuming they're on grid). So if ship A gets webbed by enemy TA, the ships on the other side of the grid should see that TA is a webber.
4. Icons should be re-sizable (zoomable?) on the fly to accommodate those of us with aging eyes.
5. Not suggesting all of this should be implemented in your first pass.
Okay, that's five things.
http://eveboard.com/ub/1939472205-31.png
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2901
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 23:25:44 -
[170] - Quote
Just in case no one mentioned it yet...this is the worse thing to happen to Eve Online since the last worst thing to happen to Eve, and can we have an option not to use them?
If not, me and my zillion alts are going to quit.
This is not a signature.
|
Kieron VonDeux
61
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 23:30:59 -
[171] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kieron VonDeux wrote:You mean like Enlisted Rank Insignia of many nations, No. I mean that the purpose is to be able to distinguish them. If they are similar, that defeats the purpose. Rank insignia pretty much universally achieve that by repeating a simple pattern (in broad strokes) along a single axis: more is higher. This creates distinctly different and dissimilar stacks, which makes them easy to distinguish. The proposed icons defeat themselves by doing pretty much the exact opposite: the purpose here is to convey four or five different axes of differentiation, but it's done using only two poorly chosen cues (and making those cues too vague to really properly capture what little difference they could convey).
There is always a balance between similarity and distinguishability just like a game is a balance between reality and fantasy, or as in a lot of design, artistic value and functional value.
I think you are on the wrong end of it in this case. I think these new Icons are fine for what they were designed to do and will serve their purpose well.
Additional tools would be more useful to give the granularity you are asking for.
Quote:Quote:You can have similar Icons that contains differences. Its simply a matter of the levels and sublevels of variation you want to convey, and getting used to it. No, getting used to it is not a factor other than to prove that the design is fundamentally unsound from an ergonomic perspective. Rather, it's a matter of ensuring that the differences are large enough that the variation is conveyed at a glance, rather than blurred together because things are too similar and with too few visual cues to offer a good GÇ£languageGÇ¥ for those variations.
Getting used to a new symbol system is always a factor. There is no one standard.
You are doing it wrong if you are trying to comprehend the entire scope of the scene via Icons alone at a glance.
You get better information from direction scans and the overview.
It seems you are asking for something that would be better served by multiple tools and not just an Icon system alone. A simple Icon system in conjunction with more powerful customizable summarization tools would be far better.
I would suggest that the new Icon system works well for what it was designed to do and that you are asking for something else that would be unnecessarily complex. Only a Savant could make use of that in my opinion.
There is a balance between amount of information conveyed, artistic value, and usefulness; especially in a game. There is also consideration of how much an average person should comprehend given a complex display of those Icons and if they should be using a different tool altogether.
Summarization, listing, or aggregation tools would be far better for that.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25019
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 00:58:54 -
[172] - Quote
Kieron VonDeux wrote:There is always a balance between similarity and distinguishability just like a game is a balance between reality and fantasy, or as in a lot of design, artistic value and functional value.
I think you are on the wrong end of it in this case. I think these new Icons are fine for what they were designed to do and will serve their purpose well.
Their purpose is to make ship classes distinguishable by icon alone. They do the opposite of that and make them more difficult to distinguish than before. Not only do the sizes blur together, but the distinction between PC and NPC ships now hinge on a minute marking in the corner. They also seem to be completely incompatible with all kinds of bracket colouration and markings.
Right now, the only real problem exists with the half-classes (destroyers and BCs). With the proposed system, the confusion covers the entire spectrum rather than just two discrete cases.
Quote:Additional tools would be more useful to give the granularity you are asking for. It's not me asking for it. It's what the change is supposed to provide. And yes, more tools are needed because a fatter and more or less obtuse triangle isn't enough.
Quote:Getting used to a new symbol system is always a factor. There is no one standard. It's not a factor in determining whether it serves its purpose or not. If you have to get used to it in order to make distinctions that are supposed to be obvious at the blink of an eye, then that distinction simply isn't there GÇö the required clarity of visual language and the distinctness of the cues is just missing. There is no GÇ£getting used toGÇ¥ that that will make any difference.
Quote:You are doing it wrong if you are trying to comprehend the entire scope of the scene via Icons alone at a glance.
Again, that is the entire purpose of this change. What you are saying here is that the purpose is GÇ£doing it wrongGÇ¥. That should tell you enough. Again, it is not me asking for this GÇö it is the stated goal of the revamp. Since you keep saying that more tools are needed, you are on my side on this one.
In addition, the tools you are suggesting are already in the game. It's called the overview. The point of all of this is to make the game less reliant on those tools and move more of the information into icon form. The icons fail to do that due to being too similar, which in turn is due to having far too restricted a visual language to work with.
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.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3805
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 08:04:27 -
[173] - Quote
Just a random thought... thinking about the purpose of icons, I've come to realize the the current three-icons system already suits well to the combat use of it. Yes, we can't tell a frigate from a destroyer or a cruiser from a battlecruiser, but those ship classes are engaged with the same weaponry, because weapons come in three sizes, to say so.
So I wonder, do we really need to know that a destroyer is a destroyer and not a frigate? Or that a battlecruiser is not a cruiser? From the point of view of "it's red, shoot it" there's no difference. We don't have "destroyer size" weapons, and actually whatever hits a frigate is likely to hit harder on a dessie. So why bother telling them apart?
Maybe even if the icons were easily visible (which they aren't) or could be told from their outline and size (which they can't), would we still need one icon for every ship size?
I am aware that now that this thing has taken months of work and stuff, the chances of getting a different system rather than (maybe) a slightly improved version of the proposed one are slim. And I wonder who asked the CSM on this, who asked the players, and also feel a bit tired that each change of UI comes with the assumption that 20/20 eyesight is a must for playing EVE Online. The average age for players is like 35 years, so eyesight issues are to be expected for a sizeable part of the game demographics. Using a mere 10 pixels to tell apart 27 different ship types is an interesting tour-de-force, but the main purpose of a graphic USER interface is to be USED. Being unable to SEE the elements of the GUI makes it unusable.
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Swidgen
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
151
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 08:27:38 -
[174] - Quote
Gorongo Frostfyr wrote:They seem to be designed mostly for an aesthetics aspect.
While on paper they look quite good, they look ingame far too similar. Drone type indicators are far too cryptic, but thats not the main problem, because that can be learned. The type indicator in the top right corner will be too small ingame.
I agree with this 100%. CCP has gone around the bend (again) and come up with a solution in search of a problem. Something nobody wanted or asked for with the sole exception of some hipster doofus in the art department. |
Arcos Vandymion
White Beast Inc.
95
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:32:41 -
[175] - Quote
Remove the "depth" as the "shadows" they cast makes it unnecessary hard to keep them apart. Apart from that It provides no less information than the current system and as such it can only be an improvement. They do look very clean.
Add UI upscaling. 90% is really useful for smaller screens but I'm kind of missing something like 120% for FullHD or something (not everyone is sitting half a meter away - some sit a meter away from their screen ^^). |
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1587
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 12:49:13 -
[176] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:So I wonder, do we really need to know that a destroyer is a destroyer and not a frigate? Or that a battlecruiser is not a cruiser? From the point of view of "it's red, shoot it" there's no difference. We don't have "destroyer size" weapons, and actually whatever hits a frigate is likely to hit harder on a dessie. So why bother telling them apart?
According to CCP we do.
CCP is currently thinking we don't get enough information with the tools we have at our disposal. Therefor CCP is in a 'we must overload our player base with information THAT'S ALREADY THERE!' mode (tooltips come to mind).
In this case there is already a TYPE! column in the overview, so there is no need whatsoever to add that information there twice by cramming that information in a 18 x 18 pixel box with icons that look more or less the same.
|
Arn Akkar
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 14:29:21 -
[177] - Quote
I've got to agree with the criticisms. Even on this static screen the new icons are too homogenous, and the differentiation is even harder to discern when the icons are red. Once we add motion to this it's going to be even less usable. In their current form these icons are largely less helpful than those we are currently using. The team need to look at this again, and actually think about how the human eye works and responds to form and colour - red will attract the eye, but it is not an ideal colour for humans to discern fine levels of detail. |
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
DARKNESS.
70
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 15:06:37 -
[178] - Quote
Thank you CCP. I very happy with that change and I think is a good direction to make the game better and modern.
Do not worried about the wining people. It is natural to people be against any change, and in special when that change take then out of they comfort zone. It was the same with the neocon icons and now people just get used to it.
Of course, that are some good feedback here, listen that people how take time to actually try these new icons. Colour code would be nice, like make the icon itself green for corporation ships, purple for the ones in fleet and so one. That way it will helps for the ones who want it and still retain the option to use the current small squares on the bottom right side for the ones who are colour blind.
Also, I personally think an increase of 33% in the size of the icon would be better, or at least an option to make the icons bigger would be nice. I know that this increase will reflect in less line in the overview column, but I can live with that. You can make it optional if you want it, as you did for station icons. In small engagement, I already have space for all the ship in my overview and in bigger fight I have to scroll up / down in any way. Therefore, I think icons should be a bit bigger to make then more reckonable at the first glance. Let-¦s say they are actually 18x18 pixels and then raise it to 24x24.
Thank you so much for your efforts. I know you guys are really brave in change that kind of stuff.
Castelo |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
998
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 15:13:36 -
[179] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:Current Icons are worse than new ones. That is not saying much. 
Ways to make them clearer have been said many times now in this thread.
Want to bet the man in the grey suit will force these on us anyway until we, "get used to them and come to like them," because, "people don't like change."
Well, I am like the Japanese, in that, I hate changes but I love improvements. 
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Quadima
From Our Cold Dead Hands
The Kadeshi
135
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 15:23:41 -
[180] - Quote
More nearly identical monochrome **** you can't figure out in the heat of battle.
YAY! |
Isamo
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:43:35 -
[181] - Quote
Hello, :-)
ist es den Machern schon so langweilig in Island?
Erfindet doch mal neue Satzzeichen!
Euer Isamo |
BeanBagKing
The Order of Atlas
314
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:36:01 -
[182] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/D4iKpYR.png
See the above image. You can see that I have a battlecruiser and cruiser both locked (NPC variants of Moa and Ferox respectively). Can't tell the difference... I think this is a bug since the battlecruiser is supposed to have the little dit below it. |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
215
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:30:52 -
[183] - Quote
I would also like to see new icons for the numerous types of asteroids, ice chunks and gas that are in the belts and pockets.
I would also think that a new skill called "Target Caller" should be created. The Target Caller skill would allow the pilot to see which ships were actually what types of ships based upon their Ship Type Bonus. Once the appropriate level of skill had been learned a new icon would appear in the Overview and on the screen
Target Caller Basic
Level 1 - Frigates and Destroyers - 10 day train time
Level 2 - Cruisers - 15 day train time
Level 3 - Battlecruisers - 20 day train time
Level 4 - Battleships - 25 day train time
Level 5 - Tactical Destroyers to T2 - 30 day train time
Target Caller Expert
Level 1 - Frigates and Destroyers - 3 day train time
Level 2 - Cruisers, Strategic Cruisers - 5 day train time
Level 3 - Battlecruisers - 10 day train time
Level 4 - Battleships - 15 day train time
Level 5 - Capital Ships
For example a pilot with the Target Caller Basic skill trained to Level 1 would see icons for ships such as the Maulus that would have the same icon for Dampening Drones except the icon would instead be a Frigate on their Overviews and on their screen.
With pilots not losing skill points any longer new skills should be added to balance the skill learning. |
Yuri Pyrrhus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:52:31 -
[184] - Quote
So, here is summary of my personal suggestions about icons:
1. As industrial ships are usually associated with peaceful work so IMHO their icons (except for a shuttle) should be "blunt", not "sharp-pointed". This will help with recognition at a glance, I think.
2. As I mentioned before in this topic, I'm suggesting to make player icons hollow like it's now in the game and NPC icons make filled and without "+" on the side, so remains the present distinction "hollow, just border icon"=player, "filled icon"=NPC.
3. And a small suggestion about pod: make it more like egg.
Some examples of icons:
Picture
4. For drones I'm suggesting to recognize the size of a drone by additional features than by size of icon and the type of a drone to indicate within icon.
Some examples of icons:
Picture |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
340
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 21:51:04 -
[185] - Quote
Jason Dunham wrote:I asked for this when the ship identification system first came out. I thought it was a shame that the great icons you spent time on weren't being used in game. I've always felt that npc icons should have some relation to player icons so that new players would have an easier time relating the two.
I'd like to point out that currently the "brackets" in the overview give no information at all, so if someone doesn't want to learn the new symbols, they will not be any worse off. But for those of us that will learn it, it will provide more information at a glance. Shape identification happens much faster than reading.
I'm a huge fan of the drone icons especially. In engagements with smaller ships engaging your enemies drones can be pivotal in turning the battle. These changes would make it easier to identify what kind of drones are on field and where they are being directed. For example, you engage an enemy fleet and then observe them drop sets of ecm drones that fly towards your logi. You would see this all from a glance rather than having to hover over the small, moving brackets of the drones to identify their type, or worse, load an overview with drones and sort through all the drones on field.
For me the important thing is that currently icons give very little information, so a change will allow more information to be received at a glance, which I think is a vast improvement. And if you don't like the added complexity, you don't have to use it. You can still look at the ship's name in the overview or mouse over the drones, etc.
My only concern was that the icons were readable, which I think the screenshot shows that they are.
Overall I believe this is a fantastically executed ui change that will allow skilled players to see more information about what's on field than they have before. It's similar to having different graphics for different turrets, a skilled player can look at their enemy and see what turrets or launchers they have fit.
So you believe you are going to "at a glance" tell what sort of drones are being sent toward your logi, by looking at these icons in space?
I'm sorry but am going to call Bull **** to that.
The icons will be so small on anything but the largest of monitors, you will be peering at them to tell one from the other.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Just for interest sake I showed the new icons and UI to an Ophthalmologist I know. Her professional opinion; Shapes are all too similar and will cause eye strain with prolonged use, Don't spend any more than 1 or 2 hours a day exposed to these.
Her suggestion for safe use for me, (an older guy with not so good eyesight), 20 to 30 mins then go and do something else for a few hours.
It will be many years before I can even consider a 4K monitor (unless someone is giving them away) so it seems my play time in eve is about to be further reduced. I love eve but am not going to up the chances of my eyesight being effected more than it needs to be.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1002
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:20:20 -
[186] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:It will be many years before I can even consider a 4K monitor (unless someone is giving them away) so it seems my play time in eve is about to be further reduced. I love eve but am not going to up the chances of my eyesight being effected more than it needs to be. It is about the technology curve!
"Why we have icons now for 4K monitors and we are working on the Occulas Rift but before you know it, we can plug you in and you won't need eyes! So, have no fear, just use those eyes up for now, before they become obsolete!" 
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
340
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:30:21 -
[187] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:It will be many years before I can even consider a 4K monitor (unless someone is giving them away) so it seems my play time in eve is about to be further reduced. I love eve but am not going to up the chances of my eyesight being effected more than it needs to be. It is about the technology curve! "Why we have icons now for 4K monitors and we are working on the Occulas Rift but before you know it, we can plug you in and you won't need eyes! So, have no fear, just use those eyes up for now, before they become obsolete!"
Seriously, you want make a joke out of a genuine concern?
I'm not a millionaire, I survive week to week on disability after a work accident. For the last 7 years Eve has been a life line for me and it is being taken away for the sake of technology that won't be available to the masses for years.
Joke away, I hope you never end up in my situation because believe me, there is nothing funny about it..
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1002
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:52:13 -
[188] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:It will be many years before I can even consider a 4K monitor (unless someone is giving them away) so it seems my play time in eve is about to be further reduced. I love eve but am not going to up the chances of my eyesight being effected more than it needs to be. It is about the technology curve! "Why we have icons now for 4K monitors and we are working on the Occulas Rift but before you know it, we can plug you in and you won't need eyes! So, have no fear, just use those eyes up for now, before they become obsolete!" Seriously, you want make a joke out of a genuine concern? I'm not a millionaire, I survive week to week on disability after a work accident. For the last 7 years Eve has been a life line for me and it is being taken away for the sake of technology that won't be available to the masses for years. Joke away, I hope you never end up in my situation because believe me, there is nothing funny about it.. I come from Zimbabwe, if you do not have a dark sense of humour you commit suicide.
I am on the following:
1920x1080 screen (pretty cheap these days)
GT 630 Nvidiot
4 GB RAM
Some old 3 GHz 2 core processor.
The core machine cost 40 pounds. Oh and I am wearing glasses for a stigmatism and being short sighted (the latter probably from staring at a screen too long, especially those old CRTs).
Sometimes a joke can be the best way to get a message across, I said the same things for years and was hated for it but one day I found George Carlin and there were people paying him for the same opinion because he wrapped it in jokes.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
30666
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 23:07:40 -
[189] - Quote
Dots for icons... my goodness. At least crosses used the full height and width of their allocated dimensions.
I get that you're trying to make EVE look better, but... just like how ships have different size classes, ships have their own group as a whole, and their icons need more continuity than diamonds... not more complexity.
Would it have been so bad to make player ships crosses as well as NPCs, but with different colors by standings (or something)?
Your icon designer(s) is fantastic, and their craft is top-notch. But they need better direction for these things / it's not their fault.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25024
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 00:22:34 -
[190] - Quote
Castelo Selva wrote:Do not worried about the wining people. It is natural to people be against any change, and in special when that change take then out of they comfort zone. It was the same with the neocon icons and now people just get used to it. So what you're saying is that you haven't actually read any of the feedback, and instead stupidly believe in the laughably idiotic myth of GÇ£being against changeGÇ¥?
Yeah, no. That's not what's happening. Instead, people are being very explicit about why these new things will not work, same as the NeoCom GÇö which, had you actually had a clue, you would have noticed that people have not gotten used to. These comments come from the perspective of what the icons are meant to (but fail to) do; from the perspective of good UI design; from the perspective of actual in-game use; and from the perspective of actual player use-cases.
You are the only one suggesting that they are GÇ£badGÇ¥ because they are new. Everyone else is suggesting that they are bad because they lack functionality.
Quote:Colour code would be nice, [GǪ]
Also, I personally think an increase of 33% in the size of the icon would be better, or at least an option to make the icons bigger would be nice. The first one isn't GÇ£niceGÇ¥ GÇö it's mandatory, but there is no telling how they are supposed to make that work like the current icons without making them pointless, since that information will just overwrite the icon.
The latter is flat-out impossible without massively reducing the already poor utility of the icons. If they can't fit in a 18+ù18px grid, they have simply cannot serve their purpose. Increasing them to 26+ù26px is out of the question, and isn't a solution to the core problem anyway. It is not hard to make icons that fit within that small grid; if the design requires them to be bigger, the design is fundamentally flawed and need to be re-done.
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.
|
RavenNyx
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 02:47:16 -
[191] - Quote
Ok, this probably ends up unread, but...
TL;DR: The changes are not really thought through, and they will not benefit the players - arguments can be made that they might add complexity.
The TL part on its own:
Consistency; there's a big lack of consistency in the changes
- Titans get their own icon, but super carriers do not
- Fighters and fighter bombers get seperate icons, while their launch-platforms do not
- Drones get a full matrix of icons marking individual drones as specific e-war types, etc., while the player ships do not
- One icon for industrials and mining barges, while mining frigates get their own icon
- POS icons for e-war etc. are apparently NOT done in this iteration (seperate icon for same e-war as drones)
- No role, function or purpose for ships are reflected in their icons (bar titan, dreadnought and shuttle)
These icons adequately follows the market-groups, so I'm guessing that's where the inspiration comes from. Problem is though, that whomever thought out the division of icons, can't have played the game for long... F.ex. titans and super carriers are often referred to with the joint term "supers" by players, so one icon for those two ship-/hull-classes would more closely reflect what the players are experiencing (though I'd personally like them as separate icons as they have two different roles). Then drones; the icons used for e-war drones, utility drones, etc. does NOT match or in any way resemble the icons of the effects experienced by players under their influence. No player will be able to match the effect seen above the capacitor and directly apply that to the overview to "remove" it, no, the player needs to translate it, just as it is today. And... This change also adds an icon for fighter bombers and one for fighters, even though there are no separate carrier-class for super carriers? Why are drones important enough to explode into separate categories, when the ships using them are not? Also these several icons for the same thing. Ex. now a web-drone have one "image", the POS module another and the player experiences a third image of the effect; judging by the presented material, CCP plans to KEEP it that way, with an ADDED representation of the effect?! I can't see how adding more stuff, would cut down on complexity.
Usage; what use will the new icons have
- PvP: a faction frigate can be more powerful than a T1 destroyer
- PvE: an incursion frigate is way more powerful than a cruiser from a level 2 mission
The icon of something tells you NOTHING of what to expect from it. Best possible outcome would be players judging threat-levels by the size of the icons (as it is now) and just treating this change as eye-candy (if you like it).
Looking at your screenshot, it's looking like looking at a "deathstar" POS with all brackets on, where you really need to scan your overview for the names of the modules, rather than looking at the icons in the overview/brackets/space (or just follow the broadcasts). This alone should make CCP vary of adding to many icon types. Also, you've been sitting on this information for years, had thousands of different player experiences to ask for, on how a multitude of icons where received by players; why not use that information before (and maybe even instead of) redesigning from scratch?
Also, using the same shape for two very distinct (and very often totally separated) activities in EvE (PvE and PvP)... . F.ex. take a look a traffic signs. They have very distinctive shapes based on what purpose they serve. The current way of telling PvE and PvP apart is good - please don't sacrifice the current easy identifying features in the holy name of "modernization". And the reason for the "+" on the icons... Well, to me it seems to be an afterthought that can't really be explained to be anything else than that. That very small amount of pixels that make up that "+" are the ones that should tell me if I'm about to get ganked in my DED complex, FW plex, mission, if I just jumped into a gate-camp or if it's just rats on the gate? And with me, the special snowflake with several windowed instances of EvE open, along with third party tools? Well, that doesn't leave many pixels for that little cross...
So, in my conclusion, these changes will either not affect anything and just be eye-candy (for those who haven't turned it off), or add complexity to a critical place in an already complex game. Please don't... Or at least let select "classic icons" somewhere in the menu. |
Verskon Qaual
Paragon Trust
The Bastion
31
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 03:07:15 -
[192] - Quote
CCP UI Modernization Project == 1978 Space Invaders
Modernization indeed
Not that I use the UI much when I imagine EVE IS REAL
http://imgur.com/XwkyLI5 |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3811
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 08:54:15 -
[193] - Quote
RavenNyx wrote:(...) Or at least let select "classic icons" somewhere in the menu.
Sic EVE, sic CCP. What changes, changes, want it or don't, as the old is removed to give way to the new, and there is no opt out.
So we ended up with a new GUI which, thanks God, can have all the transparency and blurr and effects turned off with a single slider, and yet keeps icons which are sistematically mistaken (I *still* open the wallet when I wanted the market, and vice-versa) and some icons just never are where you want them (the tiny Rifter in a circle haves a life of its own and I just can't learn where it is because I can't see it without leaning forward and squinting).
Now it's the time for icons, some of which I can tell with certain difficulty from 20 centimeters away from the screen, but all them are funny triangular blurrs from my usal 40 centimeters. And yet even from 20 cms, the fastest way to find out which ship is which is the overview, where the relative size can be compared: larger can be told from smaller when they are displayed together.
So, you will not keep the crosses. I won't neither, despite they're enough for my needs as I can easily tell small from fat from thin, to the point that I NEVER noticed how I learned to use them, I just did it: that's something a good interface does. So we will not get anything like Tippia's proposal because it wasn't CCP's idea when they started thinking of the new GUI; and at the end of day, when Scylla hits, we will be left with a GUI that will force us to bear with it and learn to tell the useless clutter from the actual information. And it will not be something we would had asked if we had a voice in the process, rather whatever CCP thought on its own, with expertise but without a clue.
Sic EVE, sic CCP: we endure them.
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Quadima
From Our Cold Dead Hands
The Kadeshi
137
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 09:20:08 -
[194] - Quote
I belive that all CCP personnel is tired of working on this game and they f*ck it up as much as they can so everyone quits, they go bankrupt and they can finally start doing something fun with their lives !
Because most of the updates in the last year since the "rapid update cycle" seem to be cr*p rushed into production without even thinking of the consequences.
... in the end, it all turns into gray goo. |
Parmenionas
New Eden Times News and Media Agency
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 10:09:36 -
[195] - Quote
Icons remind me more and more of the Arcade games Gataga, Phoenix and Space Invaders, and that is a good thing. |
Agonising Ecstacy
State War Academy
Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 10:43:57 -
[196] - Quote
Been waiting for this since I started playing in 2006 - but the overall effect isn't what I thought it would be.
In the overview - its perfect.
In space though, it detracts from the view. I think with only 3 red crosses, my brain could filter them out - and the view of space was primary, the icons were an annotation - an additional information layer. With the 40 different icons in space - the icons BECOME the image, the 3D render just forms a swirly background. It was an unexpected result.
I would like to have the icons in space *much* less prevalent - reduce their opacity (a lot). Get rid of the 4 white dots/triangles that make it look so busy, and have the opacity increase on either mouse rollover, mouse proximity, or increase towards the center of the screen - so that what you are looking at 'pops' out. The "available information density" stays the same, but you are opting to consume only what you're interested in (because your looking at it)
Anyhow - great work, needs iterating :)
SK |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1515
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 11:54:39 -
[197] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Jason Dunham wrote:I asked for this when the ship identification system first came out. I thought it was a shame that the great icons you spent time on weren't being used in game. I've always felt that npc icons should have some relation to player icons so that new players would have an easier time relating the two.
I'd like to point out that currently the "brackets" in the overview give no information at all, so if someone doesn't want to learn the new symbols, they will not be any worse off. But for those of us that will learn it, it will provide more information at a glance. Shape identification happens much faster than reading.
I'm a huge fan of the drone icons especially. In engagements with smaller ships engaging your enemies drones can be pivotal in turning the battle. These changes would make it easier to identify what kind of drones are on field and where they are being directed. For example, you engage an enemy fleet and then observe them drop sets of ecm drones that fly towards your logi. You would see this all from a glance rather than having to hover over the small, moving brackets of the drones to identify their type, or worse, load an overview with drones and sort through all the drones on field.
For me the important thing is that currently icons give very little information, so a change will allow more information to be received at a glance, which I think is a vast improvement. And if you don't like the added complexity, you don't have to use it. You can still look at the ship's name in the overview or mouse over the drones, etc.
My only concern was that the icons were readable, which I think the screenshot shows that they are.
Overall I believe this is a fantastically executed ui change that will allow skilled players to see more information about what's on field than they have before. It's similar to having different graphics for different turrets, a skilled player can look at their enemy and see what turrets or launchers they have fit. So you believe you are going to "at a glance" tell what sort of drones are being sent toward your logi, by looking at these icons in space? I'm sorry but am going to call Bull **** to that. The icons will be so small on anything but the largest of monitors, you will be peering at them to tell one from the other. - - - - - - - - - - - Just for interest sake I showed the new icons and UI to an Ophthalmologist I know. Her professional opinion; Shapes are all too similar and will cause eye strain with prolonged use, Don't spend any more than 1 or 2 hours a day exposed to these. Her suggestion for safe use for me, (an older guy with not so good eyesight), 20 to 30 mins then go and do something else for a few hours. It will be many years before I can even consider a 4K monitor (unless someone is giving them away) so it seems my play time in eve is about to be further reduced. I love eve but am not going to up the chances of my eyesight being effected more than it needs to be.
Ok If we are getting to the point where medical professionals are stating that prolonged exposure will do physical harm, then this is not acceptable.
Before this goes any further, and is "tweaked" before release. It may be a sensible idea to run this past legal.
Note:- as a consumer and NOT a medical professional, it is BLINDINGLY obvious that I cannot see them without eye strain.
If the player base taking medical advice, warns of the physical consequences, prior to release, and it is Ignored, or played down in importance, then it will be very hard to claim ignorance of the effect on players health when The lawyers get hold of it!
Edit:- you might want to ask legal about EU disability regulations as well.........
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3812
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 12:41:39 -
[198] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Jason Dunham wrote:I asked for this when the ship identification system first came out. I thought it was a shame that the great icons you spent time on weren't being used in game. I've always felt that npc icons should have some relation to player icons so that new players would have an easier time relating the two.
I'd like to point out that currently the "brackets" in the overview give no information at all, so if someone doesn't want to learn the new symbols, they will not be any worse off. But for those of us that will learn it, it will provide more information at a glance. Shape identification happens much faster than reading.
I'm a huge fan of the drone icons especially. In engagements with smaller ships engaging your enemies drones can be pivotal in turning the battle. These changes would make it easier to identify what kind of drones are on field and where they are being directed. For example, you engage an enemy fleet and then observe them drop sets of ecm drones that fly towards your logi. You would see this all from a glance rather than having to hover over the small, moving brackets of the drones to identify their type, or worse, load an overview with drones and sort through all the drones on field.
For me the important thing is that currently icons give very little information, so a change will allow more information to be received at a glance, which I think is a vast improvement. And if you don't like the added complexity, you don't have to use it. You can still look at the ship's name in the overview or mouse over the drones, etc.
My only concern was that the icons were readable, which I think the screenshot shows that they are.
Overall I believe this is a fantastically executed ui change that will allow skilled players to see more information about what's on field than they have before. It's similar to having different graphics for different turrets, a skilled player can look at their enemy and see what turrets or launchers they have fit. So you believe you are going to "at a glance" tell what sort of drones are being sent toward your logi, by looking at these icons in space? I'm sorry but am going to call Bull **** to that. The icons will be so small on anything but the largest of monitors, you will be peering at them to tell one from the other. - - - - - - - - - - - Just for interest sake I showed the new icons and UI to an Ophthalmologist I know. Her professional opinion; Shapes are all too similar and will cause eye strain with prolonged use, Don't spend any more than 1 or 2 hours a day exposed to these. Her suggestion for safe use for me, (an older guy with not so good eyesight), 20 to 30 mins then go and do something else for a few hours. It will be many years before I can even consider a 4K monitor (unless someone is giving them away) so it seems my play time in eve is about to be further reduced. I love eve but am not going to up the chances of my eyesight being effected more than it needs to be. Ok If we are getting to the point where medical professionals are stating that prolonged exposure will do physical harm, then this is not acceptable. Before this goes any further, and is "tweaked" before release. It may be a sensible idea to run this past legal. Note:- as a consumer and NOT a medical professional, it is BLINDINGLY obvious that I cannot see them without eye strain. If the player base taking medical advice, warns of the physical consequences, prior to release, and it is Ignored, or played down in importance, then it will be very hard to claim ignorance of the effect on players health when The lawyers get hold of it! Hint- you might want to ask legal about EU disability regulations, regarding requirements relating to provision of a service, as well.........
Will point out...
... playing EVE is not a job.
... Iceland is not a member state of the EU
... the warp tunnel effect was release untouched albeit it caused motion sickness to some CCP personnel who tried it before release.
... there's no option to not see the warp tunnel, and many players just learned to ignore it even after it was trimmed into beiing more benign
Drawn your own conclussions about the new icon system... When I said we "endure" CCP and EVE, I was being litheral.
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1515
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 12:48:14 -
[199] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Jason Dunham wrote:I asked for this when the ship identification system first came out. I thought it was a shame that the great icons you spent time on weren't being used in game. I've always felt that npc icons should have some relation to player icons so that new players would have an easier time relating the two.
I'd like to point out that currently the "brackets" in the overview give no information at all, so if someone doesn't want to learn the new symbols, they will not be any worse off. But for those of us that will learn it, it will provide more information at a glance. Shape identification happens much faster than reading.
I'm a huge fan of the drone icons especially. In engagements with smaller ships engaging your enemies drones can be pivotal in turning the battle. These changes would make it easier to identify what kind of drones are on field and where they are being directed. For example, you engage an enemy fleet and then observe them drop sets of ecm drones that fly towards your logi. You would see this all from a glance rather than having to hover over the small, moving brackets of the drones to identify their type, or worse, load an overview with drones and sort through all the drones on field.
For me the important thing is that currently icons give very little information, so a change will allow more information to be received at a glance, which I think is a vast improvement. And if you don't like the added complexity, you don't have to use it. You can still look at the ship's name in the overview or mouse over the drones, etc.
My only concern was that the icons were readable, which I think the screenshot shows that they are.
Overall I believe this is a fantastically executed ui change that will allow skilled players to see more information about what's on field than they have before. It's similar to having different graphics for different turrets, a skilled player can look at their enemy and see what turrets or launchers they have fit. So you believe you are going to "at a glance" tell what sort of drones are being sent toward your logi, by looking at these icons in space? I'm sorry but am going to call Bull **** to that. The icons will be so small on anything but the largest of monitors, you will be peering at them to tell one from the other. - - - - - - - - - - - Just for interest sake I showed the new icons and UI to an Ophthalmologist I know. Her professional opinion; Shapes are all too similar and will cause eye strain with prolonged use, Don't spend any more than 1 or 2 hours a day exposed to these. Her suggestion for safe use for me, (an older guy with not so good eyesight), 20 to 30 mins then go and do something else for a few hours. It will be many years before I can even consider a 4K monitor (unless someone is giving them away) so it seems my play time in eve is about to be further reduced. I love eve but am not going to up the chances of my eyesight being effected more than it needs to be. Ok If we are getting to the point where medical professionals are stating that prolonged exposure will do physical harm, then this is not acceptable. Before this goes any further, and is "tweaked" before release. It may be a sensible idea to run this past legal. Note:- as a consumer and NOT a medical professional, it is BLINDINGLY obvious that I cannot see them without eye strain. If the player base taking medical advice, warns of the physical consequences, prior to release, and it is Ignored, or played down in importance, then it will be very hard to claim ignorance of the effect on players health when The lawyers get hold of it! Hint- you might want to ask legal about EU disability regulations, regarding requirements relating to provision of a service, as well......... Will point out... ... playing EVE is not a job. ... Iceland is not a member state of the EU ... the warp tunnel effect was release untouched albeit it caused motion sickness to some CCP personnel who tried it before release. ... there's no option to not see the warp tunnel, and many players just learned to ignore it even after it was trimmed into beiing more benign Drawn your own conclussions about the new icon system... When I said we "endure" CCP and EVE, I was being litheral.
You are seriously underestimating the effect and power of EU law, ask microsoft how that worked out for them.
Of course CCP could choose to host it's servers outside the EU, and choose not to permit EU residents to purchase either the game or subscriptions.
CCP, will probably, after having a 5 second "chat" to the tea boy in legal, realise just how bad an idea that is, hell, even the quafe machine will have more sense.
The issues have been pointed out. Let CCP discuss things with the legal professionals that they employ.
And act according to their, and everyone's best interests.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
107
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 13:55:54 -
[200] - Quote
Wow.... the dev stated he would probably be up all night reading and responding to feedback Thursday night... yeah, that apparently went real well and he didn't last very long, or got scared off by the sheer number of people telling him it is really poorly implemented to the point where they haven't bothered with this thread since.
Anyhoo, further I've noticed that in cases of player ships, quite a lot of the time from a distance I can identify the ship hull through the bracket (because it is open and not a solid block) whereas the new icons in a lot of cases completely block out the ship itself, therefore sending me to the overview list to get the information I would have otherwise been able to gather. This is someone counter to having an improved UI, it should at the very least maintain the current information level, be better looking, and quicker to distinguish. But this is not, tries to give way too much information (ie 27 separate drone icons), is not better looking, and takes more time to distinguish due to insignificant differences. |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4095
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 16:41:07 -
[201] - Quote
Overall I really like the new icons, although I'd almost prefer that they remain an Overview-only aspect and retain the 'red crosses' in the combat screen.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25030
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 17:27:57 -
[202] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Overall I really like the new icons, although I'd almost prefer that they remain an Overview-only aspect and retain the 'red crosses' in the combat screen.
That would be one way of retaining the work done, but it would rather diminish the point of it all. The information is already in the overview, and tbh, they don't fit all that well in that list anyway, especially given the way other information is overlaid on top of those icons.
I'm getting the sense that this is some silent move towards the idea of an improved tactical screen that they tossed around a while back (during some fanfest presentation or other): a more RTS-style, 2D view of the battlefield for FCs and the like. I'd imagine that these icons could work well enough there GÇö it would have to reinterpret the grid anyway, so having these types of larger icons to represent functions or squads would be one part of that interpretation layer.
That would work around the core issue that these icons require far more screen real-estate to become useful, since such a viewpoint would have to shift between different levels of detail as you zoomed in and out anyway. The icons can be left fairly big because at the highest level, one size represents an entire fleet, and another a single squad. Zoom in a few steps, and now those same sizes represent a wing and a solo ship, still operating on an abstract tactical board (think more along the lines of Advance Wars or HoMM3).
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.
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 18:30:55 -
[203] - Quote
I think one thing CCP could do to help differentiate so many similar icons would be to change the orientation of the icon.
This could be done within a class of icons to help them stand out more or for NPC vs PC.
If done to help within a class, small ships up to destroyer could be oriented right to left < medium ships up to left to right > and large ships left bottom to top ^. This would quickly add an additional visual identifier to make the difference stand out and make it easier for pilots to learn.
If done for NPC vs PC instead, have all NPC ships have their icon rotated 180 degrees so that it is pointing down and PC icons are remain pointing up. This could actually be done in conjunction with the above suggestion too, only all NPC icons would orient top to bottom and the above 3 orientations would only apply to PC, where a quick decision is often the more critical one. |
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
110
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 18:35:39 -
[204] - Quote
Summarizing for ease of finding and as a refresher for devs if they miss the posts buried earlier on...
1) Icons like this, nice simple, clearly identifiable and contain all the info you really need in the over (nearly any other piece of info you would need would be already available in the overview list):
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1AmgaXrxCn4BXMC6200G6TiQpZhiDEn2-PeA7zOwanRg/edit
Via Thoirdhealbhach. Player and NPC ships don't need for each and every ship type and variation to be displayed as a separate icon.
2) Or just plain using different shapes entirely (via Tippia): http://eve.beyondreality.se/pics/OverviewIcons.png.
3) And for drones, they just need to be simplified, kinda like this http://imgur.com/HqClpnt example by Alexis Nightwish, but maybe more generic like dps, ewar, and logi separations only (no size) as to avoid the having 27 different icons for variations on drones to keep track of.
4) Or as Geanos suggested another simplistic model, WoT... http://newnetwork.cc/images/maptactic/wot-icon-pack-ejs.jpg, we only really need a handful of ship class icons, S M L XL, so it shouldn't be terribly difficult to put together something like this.
5) Drones... http://i.imgur.com/pVz8aq0.png. Yeah, we don't need all that... we just need to see that it is a drone and where it is at. If we decide we need to care about what kind of drone it is, guess what... there are 2 columns already in the overview for that.
6) The NPC icons are just too close to each other, not enough difference once the icons are scaled from their original artwork size to the overview size. Example http://i.imgur.com/Lvb79Uy.png. Are the wrecks also going to be split into a dozen different size variations as well? Currently the wreck sizes are S, M, and L. Regardless we need to keep it simple, we only need to know basic info on the overview, like is it a small, medium, large, or extra large ship. Any further decisions are not based on the ship hull but rather the exact ship itself.
7) When considering the overview's information, one thing that stands out as different is both the Name and Type columns for NPCs just repeat the name of the NPC, it would probably be more helpful and give you somewhere to put that distinct info you want to give by listing the ship hull class information there instead?
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 22:44:30 -
[205] - Quote
Excellent ship icons - that screenshot is breathtaking. Reminds me of several strategy games. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
343
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 23:57:36 -
[206] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Excellent ship icons - that screenshot is breathtaking. Reminds me of several strategy games.
You haven't tried them on SISI yet, where they just become blurry red groups of things moving about on your screen.
The need to be able identify what is what with the "ship type" column in overview is even more important now as a moving red blurr on your screen helps, not at all.
Please CCP don't do this. At least not until you get it right.
For an icon to be useful it needs to tell you something you can't easily find out anywhere else. These new ship icons don't come close to doing that.
A blurry red mass that tells you nothing more than - I have to look at my "ship type" overview because there are now hostiles on grid, is not an improvement.
I have decent hardware, AMD Quad core, 32GB ram, 2 X Nvidia 750ti's and on a 24" monitor these new icons are blurry and just not nice to look at.
A little developing hint - Test your new developments on hardware the everyday user has access to - NOT FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES.
What looks amazing on future tech is absolute crap on the average machine.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Shuckstar
Taking Inc
Swine Aviation Labs
295
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 01:24:40 -
[207] - Quote
Time for me to remove the Icon tab from overview when this happens. So much easier to look at ship type/name than those new Icons.
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 :)"
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
973
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 03:37:07 -
[208] - Quote
CCP Arrow wrote:Lil' Brudder Too wrote:CCP Arrow wrote:
With 4K and even 5K monitors on the horizon we need to be ready and we want to be. So even though our current overview only gives us so much to work with, our design effort is to have icons that have a good base logic for their style and shapes which can work in various sizes once it becomes possible.
This argument feels like a straw man.... What % of your clientele do you believe will own 4k-5k monitors in that time...versus the number that will still be running just over min-specs? Of those that will be running Eve on 4k-5k monitors, how many of them are doing it for the sole purpose of enlarging the icon column of their overview, versus the number that will have their overview take up the same space as now, but use the extra resolution for...SPACE SHIPS AND SPACE! I was pointing out the fact that we need to be ready to support larger versions of all icons once 4K and 5K monitors become mainstream, because on those monitors, the current icons actually look much smaller than on regular monitors. So I was agreeing with the problem of the size but reassuring players it is our plan to address it because it will become an even bigger issue with 4K and 5K monitors.
my 5" phone has a 1080 display, my 10" tablet has a 1080 display, my 23" computer monitors have a 1080 display, some things are starting to not look quite so good on my monitors. 4k displays are still a bit expensive, but if I see one on sale or something I might just go for it. also I remember seeing some complaints about the UI not scaling well to various setups, the UI scaling options are somewhat new. having more robustness to the UI seems like a good thing to me.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1010
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 05:21:33 -
[209] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Castelo Selva wrote:Do not worried about the wining people. It is natural to people be against any change, and in special when that change take then out of they comfort zone. It was the same with the neocon icons and now people just get used to it. So what you're saying is that you haven't actually read any of the feedback, and instead stupidly believe in the laughably idiotic myth of GÇ£being against changeGÇ¥? Yeah, no. That's not what's happening. Instead, people are being very explicit about why these new things will not work, same as the NeoCom GÇö which, had you actually had a clue, you would have noticed that people have not gotten used to. These comments come from the perspective of what the icons are meant to (but fail to) do; from the perspective of good UI design; from the perspective of actual in-game use; and from the perspective of actual player use-cases. Quoted for emphasis.
... and Tipsy, glad to see some of your posts are better than they were a few years ago.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3813
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 07:48:47 -
[210] - Quote
Monday morning, guess the devs will start reading again.
So, to summarize:
- icons are too small
- there are too many icon types
- icons are too similar to each other
- moving icons are blurry
- the relevant information (ship type) is on the overview, not on the icons
Did I miss something?
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1592
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 10:22:39 -
[211] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Monday morning, guess the devs will start reading again.
So, to summarize:
- icons are too small
- there are too many icon types
- icons are too similar to each other
- moving icons are blurry
- the relevant information (ship type) is on the overview, not on the icons
Did I miss something?
That sums it up pretty much. :)
If we only could convince CCP to stop adding redundant information into the UI (information that is already there) we players & CCP could come a long way in cleaning up this proposed visual mess.
If they could skip on the this 18x18 icon must show it's " specific this or specific that" and go back to a more global recognition icon interface like we have now, it.. I mean a few years ago I was on SiSi and there where new icons for cruisers/frigs/battleships etc. in the form of tiny stars (if I remember correctly). 1 star = frig, 2 stars = cruiser etc. And I was then thinking this is so much clearer then the crosses we have now. Sadly it never made it to TQ.
|
Geanos
V I R I I
Triumvirate.
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 10:57:23 -
[212] - Quote
ISIS icons are very nice and they look wonderful there, but they don't mix well with the overview. Why not use clear shapes that would show a clear progression for each category of ships or drones? I made a quick mockup to illustrate this:
Combat - circle & diagonal lines
Industrial - triangle & horizontal lines
Drones - square & vertical lines
It is not polished but you'll gt the idea |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25032
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 10:59:45 -
[213] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Monday morning, guess the devs will start reading again.
So, to summarize:
- icons are too small
- there are too many icon types
- icons are too similar to each other
- moving icons are blurry
- the relevant information (ship type) is on the overview, not on the icons
Did I miss something?
Not as such, no. However, I'd say that those are just the symtoms, and they need to look at the causes:
GÇó They only use a single basic shape GÇö an arrow pointing up GÇö for the one thing that needs the most variety (ships).
GÇó They only have two rather indistinct visual cues GÇö relative size and minute decorations GÇö to convey at least four different axes of differentiation (size, class, function, affiliation), and probably one or two more that I'm missing.
GÇó They seem to have designed big and then back-ported down to small size, losing clarity in the process.
GÇó They have forgotten the environment in which the icons will be used.
To address this they need to:
GÇó Make use of a larger number of shapes. This can most easily offload one of the axes of distinction (e.g. have different classes use radically different shapes).
GÇó Use more (and better) visual cues. Don't just scale up to show larger size, because that information gets lost without a point of reference. Instead use countable stacks and/or repetition.
GÇó Use big and chunky markings to expose functional information (if such information is at all relevantGǪ which is highly debatable).
GÇó Design small. It must be crystal clear at arms-length distance at the smallest size setting; scale up from there to create versions for both HiDPI and regular, non-scaled displays.
GÇó Make sure that the size, placement, and use of borders and similar intensity differences to convey meaning are all compatible with:
-á-á-á-á-á- The colour overlays and tags used to denote standings, flaggings, and affiliations.
-á-á-á-á-á- The background of the ships they are meant to represent.
-á-á-á-á-á- The Lovecraftian squirming mass of icons that will show up in a fleet fight.
That second-to-last point is particularly baffling with the current crop: some icons are lost when shown on top of the ships they are meant to represent. 
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.
|
Dianalexia
Gea'Vii Enterprises
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 11:14:54 -
[214] - Quote
Geanos wrote:ISIS icons are very nice and they look wonderful there, but they don't mix well with the overview. Why not use clear shapes that would show a clear progression for each category of ships or drones? I made a quick mockup to illustrate this: Combat - circle & diagonal lines Industrial - triangle & horizontal lines Drones - square & vertical lines It is not polished but you'll gt the idea
This is SPARTA!
|
Linistitul
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 12:39:39 -
[215] - Quote
Geanos wrote:ISIS icons are very nice and they look wonderful there, but they don't mix well with the overview. Why not use clear shapes that would show a clear progression for each category of ships or drones? I made a quick mockup to illustrate this: Combat - circle & diagonal lines Industrial - triangle & horizontal lines Drones - square & vertical lines It is not polished but you'll gt the idea
The concept is very good, but given the choice CCP leadership will go for "more psshhhh" and ignore usability.
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
116
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 14:29:11 -
[216] - Quote
Geanos wrote:ISIS icons are very nice and they look wonderful there, but they don't mix well with the overview. Why not use clear shapes that would show a clear progression for each category of ships or drones? I made a quick mockup to illustrate this: Combat - circle & diagonal lines Industrial - triangle & horizontal lines Drones - square & vertical lines It is not polished but you'll gt the idea I do like the concept, but in all honesty it probably just needs to be even more simplified... combining frig/dessie, cruiser/bc, and the capitals.
Industrial frig? Isn't there just one of those... so why make it separate, just toss it in with either a base industrial class, or frigate/dessie class.
And the industrial command, that is just the orca right? If so I'd say it would qualify to be lumped in with freighters and rorq.
Also needs to be designed at a base size of 20x20 as that is the max space when the UI is scaled at 100%.
Otherwise I really love the industrial and drone icons. The pod icon and the frigate icon could potentially suffer the same loss of detail when scaled as their new icons currently have. |
Geanos
V I R I I
Triumvirate.
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 14:30:06 -
[217] - Quote
Geanos wrote:ISIS icons are very nice and they look wonderful there, but they don't mix well with the overview. Why not use clear shapes that would show a clear progression for each category of ships or drones? I made a quick mockup to illustrate this: Combat - circle & diagonal lines Industrial - triangle & horizontal lines Drones - square & vertical lines It is not polished but you'll gt the idea
Quick update. The reason is that we need to see at the first glance with what kind of ship we are dealing and rely less on the type column for identification:
- transport ship icons should have their own category
- I want to see at the first glance the ship type (logi, recon, etc) - huge new player bonus
- I want to see at the first glance the tech level (T1, T2, T3) - huge new player bonus
There it is |
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
116
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 14:33:46 -
[218] - Quote
I would really be happy if they would just keep the current level of detail on TQ, standardize them between NPC and player ships (using one of the above examples or a combination of the ideas), and then leave it at that.
When considering the overview's information, one thing that stands out as different when compared to Player ships is both the Name and Type columns for NPCs just repeat the name of the NPC, it would probably be more helpful and give you somewhere to put that distinct info you want to give by listing the ship hull class information there instead?
Finally to help further standardize the overview between player and NPC ships I really want to see an actual ship type listed in the Type column for NPCs!!! Not just repeating their name again. |
Anthar Thebess
940
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 14:49:43 -
[219] - Quote
What are the icons for Iapetan Titans?
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
CIone Beta
State Protectorate
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 15:38:09 -
[220] - Quote
It is awful. Give me opportunity to use the old icons and you can do whatever you want.
Sry for GT. |
Sturmwolke
639
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:21:07 -
[221] - Quote
Geanos wrote:ISIS icons are very nice and they look wonderful there, but they don't mix well with the overview. Why not use clear shapes that would show a clear progression for each category of ships or drones? I made a quick mockup to illustrate this: Combat - circle & diagonal lines Industrial - triangle & horizontal lines Drones - square & vertical lines It is not polished but you'll gt the idea
This is a very good proof of concept of a better icon representation that presents information with clarity.
Compared to what CCP has iterated so far, it only affirms the massive incompetence on how they approached the re-design.
Further plus points if the author did that under a few hours/few days.
|
Mr R4nd0m
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
187
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:17:24 -
[222] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:Geanos wrote:ISIS icons are very nice and they look wonderful there, but they don't mix well with the overview. Why not use clear shapes that would show a clear progression for each category of ships or drones? I made a quick mockup to illustrate this: Combat - circle & diagonal lines Industrial - triangle & horizontal lines Drones - square & vertical lines It is not polished but you'll gt the idea This is a very good proof of concept of a better icon representation that presents information with clarity. Compared to what CCP has iterated so far, it only affirms the massive incompetence on how they approached the re-design. Further plus points if the author did that under a few hours/few days.
I actually quite like this idea. I would like to see a circle around the icon to represent a npc rather than that + sign. someone mentioned it before be nice if we were allowed to choose our own colours for the icons as well. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25032
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:25:54 -
[223] - Quote
Geanos wrote:Quick update. The reason is that we need to see at the first glance with what kind of ship we are dealing and rely less on the type column for identification: - transport ship icons should have their own category - I want to see at the first glance the ship type (logi, recon, etc) - huge new player bonus - I want to see at the first glance the tech level (T1, T2, T3) - huge new player bonus There it is
One problem: you can't use colour to denote ship classes or types. Colours are already used to signify allegiances, aggression levels, social connections and lots more. If you colour the icons, they will get lost in that and cause all kinds of issues for colour-blind people.
Also, while your original idea definitely has some merit, you need to test it with the various +, -, and skull tags that will be superimposed on top of them and see what that does to the clarity of what you want to convey. The originals look small enough that there won't be much overlap, but on the other hand, that might in and of itself hit that you're not using the available space efficiently.
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.
|
Mr R4nd0m
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
187
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:55:27 -
[224] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Geanos wrote:Quick update. The reason is that we need to see at the first glance with what kind of ship we are dealing and rely less on the type column for identification: - transport ship icons should have their own category - I want to see at the first glance the ship type (logi, recon, etc) - huge new player bonus - I want to see at the first glance the tech level (T1, T2, T3) - huge new player bonus There it is One problem: you can't use colour to denote ship classes or types. Colours are already used to signify allegiances, aggression levels, social connections and lots more. If you colour the icons, they will get lost in that and cause all kinds of issues for colour-blind people. The colours you've picked have suddenly erased all possibility of distinguishing different types of neutral, low-sec, same-corp, and bluelist/alliance ships. While it might conceivably be possible to find colours that are not represented by the colour options for overview and bracket settings, it would be next to impossible to find ones that don't clash in some way, or that offer sufficient separation in every combination. Also, while your original idea definitely has some merit, you need to test it with the various +, -, and skull tags that will be superimposed on top of them and see what that does to the clarity of what you want to convey. The originals look small enough that there won't be much overlap, but on the other hand, that might in and of itself hit that you're not using the available space efficiently.
As i said, CCP should allow us to use our own colours then thats up to us isn't it. Problem solved. TBH you could do a hundred different icon sets and there will always be some that don't like it.
The only problem is with having so many icons is trying to remember them all, the last thing you can or want to do when in space is trying to figure out whats what! |
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:55:46 -
[225] - 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 -
[226] - 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 -
[227] - 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. |
|
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1487
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:17:16 -
[228] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
The overview is already fairly horrible as-is. Especially when things start moving about trying to get situational awareness from it is extremely difficult, and I don't see adding another text column (which is what I suspect you were thinking?) would help that.
If anything I think another icon would be appropriate to show ship capability and then use the II, III tags in the corner to highlight their speciality, grouped by things such as disruption cruiser, tackler etc. Especially if we could click to sort by them.
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:18:21 -
[229] - 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. |
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
344
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:23:57 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
That will work, add more stuff to an already over stuffed overview
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1793
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:47:43 -
[231] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
Can't you use the different geometric shapes as differentiators for ship classes? This is by far the most important thing on the overview. Using relative size as a key differentiator fails.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25032
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:58:29 -
[232] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
That sounds nice on paper, but falls flat on its face when it comes in contact with reality.
Of the things you listed, only one is of any real importance: ships. The others can be mashed into the same category of GÇ£stuff you might want to see, but no-one really cares and they'll all be properly marked at all times anywayGÇ¥. As such, using a single shape for each of those categories is an immense waste of visual communication, and you've assigned by far the worst one to the one that, also by far, needs to be the most obvious and clear. You don't want them to be unified because that defeats the purpose of being able to spot the differences immediately.
So, again, pick a better shape than a thin triangle to represent ships. Then pick two or three more. Then let all of them represent various types of ships. Use the triangle for something where relative difference isn't particularly important (celestials come to mind, or hey: deployables GÇö wrecks are already triangles so just expand that theme to apply to all kinds of containers). Whatever shapes are left over can be spread out over the stuff that lacks representation.
For ships, you must have a more complex language than just relative size and minute markings. Completely different shapes does this very easily. Or pattern repetitions. Or increased polygonality. Anything, really, except thinner and thicker triangles with tiny decorations.
Also, the invader guys for drones are cute, but I get the distinct impression that it will clash to easily with the many other chunky icons that you have to create. In all honesty what was wrong with the thin GÇÿXGÇÖ? Compared to the boxes and +:es, It communicated fairly well that this was something related to ships, but smaller. The invaders might conceivably work like this in relation to the triangle-ships, but the triangle-ships must goGǪ so that means the invaders aren't really worth as much any more either.
Quote: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.
One problem with that strategy: they're not familiar. Another problem: they are almost completely unsuited for the kind of busy environment that the overview and in-space brackets offer. They work well enough when kept clearly separated against a carefully chosen monochrome background and when they can be allowed to be shown at full size.
None of those conditions hold true for where the icons have to show.
So what you should be doing is start in space, make them work there, and then put those icons in ISIS. If this means dumping the current ISIS icons, then so what? They're a very recent addition that holds no real significance or value, and they can replace without any loss of familiarity. Everyone will have to relearn anyway, so you might as well start with something good rather than cling to something that doesn't work.
Quote: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. Are you quite sure? If it doesn't scale, how come you can fit more if you turn the scaling down? 
Anyway, the thing is that allowing scaling doesn't actually solve the problem: that they are indistinct and that ostensibly crucial markings are lost in the cluotter at their smallest size. This is still a problem you have to address, and it's yet another reason why scaled-down ISIS icons are not the way to go. So honestly, suck it up, dump the old and create something new from the ground up GÇö something that is actually designed with this purpose in mind GÇö then put that into ISIS to achieve the recognition you're trying to achieve.
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.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1102
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 00:03:40 -
[233] - Quote
how about adding letters in a different colour in the icon so we know what size it is at a glance
F = frigate
D= destroyer
B = battleship
CBC = combat battlecruiser
ABC = Attack battlecruiser
AC= Attack cruiser
CC = combat cruiser
SC = support cruiser
ECC = e-war cruiser
etc...
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
170
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 00:04:37 -
[234] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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. 16, 24, 32 - that would be awesome. Increasing icon size also reduces the number of lines of ships that can be crammed into one screen of overview, but the list can be scrolled, and the benefits of quicker recognition might outweigh the lost lines... that I probably had trouble reading anyway, if I'm increasing icon sizes. |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
270
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 00:17:45 -
[235] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
While I like having more information, I really do not want more columns on the table. It occupies too much of my screen as it is. |
Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 01:06:12 -
[236] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
Pushing 60 and with strong glasses, I still can't read most of the overview. The new color schemes did not take into account less than perfect vision. Right now Eve is setup for people with 20/20 or better vision, not for someone who is on the verge of visually impaired.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of the issue. I love Eve, but I will probably have to give it up if the interface does not have better options for those people with vision problems. |
Code2200
Guardians Descendants
LOADED-DICE
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 02:41:00 -
[237] - Quote
I like it really adds something small yet very useful!!! |
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
117
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 02:45:19 -
[238] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote:thank you for a bunch of useful and feedback you've given in this thread.
...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.
...And I'd be happy if you guys jumped in there and posted your reactions after checking them out in a live fleet engagement. The way that reads to me:
"Thank you for the useful feedback but we aren't going to change anything. But please give us more feedback after the mass test!"
But seriously, you are trying to put too much, or as much info as you possibly can, into something isn't supposed to contain much info at all. An icon just needs to give you an basic piece of information, enough information that you can decide if you even need more info or not. Telling us there is a frigate or destroyer or cruiser isn't much info at all. It might be a T1 cruiser I don't care about or an AF that I need to clear off the field asap or even a dictor or perhaps even a lonesome thrasher I can ignore. We only need to really know exactly the amount of info the current TQ icons tell us:
Is the ship small, medium, or large? Since every other piece of important info about that ship including it's specific type and hull name are listed in the overview. We really don't need to be seeing the same information in half a dozen different places at the same time. The current icon set for NPCs does a good job of differentiating ship classes by weapons class and it works well.
As Tippia said, just because the new icons are currently in ISIS should not be a major factor for their use in the overview. Can you honestly say that a majority of the player base spends a significant amount of time in ISIS to justify this? Cause I can tell you at most between all 3 of my accounts I haven't spent more than 5-10 minutes total time looking at ISIS since it came out.
CCP Surge wrote: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. Not sure about this guy, but I know a few of us were giving the example of having the T2/T3 info (since you obviously don't think we want to use the Overview to get the same info) as a way to go further and overcrowd the icon with information overload. Might as well include all the role types for the ships like you want to do with drones.
That leads us to these role/use indicators, you aren't giving a role indicator for ships, so why for drones and for structures? Are you planning to add this info to gates and stations as well (since different stations do different things and there are several different sized gates which have massively different spawn distances)? 27 different icons for drones, really necessary?
Sentry guns... are you seriously saying you are making it an ugly little squared "c" because planets and celestials have large circles and you are worried that players will confuse a small circle of the sentry gun with a planet?
Granted you need to make player and NPC icons the same set, but this is not how you do it. At best you really need not even 10 separate icons to differentiate S, M, L, XL ships, M, XL for industrials, shuttle, pod, and drones. You only need a minimal set of different icons because the differentiating information is IN THE NAME OF THE OBJECT as well as IN THE TYPE field as well. Look back at my example of the NPCs, you can easily add this specific hull class info into the Type field like it is for player ships.
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
117
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 02:50:57 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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. They already have this info available in the Overview, its called "Type". The idea for increasing the size of the Overview to take up more screen space to include redundant info that is already there. Am I right? |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
344
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 03:54:49 -
[240] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
Just being able to make them bigger to suit poor eyesight is not the best option, the overview already takes up more space than I like, so making it bigger by having the ability to enlarge icons to gain no further information than is currently available just does not make sense. Color plays a big part in it as well, you can triple the size of the icons but as long as they are all one color, red, it can be hard to distinguish subtle differences. Especially when those shapes vary only by the addition of a cross or a teardrop, or the worst for my eyes, the same red icon split into 2 where the solid icon represents something and a blank space in the middle of the same icon represents something else.
With all the icons in the new UI looking similar, as in same shape, same color, same size, (without getting 3 inches from my monitor and squinting) I mouse over to find what I need.
The icons themselves may as well be silver circles you mouse over to gain information from..
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Noriko Mai
2088
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 03:57:52 -
[241] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote: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. One problem with that strategy: they're not familiar.
This! I open ISIS from time to time to look up some ship lines but I never cared for the icons.
Come On Everybody, support Dark Opaque theme
|
lexa21
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 06:03:10 -
[242] - Quote
Thats the same product of a stomach as new UI icons and styles. Please give us a chance that there will be a button "i dont have to use this". |
Darkblad
Hilf Dir selbst in EVE
771
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 09:33:12 -
[243] - Quote
lexa21 wrote:Thats the same product of a stomach as new UI icons and styles. Please give us a chance that there will be a button "i dont have to use this". It'd help those that want to stick with the old UI (and Icons/Brackets) but CCP repeatedly explained that this would also require maintenance of two versions (or more as time passes and further things change that some might dislike).
Given that there are still issues with the current UI, it's probable that none of the different versions that'd be kept available would ever be finished. (I think I can already tell what the response to this matter of finished will be).
EVE Infolinks GÇó Mining Handbuch GÇó Colortags/Timer
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
747
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 09:56:28 -
[244] - Quote
It appears that you are looking to replace one set of bad icons with another set of bad icons.
Why is this? |
Geanos
V I R I I
Triumvirate.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 10:40:21 -
[245] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Geanos wrote:Quick update. The reason is that we need to see at the first glance with what kind of ship we are dealing and rely less on the type column for identification: - transport ship icons should have their own category - I want to see at the first glance the ship type (logi, recon, etc) - huge new player bonus - I want to see at the first glance the tech level (T1, T2, T3) - huge new player bonus There it is One problem: you can't use colour to denote ship classes or types. Colours are already used to signify allegiances, aggression levels, social connections and lots more. If you colour the icons, they will get lost in that and cause all kinds of issues for colour-blind people. The colours you've picked have suddenly erased all possibility of distinguishing different types of neutral, low-sec, same-corp, and bluelist/alliance ships. While it might conceivably be possible to find colours that are not represented by the colour options for overview and bracket settings, it would be next to impossible to find ones that don't clash in some way, or that offer sufficient separation in every combination. Also, while your original idea definitely has some merit, you need to test it with the various +, -, and skull tags that will be superimposed on top of them and see what that does to the clarity of what you want to convey. The originals look small enough that there won't be much overlap, but on the other hand, that might in and of itself hit that you're not using the available space efficiently.
You've seen the dev feedback on our feedback... Why bother? As I see it, they are not looking to make a better overview, they just want to replace the icons. It's not like the overview is probably the most important part of the UI |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1515
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 10:41:34 -
[246] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
That is a great idea as it allows you to reduce the information density by avoiding trying to condense it into a small icon, add the secondary attributes for drones, sentries, etc to this too, to enable the primary icon to remain simple. the ability to select icon size is also very welcome.
Thanks for taking note of our concerns.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Geanos
V I R I I
Triumvirate.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 10:43:39 -
[247] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:CCP Surge wrote: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. That is a great idea as it allows you to reduce the information density by avoiding trying to condense it into a small icon, the ability to select icon size is also very welcome. Thanks for taking note of our concerns.
We already have the type column btw. Nice dev solution.
|
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
Joint Venture Conglomerate
427
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 10:43:53 -
[248] - Quote
Not keen on this. If you haven't seen it already CCP have a quick scan of this, particularly the comments on Complex Symbols in the General Discussion section
Fear God and Thread Nought
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
345
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 10:46:28 -
[249] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:lexa21 wrote:Thats the same product of a stomach as new UI icons and styles. Please give us a chance that there will be a button "i dont have to use this". It'd help those that want to stick with the old UI (and Icons/Brackets) but CCP repeatedly explained that this would also require maintenance of two versions (or more as time passes and further things change that some might dislike). Given that there are still issues with the current UI, it's probable that none of the different versions that'd be kept available would ever be finished. (I think I can already tell what the response to this matter of finished will be).
Yep. These icons are what we're getting, the blog and feedback thread is just a kind of courtesy because CCP are still trying to make players think they have a say in the direction of their game.
The UI icon changes alone show CCP don't really care what players think or want.
Feedback in that thread was majorly against the changes but CCP had already made their decision and now we just have to live with it.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1515
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 11:05:21 -
[250] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Darkblad wrote:lexa21 wrote:Thats the same product of a stomach as new UI icons and styles. Please give us a chance that there will be a button "i dont have to use this". It'd help those that want to stick with the old UI (and Icons/Brackets) but CCP repeatedly explained that this would also require maintenance of two versions (or more as time passes and further things change that some might dislike). Given that there are still issues with the current UI, it's probable that none of the different versions that'd be kept available would ever be finished. (I think I can already tell what the response to this matter of finished will be). Yep. These icons are what we're getting, the blog and feedback thread is just a kind of courtesy because CCP are still trying to make players think they have a say in the direction of their game. The UI icon changes alone show CCP don't really care what players think or want. Feedback in that thread was majorly against the changes but CCP had already made their decision and now we just have to live with it. According to Dev feeback, these changes are for a specific technology which most of us won't consider using for 4 or 5 years due to the current cost of the technology. The majority will just have to suffer crappy looking, limited information icons so the minority can have icons that look good in a 4k monitor. - - - - - - - - - - Adding another column to the overview to for tech type? Who are these geniuses ?
If that extra column for an icon, was used for ALL the secondary info that is confusing the primary icon and making it hard to differentiate, then that would allow the information to be conveyed, rather than reading the text information as currently. It has potential as an idea.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Geanos
V I R I I
Triumvirate.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 11:08:14 -
[251] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Darkblad wrote:lexa21 wrote:Thats the same product of a stomach as new UI icons and styles. Please give us a chance that there will be a button "i dont have to use this". It'd help those that want to stick with the old UI (and Icons/Brackets) but CCP repeatedly explained that this would also require maintenance of two versions (or more as time passes and further things change that some might dislike). Given that there are still issues with the current UI, it's probable that none of the different versions that'd be kept available would ever be finished. (I think I can already tell what the response to this matter of finished will be). Yep. These icons are what we're getting, the blog and feedback thread is just a kind of courtesy because CCP are still trying to make players think they have a say in the direction of their game. The UI icon changes alone show CCP don't really care what players think or want. Feedback in that thread was majorly against the changes but CCP had already made their decision and now we just have to live with it. According to Dev feeback, these changes are for a specific technology which most of us won't consider using for 4 or 5 years due to the current cost of the technology. The majority will just have to suffer crappy looking, limited information icons so the minority can have icons that look good in a 4k monitor. - - - - - - - - - - Adding another column to the overview to for tech type? Who are these geniuses ? If that extra column for an icon, was used for ALL the secondary info that is confusing the primary icon and making it hard to differentiate, then that would allow the information to be conveyed, rather than reading the text information as currently. It has potential as an idea.
Can you please explain why do we need another type column? Don't we have one already? Do you use it? |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5907
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 11:15:04 -
[252] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP Surge wrote: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. That sounds nice on paper, but falls flat on its face when it comes in contact with reality. Of the things you listed, only one is of any real importance: ships. The others can be mashed into the same category of GÇ£stuff you might want to see, but no-one really cares and they'll all be properly marked at all times anywayGÇ¥. As such, using a single shape for each of those categories is an immense waste of visual communication, and you've assigned by far the worst one to the one that, also by far, needs to be the most obvious and clear. You don't want them to be unified because that defeats the purpose of being able to spot the differences immediately. So, again, pick a better shape than a thin triangle to represent ships. Then pick two or three more. Then let all of them represent various types of ships. Use the triangle for something where relative difference isn't particularly important (celestials come to mind, or hey: deployables GÇö wrecks are already triangles so just expand that theme to apply to all kinds of containers). Whatever shapes are left over can be spread out over the stuff that lacks representation. For ships, you must have a more complex language than just relative size and minute markings to create the distinctions you're after. Using different shapes trivially achieves this. Or pattern repetitions. Or increased polygonality. Anything, really, except thinner and thicker triangles with tiny decorations. Also, the invader guys for drones are cute, but I get the distinct impression that it will clash to easily with the many other chunky icons that you have to create. In all honesty what was wrong with the thin GÇÿXGÇÖ? Compared to the boxes and +:es, It communicated fairly well that this was something related to ships, but smaller. The invaders might conceivably work like this in relation to the triangle-ships, but the triangle-ships have to go because they don't workGǪ Quote: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. One problem with that strategy: they're not familiar. Another problem: they are almost completely unsuited for the kind of busy environment that the overview and in-space brackets offer. They work well enough when kept clearly separated against a carefully chosen monochrome background and when they can be allowed to be shown at full size. None of those conditions hold true for where the icons have to show. So what you should be doing is start in space, make them work there, and then put those icons in ISIS. If this means dumping the current ISIS icons, then so what? They're a very recent addition that holds no real significance or value, and they can replace without any loss of familiarity. Everyone will have to relearn anyway, so you might as well start with something good rather than cling to something that doesn't work. Anyway, the thing is that allowing scaling doesn't actually solve the problem: that they are indistinct and that ostensibly crucial markings are lost in the cluotter at their smallest size. This is still a problem you have to address, and it's yet another reason why scaled-down ISIS icons are not the way to go. So honestly, suck it up, dump the old and create something new from the ground up GÇö something that is actually designed with this purpose in mind GÇö then put that into ISIS to achieve the recognition you're trying to achieve. Quote:Up next: I'm really curious about how the new icons perform in the field. Poorly. They get lost against any busy background GÇö say, a planet, or a star field, or a nebula, or a gas cloud, or a station, or an asteroid field. They get lost against each other GÇö overlaps just become a writhing mass of indistinct arrow-shaped noise covered up a smear of colour. They get lost when superimposed on top of the ships they represent. They get lost against colour markings and tags, which almost all except NPCs ships have, and which wipe out or cover up many of the minute distinguishing features they're supposed to have. They get lost anywhere there are NPC ships since they're the same icons. They require a point of reference since they rely on relative size GÇö anything on its own is unnecessarily hard to identify. In the overview, there's a minute improvement over the bracket use since they don't line up properly, and you can use the uneven justification to figure out which ships are bigger than whichGǪ but again, since this is a relative difference, any ship on its own becomes needlessly difficult again. And of course, the colouration and tags cover them up just as much in the overview as in open space.
This. Every single word of this. Focus on the ships and distinctions between them.
And don't add another column to the overview - we already have ship type that gives us the hull name, and that one is fairly precise at distinguishing one ship from another.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1515
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 11:21:09 -
[253] - Quote
Geanos wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Darkblad wrote:lexa21 wrote:Thats the same product of a stomach as new UI icons and styles. Please give us a chance that there will be a button "i dont have to use this". It'd help those that want to stick with the old UI (and Icons/Brackets) but CCP repeatedly explained that this would also require maintenance of two versions (or more as time passes and further things change that some might dislike). Given that there are still issues with the current UI, it's probable that none of the different versions that'd be kept available would ever be finished. (I think I can already tell what the response to this matter of finished will be). Yep. These icons are what we're getting, the blog and feedback thread is just a kind of courtesy because CCP are still trying to make players think they have a say in the direction of their game. The UI icon changes alone show CCP don't really care what players think or want. Feedback in that thread was majorly against the changes but CCP had already made their decision and now we just have to live with it. According to Dev feeback, these changes are for a specific technology which most of us won't consider using for 4 or 5 years due to the current cost of the technology. The majority will just have to suffer crappy looking, limited information icons so the minority can have icons that look good in a 4k monitor. - - - - - - - - - - Adding another column to the overview to for tech type? Who are these geniuses ? If that extra column for an icon, was used for ALL the secondary info that is confusing the primary icon and making it hard to differentiate, then that would allow the information to be conveyed, rather than reading the text information as currently. It has potential as an idea. Can you please explain why do we need another type column? Don't we have one already? Do you use it?
The idea of condensing the differentiating items into a second overview icon column, will be much smaller than that column, and simplify the primary icon, by seperating out the secondary attributes, to this new icon column. If done well, this would tell you the critical information at a glance, and offering the secondary info into an easily differentiated new icon, rather than overloading the primary with so much info that all is lost in the confusion.
On the in space icons, Tippa has some very good suggestions, that are worth considering. Do we really need all that secondary info in space? Or are clear icons the most important need? I tend to agree with her summation and conclusions.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Geanos
V I R I I
Triumvirate.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 11:41:28 -
[254] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
The idea of condensing the differentiating items into a second overview icon column, will be much smaller than that column, and simplify the primary icon, by seperating out the secondary attributes, to this new icon column. If done well, this would tell you the critical information at a glance, and offering the secondary info into an easily differentiated new icon, rather than overloading the primary with so much info that all is lost in the confusion.
Looking into the already existing "Type" column, I can see at a glance all the extra critical information that I need. Like I said, except for when shooting NPC crosses, when the "Type" column duplicates the "Name" column, the "Type " column gives us all the info we need. What CCP needs to do is to replace the DB entries for NPC's in that column. Please try the "Type" column outside missions or complexes and you'll see what I mean.
Also, you got me confused... So this "overload" doesn't apply to the new drone icons? Or they just don't matter? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25034
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 12:13:28 -
[255] - Quote
Geanos wrote:You've seen the dev feedback on our feedback... Why bother? As I see it, they are not looking to make a better overview, they just want to replace the icons. It's not like the overview is probably the most important part of the UI
It sure feels that way.
And not to belittle what you did (quite the opposite): look how easy to figure something out it is if you actually start from the baseline of GÇ£where will these appear, and what do they need to show?GÇ¥ rather than GÇ£hey, let's re-use our work for something completely different and pray really hard that it might fitGÇ¥. That's where the frustration comes for me: it doesn't seem like they want to solve the actual problem, or even acknowledge that a problem exists to be solved. They just want to replace old graphics with slightly less old ones, apparently because the latter isn't getting enough attention. This isn't an immensely difficult problem, but they're turning it into one by refusing to put in the little amount of work needed to actually solve that simple problem.
Ugh.
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.
|
Geanos
V I R I I
Triumvirate.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 14:16:57 -
[256] - Quote
Looks like 2013 was the year when CCP Arrow & co did the overview job. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3817
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 14:22:46 -
[257] - Quote
Already has been said, so will be short.
- larger icons certainly are more visible if the player doesn't haves 20/20 eyesight. But then it eats up overview space, specially if the UI already is scaled up. How about making icons which can be told apart even if you don't see them well? I've never had an issue telling a SMALL cross from a THIN cross from a THICK cross. Notice how the shape is irrelevant...
- they are based on "well known" ISIS icons? I didn't even knew that ISIS had ship icons until you said it...
- there are two player suggestions here which are way better visible than the current proposal.
Also:
CCP Surge wrote:Thanks for this ;) the bit on imperfect vision was actually something I hadn't considered until reading this thread.
Thanks for being so candid about this. But, seriously?
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
747
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 14:46:08 -
[258] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
In a live fleet engagement most pilots are going to have their brackets turned off. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
747
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 14:51:08 -
[259] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote:Thanks for this ;) the bit on imperfect vision was actually something I hadn't considered until reading this thread.
You what?
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:03:43 -
[260] - Quote
Geanos wrote:Looks like 2013 was the year when CCP Arrow & co did the overview job. I will say that the Overview UI shown in that concept is not bad looking, definitely makes it more sci-fi spacey. But you are right, those are the ISIS icons, though since they are just a mock-up concept they are centered and more correctly scaled. They also only picked 3 of the ship classes to display, from the looks picked a small, a medium, and a large sized icon for each of the ships so you could actually tell the difference, which is all they need to do really, give us a generalized idea of the ship's class. The rest we can get from the "Type" column as I've been saying this whole time.
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:06:48 -
[261] - Quote
Geanos wrote:Looking into the already existing "Type" column, I can see at a glance all the extra critical information that I need. Like I said, except for shooting NPC crosses, when the "Type" column duplicates the "Name" column, the "Type " column gives us all the extra info we need. What CCP needs to do is to replace the DB entries for NPC's in that column. Please try the "Type" column outside missions or complexes and you'll see what I mean. I have been trying to get this through to them from the start of this thread and the generalized feedback thread.
I understand they need to standardize player and NPC ship icons, but if they are going to do that they need to also standardize player and NPC "Overview" column information, like "Type".
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:14:31 -
[262] - 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. |
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1475
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:29:34 -
[263] - Quote
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.
The problem isn't the icons you designed, which are very well done. The problem is that icons that size went out of common use in, what, 1995? And when they did, the pixels they were made of were much larger.
I'd recommend setting aside the pretty vector work and making something that you can cram into the overview until you and your colleagues can tackle the real problem, which is the overview.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1540
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:41:05 -
[264] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
It is very refreshing, that you are willing to question assumptions made earlier in the design process, and that you understand our concerns, and are considering them with an open mind. Please consider function as your primary design goal, and whilst we all enjoy interesting and artistic ideas, functionality is the overriding goal.
We all wish the same result, clear, informative information, delivered in an attractive way.
I was impressed with the links to military design earlier in the thread where they spent thousands of man hours investigating this issue.
It may be worth drawing ideas from this to save limited resources, to achieve the best for all of EVE.
Once again, Thank you.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Onslaughtor
Occult National Security
Phoenix Naval Systems
106
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:58:16 -
[265] - Quote
After taking some time to play with it, I find that frigates are too hard to differentiate from cruisers. But noobships stick out like a sore thumb. It might be worth looking into rolling the noobship icon into the frigate more. Wider sides and the likes.
The other one was that the dreadnought icon is very close to the battleship icon. one solution might be to do whats done with the carrier. Remove a section so its a diamond sitting in a cradle.
Anyway thats my 2 cents. Hope it helps some
. |
RavenNyx
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:56:59 -
[266] - Quote
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? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
30736
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:49:39 -
[267] - Quote
Pretty big missed opportunity in not making icons reflect module states such as Siege, Triage, Bastion, Industrial Core, Warfare Links, and now Entosis.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:09:56 -
[268] - 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? The question shouldn't be why are certain things not getting their own icon, it should be why does something specific need its own icon?
If you feel you need to be concerned with more information about something you can simply hover over it or look at its "Type" clearly listed in the Overview. ALL frigates and other small ships should be a single group, medium class ships should be a group, and large class ships should be grouped... if we keep wanting each ship to be unique we will end up with the proposed 'drone situation'...
At most we need no more than half a dozen icons to distinguish the core ship classes. Limiting this number helps make sure the icons remain simple and clear. The more exceptions you want the more complicated it becomes, hence part of the problem the proposed new set of icons has.
Small (frigates, shuttles, destroyers)
Medium (cruisers, battlecruisers)
Large (battleships)
XL (capitals)
Industrial (haulers, mining barges)
Industrial Large (rorq, orca, freighters)
Capsule
Am I missing any ship types? (counting T2 and T3 variants with the base hulls as ship size and weapons system class as bases for grouping)
Most of the time those are the only real distinctions you need to see on your overview to make a decision if you need to care. And if you need to care the rest of the information is already present by numerous methods and places, listed by mousing over the ship or by glancing at the "Type" column as two very simple and currently available methods.
|
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:28:11 -
[269] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
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! |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
30741
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:08:50 -
[270] - Quote
By making all player ship icons red, you're foregoing an opportunity to display a variable with color.
If you make the icons different colors based on race or pirate faction, then filtering overview by roles (such as recons and heavy interdictors) will produce more readily identifiable information with simple icons. This part is kind of important for another suggestion I haven't made yet, for moving away from overview and toward functional ship icons in space.
I don't want to say too much because I want to see what you have in store for UI Modernization Part II.
Anyway. There is CSS customization that makes it possible to have the ship type display next to the icon in space, but that's a text field that takes up some width on screen, made worse when you have a handful of icons to display.
The icons in the blog make the mistake of trying to look too cool for their size. Let the ships look cool, and let the utility assets (icons) have some utility (and look utilitarian).
I think ship icons should have the same general silhouette, for instant recognition as being a ship.
I think squares are the best shape due to the aspect ratio of pixels. When you overuse diagonals and curves, you begin to lose clarity and sharp edges. The size constraints of icons are small already, and aliasing makes this worse.
Square silhouettes are also least likely to blend in with other items in space, and not many things in space are square (as opposed to cool little ship-like icons). The assortment of tiny icons for ships will have mixed recognizability in any given setting.
I think ship icons should have first priority in icon hierarchy. Save squares for ship icons, and use complicated, cool-looking shapes for entities that are not ships.
The current dimensions of ship icons are 18x18 pixels. The 2-pixel border can be used to convey things like lock, aggression, signature radius bloat, and module activation.
Using icon borders to convey information
The borders aren't perfectly clear (due to size), but it's better than leaving the space unused.
Displaying module status to all ships on grid is a bit more information than is available right now. For example, you can't tell if a Dread has siege activated if you're outside of looking distance (100 km). So there's a decision to be made here, for whether you want more data broadcast to all ships on grid.
There's a second part to this suggestion about the center of the square field, but this graphic so far took me three hours to make, and that's all the mock up time and energy I have time for tonight. See you tomorrow or this weekend.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25039
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:19:49 -
[271] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:By making all player ship icons red, you're foregoing an opportunity to display a variable with color.
If you make the icons different colors based on race or pirate faction, then filtering overview by roles (such as recons and heavy interdictors) will produce more readily identifiable information with simple icons. This part is kind of important for another suggestion I haven't made yet, for moving away from overview and toward functional ship icons in space. Again, colour isn't available because it already represents the variable of affiliation, criminal flagging, standings, security level, and bounty.
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.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
30743
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:25:51 -
[272] - Quote
So far, yes. Hold that thought for the second part of my suggestion
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:46:43 -
[273] - 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 -
[274] - 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 -
[275] - 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 -
[276] - 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 :) |
|
Yuri Pyrrhus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:31:04 -
[277] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote:
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.
I don't want to be annoying, but please look at my suggestions about icons here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5537121#post5537121
And it will be good to hear your thougts. |
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
DARKNESS.
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:16:47 -
[278] - Quote
Please take a look at these excellent suggestions:
- http://i.imgur.com/z5sMq6x.png
- http://newnetwork.cc/images/maptactic/wot-icon-pack-ejs.jpg
Thank you. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:56:57 -
[279] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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 :)
Why do we need a super-carrier icon?
1 icon for frigates, 1 for destroyers, 1 for cruisers, 1 for battle cruisers, 1 for battleships and 1 for capitals. All other information is already available in the overview and because there are only a few icons needed they can be made to look good and stand out as individual representations of ship classes.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Are you going to be online for the test? If so I have 1 request, when there are 100 to 1000 players on grid - Use an icon to find the target you want., while your doing that get a friend to find that same target as we find them now (name, ship type).
Can you ever see an FC calling targets by - primary 3rd triangle from the left.
- - - - - - - - -
Make the new icons at least look good and stand out; drab red = drab boring and is also the hardest color to pick out in most of the systems i fly in.
Want to try it on TQ - Find a red cursor, re-size it to that of the new icons and go fly around your local area. Place your mouse at different positions and see how well it stands out against different backgrounds.
A Red object is surprisingly hard to pick out on TQ - Even had to use cursor locator when a bunch of white crosses (which stood out quite clearly) warped in on me.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Retribution.
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:12:18 -
[280] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
Just put a circle around the icon rather than that + sign to denote a npc |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
30761
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:04:35 -
[281] - Quote
Circles are bad shapes to have in such large quantities on screen. The small cross is also an eyesore and just plain messy. Not to mention it's a relic of the current system, which makes sense only if it's planned to be removed later (and for now will just serve as a reminder "hey remember the cross guys? this is one of those").
There are far more efficient and aesthetically pleasing ways to denote NPC, and it's a matter of a few pixels of color difference. The new icons waste a lot of space in their allotted dimensions, which is another matter, but is another thing that stands to be improved by becoming bigger and more uniform.
These icons are being used inefficiently, and they're too small to fit simple indicators (such as NPC) within the body of the icon.
I'm also against significant differences between player ships and NPC icons due to the way it implies that NPC ships are somehow different, and it's not a big jump to interpret them as "not real." This is a mostly accurate assumption, but NPCs are there to simulate additional content, and it breaks immersion when you overtly denote them as non-player ships.
I just think drones and ships should be recognizable by their silhouettes as such, and the specifics of their types should be displayed wihin.
Outlines are a basic, instinctual, instant method the mind uses to recognize and categorize what the eyes see. Ships and drones are being overcomplicated with varied silhouettes, when they are two basic groups and should have as many silhouettes between them (two, not one per ship class).
Road signs are an excellent example of this. In the US, speed limits are displayed on white rectangular signs, and we first recognize the outline and color / contrast, and then register the information displayed within the body.
Hazard signs are the same way. They are orange triangles and we identify that first, as a hazard sign, then take note of what is within the body: pedestrian crossing, deer crossing, slippery road, winding road, steep downgrade, avalanche, etc.
All ships should have a silhouette in common like road signs. Then have identifying information within the silhouette. Drones should have a silhouette in common like hazard signs, with specifics about their nature within their silhouette.
In a client screen full of ships and drones, I only want to see two basic types of icons. ...Not a grab bag of too many shapes to efficiently process.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
87
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:13:58 -
[282] - Quote
There is room in the overview for two icons side by side, if you insist having more info in them. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25040
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:03:46 -
[283] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I'm also against significant differences between player ships and NPC icons due to the way it implies that NPC ships are somehow different, and it's not a big jump to interpret them as "not real." This is a mostly accurate assumption, but NPCs are there to simulate additional content, and it breaks immersion when you overtly denote them as non-player ships.
I just think drones and ships should be recognizable by their silhouettes as such, and the specifics of their types should be displayed wihin.
They have to be overtly denoted as non-player ships somehow, so making it as clear as possible is something that comes naturally out of that need. They're not there to simulate other people GÇö they're there to offer automated opposition. Since the mechanics that surround the two are vastly different, it would do players a pretty huge disservice if the two were made harder to distinguish.
As four silhouettes and outlines, as already mentioned, this is a neat idea in theory, but it becomes wholly impractical at a the small sizes required here. You're looking at something that takes up maybe 4+ù4mm on your screen, and which needs to be trivially identifiable at an arm's length distance. It's also questionable if that level of detail is actually needed just for the icon. The S/M/L/XL categorisation (with perhaps some of the intermediate sizes thrown in for good measure) is plenty for what they're supposed to do. If you want the exact ship type, just look at the overview (where it will already tell you more details than a simple outline will).
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.
|
Aribeth Thiesant
Fluffy Inquisition
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:03:24 -
[284] - Quote
I was just part of the test on Singularity. I'm not fond of the new icons, they are all too similar is size.
An icon that has something numerical is quicker and easier.. Maybe like a star with 4, 5 or 6 spikes.. just an idea. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1580
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:12:09 -
[285] - Quote
I am really sorry to break the news, But I have just been on the mass test.
whilst I was concerned from the screenshots expanded on the devblog.
the reality was worse than my worst nightmares.
anything below battleship size was just unuseable.
and the Pod icon was just absurdly small.
Although I use glasses for reading and do not usually need them for computers, due to the fine detail of the client, I currently use reading glasses for the game.
as it stands on sisi, I will be unable to play, not through lack of desire, I love the game, but I just cannot see it! there is no combination of lenses that resolves the issue.
this is horrific!
please find a solution, it is not something one can work around as a user or get used to. optics can not be argued with :(
I love this game! please do not do this to us
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
lilol' me
Comply Or Die
Retribution.
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:47:22 -
[286] - Quote
CCP Surge you need to listen to the players and swallow your pride and listen. Most of the people are saying they are not right, stop trying to rush something in when clearly yiu haven't got any support. Just sounds like typical CCP were not listening attitude. |
Gerart en Daire
EVE University
Ivy League
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:18:08 -
[287] - Quote
Honestly?
I liked the new icons judging by the dev blog, liked the clarity, the ability to differentiate frigates vs. destroyers especially pops out as *very* useful to new players, as that's important info for them in the lower-tier security missions and combat anoms/sigs.
The forums are all "graah this change sucks" with varying degrees of actual argumentation and reasoning supporting the opinion expressed, but I guess that's mostly par for the course for MMO forums, as much as I keep hoping the EVE forums would surprise me to the contrary. "Most of the people" on the forums saying something really, REALLY does not mean it's the majority opinion, more often than not it's just a vocal minority.
Disclaimer: Okay, I'll admit I missed the mass test and I haven't spent much time trying them out on Singularity (due to having problems getting *on* Singularity last weekend due to a nonfunctional launcher), and I have perfect vision (despite being 30; someone claimed that they would be undiscernible to "anyone over 25"; as a side note, I know people over 50 with practically perfect vision). Despite the above, my opinion should be considered equally with everyone else's. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25040
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:53:06 -
[288] - Quote
Gerart en Daire wrote:The forums are all "graah this change sucksl
Actually, no-one is saying that. People are saying that this implementation sucks, not the change. I can't really recall anyone mentioning the change other than those who laughably attempt to reference some mythical opposition to change. Rather, people are looking at and commenting on very obvious usability issues and on the fairly weak arguments for the chosen design route.
Quote:I'll admit I missed the mass test and I haven't spent much time trying them out on Singularity
Then you don't really have any point of references or anything particularly valuable to say on their usefulness or fitness for purpose, now do you?
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.
|
SuPPrisE Ambraelle
Nex Exercitus
Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:31:19 -
[289] - Quote
well i was on the mass test the other night.
I had the new icons, and if i had an option to change them there and then... they would have been gone.
ALLLLL of them.
they are just so alike its hard to tell whats what, and they look like someone dropped a bag of arts n craft shapes on a table... there is nothing that makes each stand out ( easy visible check) to see what ship class it is.
just another useless change to eve. Fix what the players want and ask for.
overall id say 1/10 for rating.
please do not implement this. :( |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1613
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 10:41:27 -
[290] - Quote
SuPPrisE Ambraelle wrote:well i was on the mass test the other night.
I had the new icons, and if i had an option to change them there and then... they would have been gone.
ALLLLL of them.
they are just so alike its hard to tell whats what, and they look like someone dropped a bag of arts n craft shapes on a table... there is nothing that makes each stand out ( easy visible check) to see what ship class it is.
just another useless change to eve. Fix what the players want and ask for.
overall id say 1/10 for rating.
please do not implement this. :(
I can understand your opinion, certainly there could be other ways of doing it,
The funny thing though, from an aesthetics point of view, they are really quite pleasant.
Unfortunately from a practical point of view, the tiny size of the icons below battleship, and the amount of information condensed into something so small, is physically impossible to discern.
In a fast changing environment, I do not have time to Try to change to engineers magnifying lenses move within an inch of the screen, and squint hard to tell what is fast approaching. And that is NOT an exagerration. That is literally what I had to do.
It is so dissapointing, CCP have clearly wanted to do something visually attractive and artistic. And it is.
Unfortunately, when one cannot discern the art, due to it's size, the value is somewhat lost.
And it does not matter how many pixels are used, if most of them are blank.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
119
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:57:52 -
[291] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:CCP Surge wrote:Also good to know. Plus a super-carrier class icon shouldn't be a big problem :) Why do we need a super-carrier icon? 1 icon for frigates, 1 for destroyers, 1 for cruisers, 1 for battle cruisers, 1 for battleships and 1 for capitals. All other information is already available in the overview and because there are only a few icons needed they can be made to look good and stand out as individual representations of ship classes. - - - - - - - - - - - - Are you going to be online for the test? If so I have 1 request, when there are 100 to 1000 players on grid - Use an icon to find the target you want., while your doing that get a friend to find that same target as we find them now (name, ship type). Can you ever see an FC calling targets by - primary 3rd triangle from the left. Completely agree except we need fewer levels of distinction. As an example of what it looked like in the test, players don't need to identify what kind of specific ship class it is by the icon. Most of the time we just care that we can quickly tell what is a player ship and what is an NPC, and then at best we might take notice if it is a small, medium, or large ship. The current TQ icons/brackets do that quite nicely. If we cared any more about it we would use the Type column and remove any doubt. That is all it needed to be and it was quite simple and clean.
Further, the states of people that are currently clearly visible in space on TQ on their icons due to having the room and open area in the icon to display this status. See below example, especially for caps, the new icons nearly completely hides the state color. This will make reliance on the Overview list even heavier to see things like Criminal, Suspect, War Target, etc.
|
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
DARKNESS.
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 14:40:23 -
[292] - Quote
Just for Devs knowledge, the circadian seeker are still using the old cross icon (http://i.imgur.com/hQrrip5.png). I did not know about the new drifter battleships, I did not find then yet.
The general NPCs are all ok (http://i.imgur.com/jb2bLcn.png).
Singularity build 867500. |
Darkblad
Hilf Dir selbst in EVE
781
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 11:30:14 -
[293] - Quote
Castelo Selva wrote:Just for Devs knowledge, the circadian seeker are still using the old cross icon (http://i.imgur.com/hQrrip5.png). I did not know about the new drifter battleships, I did not find then yet.
The general NPCs are all ok (http://i.imgur.com/jb2bLcn.png).
Singularity build 867500. Drifter Battleships also still use the old plus symbol. And that one's still wrong. Cruiser (groupID 26), not Battlehip (which would be groupID 27).
EVE Infolinks GÇó Mining Handbuch GÇó Colortags/Timer
|
Hallvardr
65
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:20:08 -
[294] - Quote
oh gaud .. more work from the 3 yr. old's with crayola crayons and construction paper.
When it this freakin flat, lifeless monochromatic nonsense going to stop. Another step backwards.
CCP listen up. Change just to change is NOT good no matter what the voices are telling you. And changing to this "mono chromatic card style" interface is tripe. |
Jonat Eken
T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:58:02 -
[295] - Quote
I really wanted to like these new icons, but I just can't.
If it takes more than a glance to identify something, the icons aren't designed properly. Sorry, but there it is. They look pretty in the abstract, but in use they are far too similar. The current icons only take a quick glance to determine threat/target category, and that's what we need. Not change for the sake of change.
I'm all for changing the icons, but it needs to be to something that improves gameplay, not causes screen squinting and delays. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
6149
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:00:48 -
[296] - Quote
Pithiness. These icons need more of it.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1831
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:40:19 -
[297] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Pithiness. These icons need more of it.
Just rat in Gurista space and it will be all good.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
NSA Bivas
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:38:30 -
[298] - Quote
this icons still needs lots of work first of all you need to easily distinguish the ship classes and my biggest concern is with the drone icons they are way to big if u send light drones and an inty after someone who's 60km away and a frigate class ship or even destroyer burns to that ship in close vicinity of the drones it will be really hard to see that a ship is coming for you.
some of the players suggestions where awesome especially this one http://i.imgur.com/z5sMq6x.png posted by Castelo Selva
YouTube Channel
Twitch Channel-á
|
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
DARKNESS.
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 23:44:26 -
[299] - Quote
NSA Bivas, the sugestion was posted before by Geanos, as per here:
Geanos wrote:ISIS icons are very nice and they look wonderful there, but they don't mix well with the overview. Why not use clear shapes that would show a clear progression for each category of ships or drones? I made a quick mockup to illustrate this: Combat - circle & diagonal lines Industrial - triangle & horizontal lines Drones - square & vertical lines It is not polished but you'll gt the idea
However, yes, as much I personally appreciate the new ISIS icon they are hard to distinguish in the combat scenario. The Geanos suggestion was the one I most like for the new icons. It is simple and functional.
I am also agree with a new optional column right at the side of the icon column where I will be able to see if the ship are a tech 2 combat / logistic / warfare / booster / tech 3 type.
Looking forward to the new iteration of the icons. Your move CCP. |
Unstopable Deadman
The Dutch East India Company
Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 10:44:46 -
[300] - Quote
Hey! Never done a feedback for SiSi before because I've never felt so strongly about a change, but I submitted a Support Ticket, turns out you devs can see them :) so they told me to post what I said in the ticket here:
I heavily dislike the the new tags for ships/drones etc in space.
I think that that is too much information to be trying to display, there is no need to show that kind of information for how much it clutter the screen. I've been playing with it on Sisi and its just impossible to see things in a clutter. The information is easily accessible by just hovering over the target, which is nor really hard to do (because you can't even find them in the mess of icons)
I'd like to know if it will be or ask CCP to consider it to be optional only. Is that something that will be considered? |
Saturday Beerun
Lost Ark Enterprises
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 15:35:34 -
[301] - Quote
Not modern,not improved!! They are so last century.
I Want The Black Vindicator Back
|
|
CCP Surge
C C P
C C P Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 19:25:30 -
[302] - 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! |
|
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
829
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 19:32:49 -
[303] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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!
The current build on sisi is an improvement could you run thru the changes and give us a couple days to play with it.
The more time its on sisi the better. Push it back so the Fan Fest crowd can have its say but dont take it of sisi or there will be no way for us to give feed back.
If you have to revert please add screen shots of each updated iteration in this thread so we can comment off of that.
If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1105
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 20:08:54 -
[304] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Surge wrote: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! The current build on sisi is an improvement could you run thru the changes and give us a couple days to play with it. The more time its on sisi the better. Push it back so the Fan Fest crowd can have its say but dont take it of sisi or there will be no way for us to give feed back. If you have to revert please add screen shots of each updated iteration in this thread so we can comment off of that.
it would make sense too just update sisi gradually as you work on the icons so people can see the differences aswell as get used too them you would get better feedback that way surely.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
allfonso Hekard
Boa Innovations
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 21:18:32 -
[305] - Quote
I gotta say the current brackets in this SISI configuration is way much better. I didn't check all them out, but i can already say its an improvement.
Oh yeah, did rogue drones get retextured?
I like the new animation for the small frigate size rogue drones, looks like they swimming through space |
Circumstantial Evidence
174
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 21:30:08 -
[306] - Quote
CCP uses polls as little as possible, but this feature might be less subject to metagaming compared to sov changes. So, if you develop alternate icon schemes, consider setting up a poll to ask us to vote our preference of A, B, C, or D.
And as is always suggested, the best of both worlds is to make this a modular system where CCP can drop in iterations, and players can choose which icon set they want to look at. |
FistyMcBumBardier
TURN LEFT
The Camel Empire
105
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 23:06:03 -
[307] - Quote
Keep them on Sisi for the time being. The new Icons are better than the old crosses, but I will agree that they can still be improved. |
FistyMcBumBasher
TURN LEFT
The Camel Empire
105
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 23:06:03 -
[308] - Quote
Keep them on Sisi for the time being. The new Icons are better than the old crosses, but I will agree that they can still be improved. |
Jonat Eken
T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 23:10:21 -
[309] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:CCP uses polls as little as possible, but this feature might be less subject to metagaming compared to sov changes. So, if you develop alternate icon schemes, consider setting up a poll to ask us to vote our preference of A, B, C, or D.
And as is always suggested, the best of both worlds is to make this a modular system where CCP can drop in iterations, and players can choose which icon set they want to look at.
Yep, mechanism is already in place for the voting, i.e. CSM voting. Love it. Make it so, CCP!
|
Reina Xyaer
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 00:03:39 -
[310] - Quote
Was on SiSi and saw the new icons for the first time.
There is too much "white". The icons need color coding options, preferably customizable.
Also I feel like Drones should be smaller and simpler, and ship icons should be a bit larger. |
Xaero Petraeus
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 00:25:58 -
[311] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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!
Just use Sisi to test whatever version of the icons you are working on and put the version from the dev blog as an opt-in beta on TQ. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
30843
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 00:53:37 -
[312] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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!
well, damn
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4111
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 01:59:04 -
[313] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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.
No problem. Please take your time - I eagerly look forward to the final implementation.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Max Groote
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 02:23:36 -
[314] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: 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!
I think that it would be much better to keep the current ISIS-based icons on Sisi I so that people can get used to them, and then slowly iterate on them. After all, most go on Sisi to test anyway, so it's not like there would be a significant gameplay impact.
I do agree though that the ship icons could be a *bit* larger, and perhaps something should be done to make the various types of drones a bit more distinct. However, as a brand new player I find the ISIS icons much more intuitive than the differently sized crosses that we have on TQ right now. |
Jessica Danikov
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
441
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 07:17:57 -
[315] - Quote
The criticism of the icons as proposed is in no way a slight on them- they are an improvement on what we already have. We're just perfectionists and I hope most people will join me in saying that we're glad you are too. Such things are, after all, an iterative process, one I understand not wanting to expose all EVE players to ("why do you keep changing X") but certainly very welcome on Singularity.
However, I do think there's a fundamental issue here, which is that icons are always going to be subjective. Some will prefer the detailed ISIS-matching icons, some might want their red crosses and white squares back, some might prefer geometric shapes, some might need high-contrast colours due to colour-blindness, others might want to colour code by ship class. This degree of customization already exists with ship names due to usage of undocumented text styling applied to the overview settings. I think that CCP would do well to provide a collection of selectable default icon sets but also allow for players to load in their own. There certainly is enough interest in such a thing (I have ideas for my own) and I'd hope the technical implementation would not be overly complex. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1856
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 07:59:03 -
[316] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:The criticism of the icons as proposed is in no way a slight on them- they are an improvement on what we already have. We're just perfectionists and I hope most people will join me in saying that we're glad you are too. Such things are, after all, an iterative process, one I understand not wanting to expose all EVE players to ("why do you keep changing X") but certainly very welcome on Singularity.
However, I do think there's a fundamental issue here, which is that icons are always going to be subjective. Some will prefer the detailed ISIS-matching icons, some might want their red crosses and white squares back, some might prefer geometric shapes, some might need high-contrast colours due to colour-blindness, others might want to colour code by ship class. This degree of customization already exists with ship names due to usage of undocumented text styling applied to the overview settings. I think that CCP would do well to provide a collection of selectable default icon sets but also allow for players to load in their own. There certainly is enough interest in such a thing (I have ideas for my own) and I'd hope the technical implementation would not be overly complex.
Personally I couldn't care less about the aesthetics. I just want the icons to function properly at as many sizes and resolutions as possible. They should be easy to distinguish that's all.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1618
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 08:28:41 -
[317] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:The criticism of the icons as proposed is in no way a slight on them- they are an improvement on what we already have. We're just perfectionists and I hope most people will join me in saying that we're glad you are too. Such things are, after all, an iterative process, one I understand not wanting to expose all EVE players to ("why do you keep changing X") but certainly very welcome on Singularity.
However, I do think there's a fundamental issue here, which is that icons are always going to be subjective. Some will prefer the detailed ISIS-matching icons, some might want their red crosses and white squares back, some might prefer geometric shapes, some might need high-contrast colours due to colour-blindness, others might want to colour code by ship class. This degree of customization already exists with ship names due to usage of undocumented text styling applied to the overview settings. I think that CCP would do well to provide a collection of selectable default icon sets but also allow for players to load in their own. There certainly is enough interest in such a thing (I have ideas for my own) and I'd hope the technical implementation would not be overly complex.
Jessica, with respect, the issue for many is not subjective, once one leaves the thirties behind, it becomes a matter of necessity.
One can appreciate many artistic styles, but the practicality of the primary method of display is paramount.
Multiple poorly visible icons does not solve that unfortunately.
And although, artistically fun, interesting, and even pretty. Practicality overrides all of those subjective considerations.
A shout out to CCP for taking into account, the serious concerns, a surprisingly large number of people have had with this issue.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Jessica Danikov
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
442
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 08:29:54 -
[318] - Quote
Zappity wrote:
Personally I couldn't care less about the aesthetics. I just want the icons to function properly at as many sizes and resolutions as possible. They should be easy to distinguish that's all.
That's just it though. It's not simple aesthetics, it's an information channel. You have people who will get their information from the overview, who respond better to colour, or certain geometries. There is no single solution that can cater to all. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5918
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 12:24:20 -
[319] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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!
Hey, that's great news, thanks for listening!
Postponing this feature hopefully means you're going deep into the design again and reworking some of the core issues that were identified and not just little cosmetic tweaks.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
DARKNESS.
71
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 14:22:57 -
[320] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:Oh, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that your individual experience is subjective. High-contrast icons are garish for some, necessary for others. Some may require oversized icons because of their eyesight or their resolution, others would find them to be obstructive. One might appreciate squares and circles, another might find them to be ugly. The idea that you can create a perfect icon set that caters not only to personal aesthetic preferences, but to the more basic needs and requirements of some players, is unrealistic, especially given that some of those needs are mutually exclusive. Expecting CCP to cover all those bases is asking too much. Making icons an extension point that, those with particular needs can fill by themselves if needs be, stops the CCP art team from being the bottleneck for not catering to obscure visual requirements (and to a lesser extent, the whimsy of personal aesthetics).
Of course there will always be the issue of the technical limitations (at the moment, the icons seem limited to 16x16), but it'd be ideal for the art team to come up with a 'good enough' icon set as a baseline and then focus on catering to the more extreme requirements of those with visual difficulties that cannot be solved with merely a custom icon set, such as large icon scaling.
Well, I totally agree with Jessica. In a general manner, any change will not be able to please everyone because of personal views. I am a bit frustrated that change do not get in the next release, but I know it is better wait a little more and get a better feature.
The solution for the general please lays in customization. Of course create (and maintain) more than one set of icons are a hard work for all the developers involved. Maybe release one set with the customization options already mentioned by many (color code / chose size / different shapes / and go on) will be the better. With customization, people adjust the initial set of icon for the way it better suits themselves.
For the return Singularity of a current set of icons, my personal opinion are to keep the new set and do not get back to old ones. That way people will still give feedback in how to improve, even if the new (still to be developed) set will be different.
Castelo |
Asp IV
Apex Abyss
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 14:47:05 -
[321] - Quote
Well any type of colored blob will be very hard to distinguish from another. My solution is to design icons as Brackets type rather than colored blobs, bracket can then be colored but not "filled". This will keep within the HUD theme as well. Also red blots are too crude.
Also all "flags" attached to icons look dated and blobby. Work with brackets not with colours that looks like I am playing squares vs squares. I personally hate the fleet icon (looks like a icon for men's restroom)
When I saw them on SISI it was very obvious.
also this mock up U should be used as inspiration.
http://forum.eve-ru.com/index.php?showtopic=111739&page=13 |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
9140
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 12:43:36 -
[322] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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!
You said yourself that the brief for the Isis icons didn't have the overview in mind and that imo makes it entirely inappropriate for a starting point.
Isis is relatively new and until you told us that this is where the icons came from I didn't recognize them at all (I could read them now but I hadn't connected them with any other part of the ui) so speaking personaly I don't think that was a good decision.
They're not fit for purpose in my mind so big thumbs down there.
Don't get me wrong now , it looked very good and I'm delighted with ye for the effort but I would agree that the readability left too much to be desired.
As tippia mentioned though you should update the Isis icons to match the ones you do decide for the overview, that would be a great idea.
I don't have anything to add that tippia hasn't already said but I'll say that it's hugely encouraging that ye are having another look rather than pushing it through and the relative transparency with the design process is very much appreciated , by myself at least.
Cheers for the work
o7
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Iwo Sh'ivah
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 21:10:23 -
[323] - Quote
How about those as ship icons?
http://i.imgur.com/Y3CYv9t.png?1
Simple, easy to distinguish with a glimpse of an eye, and already a part of the game . Add some color, maybe a frame for player ships and they could work quite well |
Noriko Mai
2107
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 02:58:07 -
[324] - Quote
Iwo Sh'ivah wrote:How about those as ship icons? http://i.imgur.com/Y3CYv9t.png?1
Simple, easy to distinguish with a glimpse of an eye, and already a part of the game . Add some color, maybe a frame for player ships and they could work quite well
This I don't like. The icons have a totaly different meaning. For me this would be high slot ships, med slot ships, etc...
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 00:20:06 -
[325] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote: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!
I would absolutely love the ISIS brackets to be used in the meantime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eaUaJUhTZfw#t=148s
An excellent example of why pod killmails are the best feature to be implemented in EVE Online since warping at zero.
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
116
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 16:50:10 -
[326] - Quote
CCP Surge wrote:As a result but decided instead of pushing these immediately out to TQ with the Scylla release And people doubted me when i said you all were looking to push this out that quick.
CCP Surge wrote:we will leave them in the oven a bit longer for additional testing and iteration.
We don't want these ones, they simply don't work, leaving them 'in the oven for a bit longer' will not change that.
What this feels to me is that this is just a token gesture to use after you end up pushing this same hot mess on us 1-2 patches later than you planned, so you can then say "see look, we listened to you," when infact you didn't. We don't want these, and as MANY have plainly stated, the ISIS icons are simply not suited for the job, and thusly make a terrible base. Start from scratch with an honest attempt to maintain/improve actual functionality of the icons.
CCP Surge wrote: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!
Again, start from scratch, the ISIS icons are a terrible base point. They do not preform the desired job for the overview. Just listen to those that are ultimately paying your salary, and in some cases doing your job for you by providing you with countless informations as to why the ISIS icons simply won't work.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
103
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:29:59 -
[327] - Quote
The new icon concept for the overview is excellent - http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66945/1/UIModernization_Blog_Screenshot.jpg
My wish, however, is to have colour added back to Neocom icons, as it is impossible to differentiate between the icons no matter how long one has using them.
Here is the old Neocom icons as an example - http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/63565/1/Inventory_Neocom.png Clear icons, high contract, even colour-coding is present: People always knew that a green-ish would be either their Fitting Screen or their Wallet.
I've no idea why it was changed, rather than refined, in the first place. Horrible.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1629
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 14:31:14 -
[328] - Quote
Calculations per second.
Overwhelming amounts of information.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
31665
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 15:02:51 -
[329] - Quote
I vote for squares with increased thickness by ship class. Experienced players can sort by ship name and eyeball the remainder of the ship composition of a gang based on a glance, so the icons aren't super important. But for newer players I think a simpler size association system would be better.
The size of the icons doesn't bother me like it might other players, but my vision is practically bionic, like 20/13 - 20/15 on a bad day... so in this case I'd take players' word for the complicated shape and small size of the icons needing to change. You just don't see icons that small in other games except on (maybe) a minimap.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
|
Ardanay Wanderer
Geon Navy Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 15:25:34 -
[330] - Quote
OMG !!!!!!!!!!! Give back old icons! Or make new as optional ................
my eyes bleeding ..............  |
Wilj0
26
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 05:33:28 -
[331] - Quote
Hi,
I would like to link a post I made on a possible improvement/solution to a new overview icon strategy.
Carnyx Overview Icons - Round 2
Just so you know, I like the new icons. It's a step on the right direction. But they are still a little hard to read at high resolution and 90% UI scaling. I'm just seeing if it could be improved even more.
If all else fails, let us scale the overview's row height which in turn would scale the font sizes and icon sizes.
Cheers,
Wilj0 |
Cat silth
hotdropoclock Enterprises
Seraphim Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 16:36:16 -
[332] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:CCP Surge wrote: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! I would absolutely love the ISIS brackets to be used in the meantime.
So what happened you read all i feedback and then pushed it this patch thinking we would not notice ? here an idea why not sell custom UI and custom overviews for plex . |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
31681
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 17:41:33 -
[333] - Quote
I think changes like icons should be released in a trickle. One ship, one structure, one deployable at a time. That way players have time to get used to them one by one. One cap, one subcap... etc. As many as possible at once but with just enough grouping to start making association with each new set slowly and not get lost in the sauce.
At each release, maybe. A week between changes, at least. Maybe completely disconnect things like icons from major updates.
The shapes themselves are appealing, and symmetrical, etc. They look good together on a chart. The problem is they were a complete reset of my awareness.
Trickling icon changes would help avoid what happened last night... I was forced to play using overview. I knew everyone's distances but I couldn't tell hostile icons from structures, etc. Nearly complete wipe of awareness.
Station services and their large circles are way too big. The rings dominate all other icons around them.
Exhibit A Look at how big the station services rings are. They're important, but can you make them more compact please.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
|
Tewilligar
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 19:11:41 -
[334] - Quote
What a joke you guys at CCP are turning this game into.
Icons? was there something wrong with them in the beginning, they have been fine for many years.
These monthly updates are becoming a "WTF Should we do next?" type thing for me. I get the fact that things need a little change up from time to time, but the current changes are rediculous, oh man, a child could see that.
forget the glamour and fix PvP and other long running bugs.
Iogging, later. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
31681
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 19:34:40 -
[335] - Quote
At any zoomed-out view distance, the absolute size of status indicators are huge. Is it possible to make icons scale with zoom, to become smaller, or reduce in number... so that at 250km zoom, a group of cruisers becomes just one cruiser icon. ...and when you zoom back in, it becomes a more granular bunch of icons.
http://i.imgur.com/biAt6LC.png It's hard to see what else is near those icons, including the station model. And icon.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1714
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 09:56:14 -
[336] - Quote
We appear to have reached a point where red lines have been crossed.
Once game design reaches a point, where the decisions made create physical harm, and yes, headaches and eye strain are physical harm, then something has gone seriously wrong.
Until this issue can be resolved, please allow the use of the original icons as an option.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Tineoidea Asanari
Heeresversuchsanstalt
The Bastion
50
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 12:55:02 -
[337] - Quote
I love the new icons!
Besides that, I encountered a bug today, when launching 2 drones - one of them was lacking the color it should have (green) and by that it's ownership was not 100% clear. Just imagine what could happen if capitals suddenly have no color and are floating in space next to a titan from a coalition that is known to blow up blues if there is any chance to explain it.
Once I joined a fleet both drones switched to the standard purple, so it was nothing permanent, here a screenshot:
http://i.imgur.com/3zfQNnE.jpg |
Panterata
BRUTAL GENESIS
GaNg BaNg TeAm
106
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 12:57:56 -
[338] - Quote
To attention of CCP Surge.
Just to specify to be clear - The players DO NOT want you to make the new icons more shiny and beautiful. They want old overview icons.
I'm writing this in case you post something like "we will make the new one better" because this will be NOT a solution for us.
So I hope you will fix them till 2-3 days because I didn't play couple of days and I really want to play again and it's not only me |
Apollo Shinoda
The Red Island Foundation
Shadow Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 06:44:09 -
[339] - Quote
Is this thread still being monitored? I'll chance it:
CCP: PLEASE, the old icons worked JUST FINE for more than a decade and they were simple enough that they made the tactical and overview work well. Now you have NEEDLESSLY complicated them to the point that they are not even usable. Honestly, NO ONE needs to see the variation in drones, and if they do, they can check overview and pop that ECM drone or whatever. You have 'fixed' what was not broken!
At the very least, please give us the option to opt-out of these changes. Let us have our old icon set back and give the new icons to those who want them (which I believe are very few). |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria
Yulai Federation
43
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 07:40:45 -
[340] - Quote
the new icon colours create a huge problem on daltonic people. this game became unplayable because is not clear and istantly understandable by daltonic who is red and who is blu.
need more definite colour or like other game (WOT in example ) a daltonic mode where we can have more precise and understandable colours.
in this way is unpossible play.
i need a action from CCP as soon as possible.
|
Yana Shakti
Unlawful Combatants
16
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 15:37:55 -
[341] - Quote
Nami Kumamato wrote:Information overload from my point of view.
I am now considering my rejection/dismay step to be finished and I still don't like them.
So there I was again ... trying to find Elmo.... squinting at my overview yesterday trying to tell whether there was a triangle or a house among all the traingles-with-dots and squares ... when a solution occurred to me.
Why not have two thin overview columns where we now have one? One column for gates and pocos and asteroid belts and stuff that can't kill you. And the other for things that can shoot back.
That way I can stop puzzling over whether there's an enemy on grid. (Btw. I have a nice expensive 27 inch monitor so that's not the issue. The issue is that the time it takes for the human visual system to process a collection of similar objects is a linear function of the number of items to be scanned. The current icon set has no pop-out effects built in except for the red NPC ships. And those, I don't really care about.)
Oh, and of course the other option is to add a colour to the player character ship icons. But that's too obvious. |
Johny Tyler
Synapse.
Empyreus
22
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 01:55:04 -
[342] - Quote
Was there any type of research done to determine what kind of icons would be more useful?
To me an icon is useful when I can gather the information I am looking for instantly, without processing it, without actually looking at it. The old icons did that for me. They were not full of lots of specific information, but that is not what I use them for. I use them to quickly at a glance separate ships from structures, planets from stargates, etc etc. The new icons are harder to use for what I need them for. I don't think it is just an adjustment issue. I think they are actually harder to separate and identify.
A possible way forward would be to give us the old icons back while you rework this, now that more of us know this is a change coming maybe you can get some good feedback. Something else to consider would be to give us a wide range of options. We could actually assign our own icons from an array of choices. I think a choice in colors would be great as well. |
Wilj0
28
|
Posted - 2015.06.11 08:48:25 -
[343] - Quote
Hi,
I have a few suggestions for the new overview icons:
The first is to change the container's icon to a diamond shape instead of the square. This will make the wrecks with loot inside (with the loot inside being the diamond shape within the wreck icon) feel more natural since containers with "loot" are always depicted as diamonds.
The second would be to add differentiation between T2 and T3 ships within the icons. I was thinking T2 ships can be icons with a light fill inside (kind of like the celestials currently have, but maybe darker) of it and a T3 ship with a more opaque fill.
And finally, I would like player ships to have a different color. Just how rats are red, make player ships yellow? And keep everything else white. This way we can easily depict a player from the rest of the icons (especially from non-rat NPCs).
By the way, I scaled my UI back to 100%, taking away precious screen space, because I really like the new overview icons and wanted to use them to their full extent. Some people say otherwise; but I feel the new icons are very useful, once learned, and a step forward. Good job, keep it up!
I am also looking forward to the day I could scale my overview's row height so the text and icons would scale with it and allow me to set the UI back to 90% scale.
Cheers,
Wilj0 |
Owen Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 22:37:25 -
[344] - Quote
Hi, did a fair bit of research and practical deisgn/application in the arena of screen text for use in critical interface applications - appreciative of the difficulties of designing for a disparate bunch of users of all cultures, ages and screen sizes we have here - however, happy to check stuff with you and provide a little feedback / pointers to research that may help if you are interested..
KR
Owen. |
Bernard Dupont
C0NATUS
Echoes of Nowhere
15
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 18:28:36 -
[345] - Quote
Please ccp stop that. Having big red points or icones in space is really ugly. Lite boxes were really better to regonized in space what ship is without using overview. I'm playing a 3D game spaceship to have 3D ships on my screen an not ugly icones. Just take an eye of what eve will look like in few months https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SqdfzQeT7s
Thanks u for killing the game ! Were there not other priorities than destruct an old good concept ? Bookmarks management for example... |
lilol' me
Retribution Holdings Corp
Retribution.
42
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 09:48:36 -
[346] - Quote
I do wonder why CCP ask for input when they clearly never listen to it. The icons are just messing and confusing. Hate them |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |