• 
  Stop the wastage of screen space in the middle of the ring and fill it with useful information. Why not filling it with info about shields/armor/hull/cap? This way you group at least some of the info logically.


• Don't make the fitting screen transparant. It is very confusing and extremly difficult to read. Sure it looks ... 'cool' but totally bad ui design. If you want transparency, then give us at least a slider so that we can control the transparancy ourselves between 0% and 100%.


• Don't display subsystems (even if they are greyed out) for non-t3 ships. What use has this info? None. So drop it.


• Arrange info which falls into the same category also visibly close together. Mainly I mean the info about the Powergrid, CPU and calibration points. They are spread around on the ui randomly without any connection with each other.


• In general, make the fitting screen more compact. FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION!
  

Originally by: CCP Prism X

---

In New Eden, EVE wins you.

---

Originally by: Mahai Ano

---

[...]I store my items for fittings in one/more separate station containers. The new fitting window does not list the items there, making the save/load a waste of a feature[...]

---

Originally by: Vir Hellnamin

---

[...]Also, is there currently a way to see the gun-type/-name after ammo is loaded?[...]

---

Originally by: Blind Man

---

okies so liek when u warp in on them u shod target them... and stuff k.then u FIRE ZE MISSILES and use your heavy nos cause it drain their cap then u click the jhammer and dampenener

Originally by: Marlenus

---

Suggestion:

Why not put the rigs and subsystems in the left arc of the Viewmaster, so that low slots can remain, uh, low?

Right now it's going to be very confusing, especially to newer players.

"Make sure you put cargo expanders in your low slots before you go mining in that Bantam!"

"Er, which ones are the low slots? The ones on the right or the ones on the left?"

"The ones on the left."

"Then, why don't you call 'em leftslots?"

"..."

---

• The icons are really tiny hard to discern after you fit and are using a windowed resolution. (Multi-boxers anyone?)


• It is really difficult to sort through all the items you can use to fit your ship with. Ive got a few hangars with 200+ items, and one with over 500. The window needs the ability to remove items from the list by type, size, fitting and slot.

Originally by: Kaahles

---

Well, if you use the item browser the way it is intended you don't need to know WHERE they are located on the UI

---

Originally by: Creat Posudol

---

I just can't understand those who want to keep the old one compared to this

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Move lowslots to bottom, midslots to the left. Put bottom part (rigs/components) to right. Result? More intuitive fitting screen.

---

Originally by: Dr Resheph

---

Originally by: Creat Posudol

---

I just can't understand those who want to keep the old one compared to this

---

Name one advantage of the new UI and how it renders the old one obsolete. You have five minutes.

---

• Save/Load Fittings - makes everything easier


• Item Browser - needs some upgrades but after all you don't need to have open tons of different windows anymore you can basically do everything within the fitting window itself


• Easier Handling - Once you get used to it you'll be much faster in fitting/refitting your ships due the nice littel fitt/unfitt buttons


• Tank Abilities - Displays your passive shield regen, active shield boost / armor rep amount


• Design/Estetics - looks cool instead of "overstuffed" like the old one. Displays the same amount of information (if you know where to look) as the old one but feels more like a game ui instead of an excel spread sheet

Originally by: Kaahles

---

I'll take the liberty of doing it for him...

• Save/Load Fittings - makes everything easier

---

Originally by: Kaahles

---

Item Browser - needs some upgrades but after all you don't need to have open tons of different windows anymore you can basically do everything within the fitting window itself

---

Originally by: Kaahles

---

Easier Handling - Once you get used to it you'll be much faster in fitting/refitting your ships due the nice littel fitt/unfitt buttons

---

Originally by: Kaahles

---

Tank Abilities - Displays your passive shield regen, active shield boost / armor rep amount

---

Originally by: Kaahles

---

Design/Estetics - looks cool instead of "overstuffed" like the old one. Displays the same amount of information (if you know where to look) as the old one but feels more like a game ui instead of an excel spread sheet

---

Originally by: Kaahles

---

satisfied? guess not but was worth a try.

---

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue

---

Save fittings feature made me feel warm inside. Much improvement compared to the old. Thanks in advance.

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

Originally by: Dianabolic

---

Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL

• On the western hemisphere, most important information should be in specific corners, from most important to least important: top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right (hint: reading a book). I would classify the ship statistics as more important than the item list.


• Do not display irrelevant information. In this case: don't show the subsystem slots on ships not having subsystems.


• Wasted space: The capacitor circle looks nice, but is much too big, wasting like 20% of space on the right panel. Make it smaller or move the circle to another place (isnide the main circle would fit, circular things into other circular things) and add now missing information to the panel (drones, cargo).


• The PG/CPU/Calibration readouts just float in empty space, it would be more pleasing to incorporate them into the circle.


• The number of max lockable targets "(10x)" is too vague, make it a proper text line (more noob friendly).


• Transparency is cool but when you cannot read anything because the font mixes with the background, it's bad, very.


• Those status indicators are really too small


• Where's the close btton?


• It has in general, too much space wasted. Being able to see the ship in the center is nice, but is worth sacrificing the whole screen space just for that?


• Mouse distance: Having the module slots arranged in that order makes the mouse moving distance even longer.


• Here is a proposal of how to make it more intuitive and less cluttered (pics inside):
  
  
  • First, let it look like it is now when the mouse cursor is currently not over some module slot: pic 1
  
  
  • When the cursor hovers a module slot a new inner circle appears with all the market groups of items which are available for fitting. There also appears a "Unfit" button (we do not need the freaking right-click menu): pic 2
  
  
  • Now when you hover the mouse over one of the market groups a container-like window appears in the center with the items available for fitting in the current market group. Clicking an item automaticall fits it, replacing the existing module if needed: pic 3
  
  
  • What is the purpose of all this: First, reduce the mouse movement distance by keeping the module slots close to the items. Second, save space by removing the lefthand item list and replace it with a dynamic structure that adapts to the current situation. And third, move the stats window to the left side instead of the right. Wasting the complete screen space jsut to see the ship while fitting it is not usefull.
    Today's UIs are dynamic (dynamic means not everything having a right-click menu)
  
  
  • Do not remove the ability to drag & drop an item from some hangar onto a slot.
  
  
  • Remember this is just a quick cut & paste mockup but it shows the basic idea behind the concept. Especially the container-like window in the center needs much more work to (1) look good and (2) show as many items as possible.
  
  
  
  

Originally by: Cadde

---

I hate change and refuse to think things can be improved upon.

---

Originally by: Nexus Kinnon

---

I could outgay you even without my pink tutu. >.>

---

Originally by: Max Hardcase

---

-Its a tad big @ 1280x1024.
-module slots needs to be moved to different places around the ring.
Suggested :
High slots : top of the ring.
Mid slots : left middle of the ring.
Low slots : bottem of the ring.
Rigs/subsystems : Right side of the ring.

Rigs/subsystems will be changed the least and thus are best of the furthest from the item list ( which is on the left side)
It also keeps the high/mid/low modules nicely together, which makes more sense to new players who have never seen the old style fitting screen ( and thus wouldnt under stand the high,mid,low slot classification).

---

• The layout is counterintuitive and feels rather arbitrary (ie: why are high slots located between med and low?)


• Window focusing is difficult since it's so large. The empty center compounds this problem.


• The vast amounts of wasted space has the user mousing back and forth over the entire screen.


• Send to fitting / send to items arrows are small and difficult to use, particularly in a laggy or low FPS environment.


• Translucent background + small text leaves us with unreadable text.


• Items panel is easily cluttered with even moderate amounts of modules, since it only offers a list with icons.

Originally by: rubico1337

---

http://i39.tinypic.com/de4qop.jpg

---

Originally by: Kaahles

---

• Save/Load Fittings - makes everything easier

---

Quote:

---

Item Browser - needs some upgrades but after all you don't need to have open tons of different windows anymore you can basically do everything within the fitting window itself

---

Quote:

---

Easier Handling - Once you get used to it you'll be much faster in fitting/refitting your ships due the nice littel fitt/unfitt buttons

---

Quote:

---

Tank Abilities - Displays your passive shield regen, active shield boost / armor rep amount

---

Quote:

---

Design/Estetics - looks cool instead of "overstuffed" like the old one. Displays the same amount of information (if you know where to look) as the old one but feels more like a game ui instead of an excel spread sheet

---

Quote:

---

satisfied? guess not but was worth a try.

---

Originally by: Dr Resheph

---

...

It's as if you took the old UI, cut a hole in the middle and made it five times less user friendly. Pray tell, what is the big fascination with being able to see your ship while you fit? Do you think we're going to somehow forget that, yes, this is a goddamn Apocalypse we are playing with now?

I feel confused when the UI Team goes poking into one of the last places that needs it. Name any other UI element, and I'll tell you just how much worse it is than Quantum Rise fitting window.

For the record, this is what you did wrong:

1. Transparency looks nice, but isn't user friendly.

2. Remove module and Info button trails are annoying and redundant.

3. Can't have more than one left-side menu open at once; all menus collapsed by default.

4. CPU / Powergrid bars are blended into the UI with no obvious start/end points; too large and entirely worthless without readout.

5. Drop shadow and bevel emboss on the fitting ring? Really?

6. The hardpoints graphic is not intuitive, takes up too much space, and looks out of place. What do the grey circles represent? Hardpoints left? Hardpoints used?

7. Small autocannon and standard launcher icons in my fitting window, when you have none fitted. Newbs will love that one.

8. You made the module icons smaller and blurrier, and the green 'active' button as visually intrusive as possible.

9. Ammo now takes up the entire turret space, making it harder to see what guns you have fitted as you're cycling through multiple ships.

10. No drag, no minimize, no close, no resize.

11. No cargo capacity readout to show what you have and what you used.

12. Same thing for drones, add the missing drone bandwidth on top.

13. Can't see or make drone groupings in fitting window, the most obvious new feature you could have added.

14. The colored backgrounds on the resistance readouts are useless because you don't know where they start or end.

15. What is that circular capacitor graphic good for, exactly?

16. Your free floating and icons around the ring only blend into my station environments, and my eye has to keep straining to spot them while the strobe lights move around.

17. The short animation you get when opening the fitting window is lame and pointless.

18. UI behaviour changes depending on whether the side panels are open. Sometimes you can click-drag to rotate camera, other times the mouse gets stuck. Completely unintuitive.

19. Your fitting window blocks parts of my neocom and station panel on the lowest resolution.

20. It's completely out of place with the rest of the UI, and whether or not you intend to change the rest in time, the fact remains you have two different UI designs and behaviours for the duration instead of one logical theme and set of behaviors.

21. You're still missing vital information from this new fitting window, just as the old one. I still have to 'show info' on my ship to get the whole picture.

22. You added new information with hitpoint calculations, but you force the user to select from an obscure dropdown window instead of doing a simple check to see what sort of setup that person has.

23. The left-side panel boxes are mixing two types of information: stuff in station and stuff in your ship with no obvious distinction between the two.

24. The left-side panel boxes are tiny, and worthless for scrolling through a mountain of assets, some in containers and other ships. They don't even extend fully in the horizontal and waste space.

25. This design sucks bacause Stargate sucks.

---

Originally by: Frug

---

This new fitting screen is a really unfortunate development. It shows a total lack of learning from past mistakes on CCP's part. Putting "cool looking" above usability is the reason for a lot of the complaints about this game's UI to begin with.

So what do you do? You overhaul one of the screens which is perfectly fine and replace it with some monstrosity. Why? Why not the other ******ed interfaces, like corp management?

Locating the modules in a big ring around the ship is stupid from the get go. If your design team insists that you put "cool looking" over usability concerns though, I sure hope you at least follow all the suggestions in this thread, because without them this screen is full of fail.

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

what game have you been playing?

people having been screaming for "make it look like it's not an excell sheet!! agh the UI is SO BAD, for years. it's just a skin, it's not a big deal.

however as I've already said I don't think this is perfect, but they have gonnen MORE users as they make the UI different, not less.

they must be doing something right.

---

Originally by: Frug

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

what game have you been playing?

people having been screaming for "make it look like it's not an excell sheet!! agh the UI is SO BAD, for years. it's just a skin, it's not a big deal.

however as I've already said I don't think this is perfect, but they have gonnen MORE users as they make the UI different, not less.

they must be doing something right.

---

Clearly eve's success is due to their amazing UI, right?

Great input. Keep posting.

---

• "It goes faster" - I don't like going fast


• "It doesn't need to rest" - I still need to rest


• "Doesn't need food" - Still needs fuel


• "Doesn't have a personality" - I like the personality

Originally by: Aatch Bland

---

I think he meant that the UI changes haven't done anything to dampen the flow of new players.

It is a well known fact that there are many otherwise intelligent people incapable of accepting a change.
Let us take an example as extreme as people are making this issue out to be:
You are the owner of a horse, you are being offered a car in exchange. You refuse on principle and the person offering attempts to convince you.

• "It goes faster" - I don't like going fast


• "It doesn't need to rest" - I still need to rest


• "Doesn't need food" - Still needs fuel


• "Doesn't have a personality" - I like the personality

I could go on. Now it is obvious that cars won out over horses, but to me, thats what all these naysayers are complaining about.

---

Originally by: Chribba

---

I found it a bit hard to use tbh, but I guess I'll get into the routines after a while. Mainly because it extended over the station panel so I couldn't access items in my hangar - and the fact that you couldn't move the fittings screen.

But it's looking very spiffy, eyecandy for sure

---

Quote:

---

Corporation members with sufficient roles can also store corporation fittings which automatically become available to all the corporation members.

---

Originally by: Aatch Bland

---

I think he meant that the UI changes haven't done anything to dampen the flow of new players.

---

Originally by: Aatch Bland

---

Blah blah we use cars now instead of horses

---

Originally by: Ferria

---

Ok, I like the new system.

I like not having to open a new widow to select my fittings.
I like it telling me which modules are online.
I like being able to see my Ship while fitting it.

Did you guys read the blog or are you guys just trashing this because you don't know how to use it?

---

Originally by: Arthur Frayn

---

How much to ruin all your holes, luv?

---

Originally by: Frug

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

what game have you been playing?

people having been screaming for "make it look like it's not an excell sheet!! agh the UI is SO BAD, for years. it's just a skin, it's not a big deal.

however as I've already said I don't think this is perfect, but they have gonnen MORE users as they make the UI different, not less.

they must be doing something right.

---

Clearly eve's success is due to their amazing UI, right?

Great input. Keep posting.

---

Originally by: Dr Resheph

---

1. Transparency looks nice, but isn't user friendly.

2. Remove module and Info button trails are annoying and redundant.

3. Can't have more than one left-side menu open at once; all menus collapsed by default.

4. CPU / Powergrid bars are blended into the UI with no obvious start/end points; too large and entirely worthless without readout.

5. Drop shadow and bevel emboss on the fitting ring? Really?

6. The hardpoints graphic is not intuitive, takes up too much space, and looks out of place. What do the grey circles represent? Hardpoints left? Hardpoints used?

7. Small autocannon and standard launcher icons in my fitting window, when you have none fitted. Newbs will love that one.

8. You made the module icons smaller and blurrier, and the green 'active' button as visually intrusive as possible.

9. Ammo now takes up the entire turret space, making it harder to see what guns you have fitted as you're cycling through multiple ships.

10. No drag, no minimize, no close, no resize.

11. No cargo capacity readout to show what you have and what you used.

12. Same thing for drones, add the missing drone bandwidth on top.

13. Can't see or make drone groupings in fitting window, the most obvious new feature you could have added.

14. The colored backgrounds on the resistance readouts are useless because you don't know where they start or end.

15. What is that circular capacitor graphic good for, exactly?

16. Your free floating and icons around the ring only blend into my station environments, and my eye has to keep straining to spot them while the strobe lights move around.

17. The short animation you get when opening the fitting window is lame and pointless.

18. UI behaviour changes depending on whether the side panels are open. Sometimes you can click-drag to rotate camera, other times the mouse gets stuck. Completely unintuitive.

19. Your fitting window blocks parts of my neocom and station panel on the lowest resolution.

20. It's completely out of place with the rest of the UI, and whether or not you intend to change the rest in time, the fact remains you have two different UI designs and behaviours for the duration instead of one logical theme and set of behaviors.

21. You're still missing vital information from this new fitting window, just as the old one. I still have to 'show info' on my ship to get the whole picture.

22. You added new information with hitpoint calculations, but you force the user to select from an obscure dropdown window instead of doing a simple check to see what sort of setup that person has.

23. The left-side panel boxes are mixing two types of information: stuff in station and stuff in your ship with no obvious distinction between the two.

24. The left-side panel boxes are tiny, and worthless for scrolling through a mountain of assets, some in containers and other ships. They don't even extend fully in the horizontal and waste space.

25. This design sucks bacause Stargate sucks.

Have a nice day.

---

Originally by: Imhothar Xarodit

---

Edited by: Imhothar Xarodit on 15/02/2009 01:37:52

• First, let it look like it is now when the mouse cursor is currently not over some module slot: pic 1


• When the cursor hovers a module slot a new inner circle appears with all the market groups of items which are available for fitting. There also appears a "Unfit" button (we do not need the freaking right-click menu): pic 2


• Now when you hover the mouse over one of the market groups a container-like window appears in the center with the items available for fitting in the current market group. Clicking an item automaticall fits it, replacing the existing module if needed: pic 3

---

• Minimize and close buttons need to be added.


• Transparency adjustment is needed, it can be difficult to read the stats area.


• Needs to be movable and re-sizable like other game windows.


• Would like to see more advanced fitting information available, such as DPS, and capacitor statistics (more like EFT etc..)

Originally by: Dr Resheph

---

1. Transparency looks nice, but isn't user friendly.

2. Remove module and Info button trails are annoying and redundant.

3. Can't have more than one left-side menu open at once; all menus collapsed by default.

4. CPU / Powergrid bars are blended into the UI with no obvious start/end points; too large and entirely worthless without readout.

5. Drop shadow and bevel emboss on the fitting ring? Really?

6. The hardpoints graphic is not intuitive, takes up too much space, and looks out of place. What do the grey circles represent? Hardpoints left? Hardpoints used?

7. Small autocannon and standard launcher icons in my fitting window, when you have none fitted. Newbs will love that one.

8. You made the module icons smaller and blurrier, and the green 'active' button as visually intrusive as possible.

9. Ammo now takes up the entire turret space, making it harder to see what guns you have fitted as you're cycling through multiple ships.

10. No drag, no minimize, no close, no resize.

11. No cargo capacity readout to show what you have and what you used.

12. Same thing for drones, add the missing drone bandwidth on top.

13. Can't see or make drone groupings in fitting window, the most obvious new feature you could have added.

14. The colored backgrounds on the resistance readouts are useless because you don't know where they start or end.

15. What is that circular capacitor graphic good for, exactly?

16. Your free floating and icons around the ring only blend into my station environments, and my eye has to keep straining to spot them while the strobe lights move around.

17. The short animation you get when opening the fitting window is lame and pointless.

18. UI behaviour changes depending on whether the side panels are open. Sometimes you can click-drag to rotate camera, other times the mouse gets stuck. Completely unintuitive.

19. Your fitting window blocks parts of my neocom and station panel on the lowest resolution.

20. It's completely out of place with the rest of the UI, and whether or not you intend to change the rest in time, the fact remains you have two different UI designs and behaviours for the duration instead of one logical theme and set of behaviors.

21. You're still missing vital information from this new fitting window, just as the old one. I still have to 'show info' on my ship to get the whole picture.

22. You added new information with hitpoint calculations, but you force the user to select from an obscure dropdown window instead of doing a simple check to see what sort of setup that person has.

23. The left-side panel boxes are mixing two types of information: stuff in station and stuff in your ship with no obvious distinction between the two.

24. The left-side panel boxes are tiny, and worthless for scrolling through a mountain of assets, some in containers and other ships. They don't even extend fully in the horizontal and waste space.

25. This design sucks bacause Stargate sucks.

Have a nice day.

---

Originally by: Imhothar Xarodit

---

Here is a proposal of how to make it more intuitive and less cluttered (pics inside):

• First, let it look like it is now when the mouse cursor is currently not over some module slot: pic 1


• When the cursor hovers a module slot a new inner circle appears with all the market groups of items which are available for fitting. There also appears a "Unfit" button (we do not need the freaking right-click menu): pic 2


• Now when you hover the mouse over one of the market groups a container-like window appears in the center with the items available for fitting in the current market group. Clicking an item automaticall fits it, replacing the existing module if needed: pic 3


• What is the purpose of all this: First, reduce the mouse movement distance by keeping the module slots close to the items. Second, save space by removing the lefthand item list and replace it with a dynamic structure that adapts to the current situation. And third, move the stats window to the left side instead of the right. Wasting the complete screen space jsut to see the ship while fitting it is not usefull.
  Today's UIs are dynamic (dynamic means not everything having a right-click menu)


• Do not remove the ability to drag & drop an item from some hangar onto a slot.


• Remember this is just a quick cut & paste mockup but it shows the basic idea behind the concept. Especially the container-like window in the center needs much more work to (1) look good and (2) show as many items as possible.


• TL;DR: Normal View => hovering mouse over a module slot => replacement for item list (quick cut & paste mockup).

---

Originally by: ArmyOfMe

---

Originally by: Dr Resheph

---

1. Transparency looks nice, but isn't user friendly.

2. Remove module and Info button trails are annoying and redundant.

3. Can't have more than one left-side menu open at once; all menus collapsed by default.

4. CPU / Powergrid bars are blended into the UI with no obvious start/end points; too large and entirely worthless without readout.

5. Drop shadow and bevel emboss on the fitting ring? Really?

6. The hardpoints graphic is not intuitive, takes up too much space, and looks out of place. What do the grey circles represent? Hardpoints left? Hardpoints used?

7. Small autocannon and standard launcher icons in my fitting window, when you have none fitted. Newbs will love that one.

8. You made the module icons smaller and blurrier, and the green 'active' button as visually intrusive as possible.

9. Ammo now takes up the entire turret space, making it harder to see what guns you have fitted as you're cycling through multiple ships.

10. No drag, no minimize, no close, no resize.

11. No cargo capacity readout to show what you have and what you used.

12. Same thing for drones, add the missing drone bandwidth on top.

13. Can't see or make drone groupings in fitting window, the most obvious new feature you could have added.

14. The colored backgrounds on the resistance readouts are useless because you don't know where they start or end.

15. What is that circular capacitor graphic good for, exactly?

16. Your free floating and icons around the ring only blend into my station environments, and my eye has to keep straining to spot them while the strobe lights move around.

17. The short animation you get when opening the fitting window is lame and pointless.

18. UI behaviour changes depending on whether the side panels are open. Sometimes you can click-drag to rotate camera, other times the mouse gets stuck. Completely unintuitive.

19. Your fitting window blocks parts of my neocom and station panel on the lowest resolution.

20. It's completely out of place with the rest of the UI, and whether or not you intend to change the rest in time, the fact remains you have two different UI designs and behaviours for the duration instead of one logical theme and set of behaviors.

21. You're still missing vital information from this new fitting window, just as the old one. I still have to 'show info' on my ship to get the whole picture.

22. You added new information with hitpoint calculations, but you force the user to select from an obscure dropdown window instead of doing a simple check to see what sort of setup that person has.

23. The left-side panel boxes are mixing two types of information: stuff in station and stuff in your ship with no obvious distinction between the two.

24. The left-side panel boxes are tiny, and worthless for scrolling through a mountain of assets, some in containers and other ships. They don't even extend fully in the horizontal and waste space.

25. This design sucks bacause Stargate sucks.

Have a nice day.

---

pretty much spot on

---

Originally by: UMEE

---

if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail.

---

1. modules that use that particular slot, and


2. modules that are able to fit within current fit (i.e. have enough CPU/PG/callibration to fit them).

Originally by: Jameroz

---

The transparency makes it quite hard to read the info. I'd rather have regular background so the user can select the level of transparency himself.

---

Originally by: Arthur Frayn

---

How much to ruin all your holes, luv?

---

Originally by: Leya Marcsson

---

Edited by: Leya Marcsson on 16/02/2009 01:30:56
could you please think about a more simpler & functional approach? how about something like this: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0902/Eve_Fitting.pdf

even if you stick with your circle stuff: please do not add another way to brows the hangar/container - if you think the current way is bad (and there could be some reasons for that) redesign the current and integrate it into the fitting screen.

---

Originally by: Arthur Frayn

---

How much to ruin all your holes, luv?

---

Originally by: Leya Marcsson

---

could you please think about a more simpler & functional approach? how about something like this: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0902/Eve_Fitting.pdf

even if you stick with your circle stuff: please do not add another way to brows the hangar/container - if you think the current way is bad (and there could be some reasons for that) redesign the current and integrate it into the fitting screen.

---

Originally by: Aeo IV

---

You know what ****es me off?

They could have easily used those extra rig slots on the non-messed up panel for subsystem placement.

Bottom line- this is bad, I'm glad you're investing time in trying to improve the game, but this isn't an improvement, drop it, modify the current one and leave it at that, or else someone is going to rebuild EFT version 3.0 such that we can build set ups in EFT and just port them into the game.

And that, sir, is a very bad thing.

---

Originally by: Gumpy Nighthawk

---

With the older build there was also the window with effective hitpoints, not sure it's still there with the current build, but just assuming it's still there, but that effective hitpoint number is just an addition of your armor with any extra armor booster, but not taking any resists in account.

---

Originally by: Aldiree Antima

---

Question: Will there be a overhaul for the asset management system? The methods of presentation data is suboptimal at best and sometimes really annoying.

---

Originally by: Gnulpie

---

Can a corp member fit ships inside corp hangar if there are the modules present in that hangar (eventually point to some other hanger where the modules are also), assumed that person has the access roles to access all that stuff in corp hangar?

---

Originally by: Vir Hellnami

---

Is there any way to have a version that would not show the [...] view of my ship in the docks? Could this be made as toggle able, since UI-space is valuable when fitting a ship

---

Originally by: Shalmaneser ili

---

Add a "100%" mark to the PG/CPU bars? Maybe even add 10% or 25% increments to have a chance at telling what value they are showing at all? Even better, have the current percentage shown at the end of the bar - you could even make it go red if it goes over 100%, showing a red (pulsating) 100% or >100%? [...]

---

Originally by: Chris Stormrider

---

I usually log in from an eeepc with 1024x600 resolution (though I doubt most people care if that's a problem and I'm not sure if I'll be able to play using premium light, no-one knows for sure, right now).

---

Originally by: Dr Resheph

---

20. It's completely out of place with the rest of the UI, and whether or not you intend to change the rest in time, the fact remains you have two different UI designs and behaviors for the duration instead of one logical theme and set of behaviors.

---

Originally by: Goonda

---

[...]If I had any say about the issue, I would redesign the central (circle) portion of this new layout. I would move the hi/mid/low slots to concentric quarter circles (similar to the old layout), so that all 3 sets of slots are basically where the high slots are now. Also, move the CPU/PG/Calibration/Hardpoint readouts to the statistics panel or place them over top of the ship display window. I would leave the rig and T3 slots where they are.

---

Originally by: Smagd

---

There's a reason there was a switch to do skip this for the star map, which now opens instantly... It's visually nice, but it slows down actual work.

---

Originally by: Grimpak

---

also, your guardian setup are fail.

---

Originally by: Imhothar Xarodit

---

On the western hemisphere, most important information should be in specific corners, from most important to least important: top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right (hint: reading a book). I would classify the ship statistics as more important than the item list. <Showing market groups, then list the modules inside the ring>

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

did you see my blueprint filter window idea where everything behind the circle is blue and shows a vector type graphic in real time of what your seeing?

---

Originally by: Val Strommer

---

can you include a damage per second (dps) statistic on the fitting screen.

---

Originally by: Miyamoto Isoruku

---

Allowing weapons and drone grouping while docked would be EXCELLENT.

---

Originally by: Cedric Diggory

---

The coloured resistance bars on the right look a little "tacky"; perhaps some texturing on the coloured bar itself would make it look a little more slick?

---

Originally by: Llaneza

---

If EVE is getting 'picture in picture' capability, how about upgrading the 'zoom' feature to be a real render and not just zooming a bitmap and getting a zoomed view that's all pixelated

---

Originally by: FireFoxx80

---

> Oh, and it would be great if subsystems were assigned when you went into ship fitting screen, rather than when you first unpackage the ship.

---

Originally by: permion

---

Can you please add drone statistics, well atleast drone movement range. Pretty please with extra nagginess on top.

---

Originally by: Terianna Eri

---

Do not display agility; display align time instead.

---

Originally by: Hu Lacour

---

Currently, depending on resolution, it overlaps with station right side bar, what IF, current fitting screen gets pushed to next patch and whole in station view gets redone with same design as there would be more time?

---

Originally by: Apertotes

---

but most important, there is no stacking penalty indication, and given the lack of proper oficial information regarding those, it would be very nice if you could somehow indicate the penalties each module is applied. [...] also, although not as important, i would love if each attibute could be read as a product of a base attribute times the different bonuses and penalties, be it from skills, modules, implants, rigs, fleets, EW, etc.

---

Originally by: Ford Chicago

---

All of the functional problems with the new designed were immediately documented as soon as this was on SISI. Why does the dev blog not address any of those comments? You could have saved the first 10 pages of this thread that are filled with exactly the same issues the community noted on day 1.

---

Originally by: Decard Sune on 23/03/2008 12:12:37

---

Carebear is a derogatory term used by those who feel that every player should be nothing mroe than a target for their pleasure. These individuals usually ha

Originally by: CCP Fendahl

---

The workflow was actually designed around this: select modules from the left, fit them in the center and observe the effect to the right.

---

Originally by: Decard Sune on 23/03/2008 12:12:37

---

Carebear is a derogatory term used by those who feel that every player should be nothing mroe than a target for their pleasure. These individuals usually ha

Originally by: CCP Fendahl

---

Originally by: Terianna Eri

---

Do not display agility; display align time instead.

---

The problem with this is that while we both know that agility changes the align time, there would be nothing telling new players about the relationship. Agility also changes the acceleration of the ship, which is also relevant. I agree, though, that having the align time shown would be extremely useful. We were planning to include it, but unfortunately it got cut.

---

Originally by: Arthur Frayn

---

How much to ruin all your holes, luv?

---

Originally by: CCP Fendahl

---

As for saving fittings, last I spoke with the t3ch team, the idea was to store all fittings on the server. This unfortunately means some limits are needed to protect our DB, but even so you should be able to store about 100 personal fittings. The fittings can also be manually imported and exported via YAML, so it should be easy to transfer collections of fittings. There are currently no plans for alliance fittings or direct API support for import/export (but those would be very nice features). Fittings can be info linked by dragging the fitting from the fitting management window to the chat (or eve mail). Clicking the link opens up an info window with a (custom description of the fitting) and a listing of the modules etc. The fitting can also be saved from the info window.

---

Originally by: Red 7

---

The community has put a lot of time, effort and infrastructure into tools to fill this gap over the years - don't slap them in the face by not taking this opportunity to provide a nice clean API to work with.

---

Originally by: H Zebra

---

can you please answer my question??? will we get the option to use teh old fitting screen? or are we stuck with the new one?

---

Originally by: fendahl

---

Originally by: Vir Hellnami

---

Is there any way to have a version that would not show the [...] view of my ship in the docks? Could this be made as toggle able, since UI-space is valuable when fitting a ship

---

It's certainly possible, though it's not currently planned for the expansion. If it's still something a lot of you guys want after we have worked out the new fitting screen, it's certainly something we would look into. We want more awesome, not less!

---

Originally by: CCP Fendahl

---

Originally by: H Zebra

---

can you please answer my question??? will we get the option to use teh old fitting screen? or are we stuck with the new one?

---

Already did...

---

Originally by: Henry Loenwind

---

What about this design:

fitting1.jpg

(Yes, it's drawn without skill, incomplete, and out of proportion---but the idea should be clear.)

---

Originally by: riverini

---

hey Dev, just say no to him so we can haz another quitting riot... ugh... idk who could actually cares for the so called purists in a game that haz always characterized itself for it's constant innovation and rampant evolution.

---

Originally by: H Zebra

---

Originally by: riverini

---

hey Dev, just say no to him so we can haz another quitting riot... ugh... idk who could actually cares for the so called purists in a game that haz always characterized itself for it's constant innovation and rampant evolution.

---

LOL i just would like a straight answer to a realy straight forward question. no soon no later no maybe, just yes or no. why is that so much to ask for?

---

Originally by: riverini

---

Originally by: H Zebra

---

Originally by: riverini

---

hey Dev, just say no to him so we can haz another quitting riot... ugh... idk who could actually cares for the so called purists in a game that haz always characterized itself for it's constant innovation and rampant evolution.

---

LOL i just would like a straight answer to a realy straight forward question. no soon no later no maybe, just yes or no. why is that so much to ask for?

---

Lol man u know better than anyone that Devs doesnt like to make consessions, let's put this scenario:

You devote say 3 months to a new fitting UI and then give ppl the option to choose between the old one and the new one, let's say it's split 50/50 on preferences, now in this scenario u'll be obliged to work double for every future addition u might put on the fitting overview.

Let's put another scenario, how about only 5% of the pilots choose to use the new fittings, that would mean that ur 3 months of hard work would have been wasted.

One interesting possibility now is the addition of more than 8 slots to the fitting overlay, also the posibility of a fifth or even a sixth slot types (counting highs, meds, lows and rigs) for balance issues against the new t3 ships.

i think all this changes and possibilities overweights the downside of having to adapt to a new fitting layout, dont u think?

---

Originally by: H Zebra

---

Originally by: riverini

---

Originally by: H Zebra

---

Originally by: riverini

---

hey Dev, just say no to him so we can haz another quitting riot... ugh... idk who could actually cares for the so called purists in a game that haz always characterized itself for it's constant innovation and rampant evolution.

---

LOL i just would like a straight answer to a realy straight forward question. no soon no later no maybe, just yes or no. why is that so much to ask for?

---

Lol man u know better than anyone that Devs doesnt like to make consessions, let's put this scenario:

You devote say 3 months to a new fitting UI and then give ppl the option to choose between the old one and the new one, let's say it's split 50/50 on preferences, now in this scenario u'll be obliged to work double for every future addition u might put on the fitting overview.

Let's put another scenario, how about only 5% of the pilots choose to use the new fittings, that would mean that ur 3 months of hard work would have been wasted.

One interesting possibility now is the addition of more than 8 slots to the fitting overlay, also the posibility of a fifth or even a sixth slot types (counting highs, meds, lows and rigs) for balance issues against the new t3 ships.

i think all this changes and possibilities overweights the downside of having to adapt to a new fitting layout, dont u think?

---

Not when teh new one hurt my eyes so bad. is pooorly laid out and covers 80% of teh screen size i use. now come to think of how unreadible the text will be when it scales to that size(1074 x 764, 3rd from bottom option).. maybe they just want peopel to play at full screen and will do away with other options? come on get with the times full screen is where its at baby.

---

Originally by: riverini
It's left to see how well the UI scales to small monitors, i play with a 22" 1650 x 1080 lcd which would make the widescreen oriented fitting panel looks good.

BTW have u seen it in motion?

found this @ utube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcI0SJvjzFE

The only critic i have is that i want the ship to some across the ring XD so i'll looks cooler.[/quote

---

i too play on a 22" monitor, running 3 clients normally, sometimes up to 5 depends on what im doing mostly.
this is what teh old and new fitting screens look like to me. you can easily see why id liek the old one to stay, i think any way.
old and new widows on teh left pannel thingy

Originally by: riverini

---

any design proposals?

This is the thing, complaining is quite easy, but i think if will be more useful if we could propose solutions instead of complaining of the problems...

Am not defending the Devs, i agree that usability should always overcome aesthetics, but that doesn't mean we should keep stating the obvious so repeatedly.

peace!

---

Originally by: CCP Fendahl

---

Originally by: H Zebra

---

can you please answer my question??? will we get the option to use teh old fitting screen? or are we stuck with the new one?

---

Already did...

Originally by: fendahl

---

Originally by: Vir Hellnami

---

Is there any way to have a version that would not show the [...] view of my ship in the docks? Could this be made as toggle able, since UI-space is valuable when fitting a ship

---

It's certainly possible, though it's not currently planned for the expansion. If it's still something a lot of you guys want after we have worked out the new fitting screen, it's certainly something we would look into. We want more awesome, not less!

---

---

Originally by: Treelox

---

CCP Fendahl,

Thank you for responding to this thread, I think myself and many others were becoming concerned about the lack of response to our feedback.


That said, I carefully read over your multiple responses on the last couple pages, and there is one thing that keeps cropping up that disturbs me. Your response to many of what I consider excellent player ideas and critisims, is to tell us that a particular feature was cut or pushed back to some possible future expansion. This concerns me, since we have seen this "excuse" before, from CCP, and yet we still are waiting for some of those promised features years later.

Might I just make the suggestion, that if you cant get a feature fully ready before an expansion, dont release it half assed, dont release it pre-nerfed, dont release it unfinished or unpolished. Continue to work on it and just release it in its entirety at a later date.

Nothig annoys a user base than a half arsed implemented feature that teases them with beautiful art and terrible interactability. Please concern yourselves with adding only fully functional "upgrades" to the game.

Of course this is particularlly a problem this expansion because you guys gimped yourselves to a hard date for the expansion, by getting into bed with a 3rd party publisher(ATARI). You all further added to your burden by pushing your normal "summer expansion" 2-3 months earlier.


----

As a side note, I would like to keep the old fitting window in game until you(CCP), can deliver us a fully functional and implemented new fitting window. Not have us be given a gimped new fitting window, and then once you guys finally get around to considering it "complete", giving us back the old one if we are still whining.

---

Originally by: Treelox

---

CCP Fendahl,

Thank you for responding to this thread, I think myself and many others were becoming concerned about the lack of response to our feedback.


That said, I carefully read over your multiple responses on the last couple pages, and there is one thing that keeps cropping up that disturbs me. Your response to many of what I consider excellent player ideas and critisims, is to tell us that a particular feature was cut or pushed back to some possible future expansion. This concerns me, since we have seen this "excuse" before, from CCP, and yet we still are waiting for some of those promised features years later.

Might I just make the suggestion, that if you cant get a feature fully ready before an expansion, dont release it half assed, dont release it pre-nerfed, dont release it unfinished or unpolished. Continue to work on it and just release it in its entirety at a later date.

Nothig annoys a user base than a half arsed implemented feature that teases them with beautiful art and terrible interactability. Please concern yourselves with adding only fully functional "upgrades" to the game.

Of course this is particularlly a problem this expansion because you guys gimped yourselves to a hard date for the expansion, by getting into bed with a 3rd party publisher(ATARI). You all further added to your burden by pushing your normal "summer expansion" 2-3 months earlier.


----

As a side note, I would like to keep the old fitting window in game until you(CCP), can deliver us a fully functional and implemented new fitting window. Not have us be given a gimped new fitting window, and then once you guys finally get around to considering it "complete", giving us back the old one if we are still whining.

---

Originally by: CCP Fendahl

---

We're still discussing whether to show the sub-system slots for non T3 ship. The arguments for, are that the fitting screen would show the possibilities even if you're in an Ibis: up to 8 high/med/low, 3 rig slots and 4 sub-system slots, and that the fitting screen should be consistent regardless of the ship youÆre in (consistency is a good usability principle in general).

---

Originally by: CCP Fendahl

---

Originally by: Imhothar Xarodit

---

On the western hemisphere, most important information should be in specific corners, from most important to least important: top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right (hint: reading a book). I would classify the ship statistics as more important than the item list. <Showing market groups, then list the modules inside the ring>

---

The workflow was actually designed around this: select modules from the left, fit them in the center and observe the effect to the right.

Your method for selecting modules certainly seems quite juicy and it's definitely worth looking into. One potential problem with this approach is that it might be fiddly to navigate between containers, depending on how it is implemented, but it could probably be worked out. We'd also need to figure out a good method for bringing up the menu without making it hard to use for the lower slots (in case there isn't enough room for the menu below the slot).

---

Originally by: Gummi

---

Build: 6.10.80418
In the fitting window.

You can right-click move on your ship in the centre of the ring , it does not snap back to centre and its possible to loose the visual on the ship.

High slots are to the left? Logic?

Tech 3 slots always showing.

Lastly. 100 marks for using form over function. Linkage

---

Originally by: Gummi

---

Build: 6.10.80418
In the fitting window.

You can right-click move on your ship in the centre of the ring , it does not snap back to centre and its possible to loose the visual on the ship.

High slots are to the left? Logic?

Tech 3 slots always showing.

Lastly. 100 marks for using form over function. Linkage

---