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) |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |