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