These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Alliance Logos & You - Submissions Re-Opened!

First post
Author
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2015-04-15 17:19:11 UTC
Six months is a long time to wait, especially for established groups who reform after an unfortunate in-game event (sup Kenzoku).

Why not set the restriction at 6 months OR 250+ members?
Tiberian Deci
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-04-15 17:20:53 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Irregessa wrote:
Reading the guidelines, I would expect that the following alliances would not have their present logos accepted due being cartoon-like/anarchonistic:

GSF
TEST
NC
SMA
LAWN
Fweddit
INIT.
SOUND
IRC
-7-


Some of the most established and recognized alliances in the game.


Things that you don't expect often happen, and assumption is the mother of all mistakes.

Smile



Any chance we could get a definite yes or no regarding whether or not our logo will be accepted? It's been around for years, we aren't planning on changing it. Hints are all fine and dandy but here you're implying we'll be fine even though our logo goes against the new guidelines. So will it be OK because of its history, or will it not because of the new rules?
Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#23 - 2015-04-15 17:22:20 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Irregessa wrote:
Reading the guidelines, I would expect that the following alliances would not have their present logos accepted due being cartoon-like/anarchonistic:

GSF
TEST
NC
SMA
LAWN
Fweddit
INIT.
SOUND
IRC
-7-


Some of the most established and recognized alliances in the game.


Things that you don't expect often happen, and assumption is the mother of all mistakes.

Smile


Why have rules/"requirements" then Roll

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#24 - 2015-04-15 17:28:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Ripard Teg
Unfortunately, this change also eliminates some of the more iconic alliance logos in the game because of the alliance size limitation and prevents iconic alliances from ever having logos for the same reason. Examples: Rote Kapelle, Psychotic Tendencies, tourney winner Verge of Collapse, and tourney favorite Outbreak. will all lose their logos. Unfortunately, this change prevents iconic alliances that happen to be small from ever having logos. Examples: perennial tournament favorites Hydra Reloaded and The Camel Empire won't be eligible for logos.

EDIT: Whoops! Missed the bit about smaller alliances with existing logos being allowed to resubmit their existing logos. The question about Hydra/Camel still stands, though.

I would kind of be interested in a specific statement about the LAWN logo, though. LAWN's logo p.much breaks every single rule that Falcon specified, from its cute font to its bright colors to its cartoony nature to its recognizable and anachronistic lawn gnome. Assuming it was resubmitted in its current state but following the new technical requirements, would it be accepted? And would it be accepted only because it's an existing alliance?

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#25 - 2015-04-15 17:31:46 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Darwin
Seymarr wrote:
Should we, then, submit a ton of logos which seem in clear violation of the written guidelines, because "hey, you never know" - throwing **** at the wall and seeing what sticks, adding lots of work for CCP to sort through?

To the extent that submission guidelines draw bounds related to art style, I would suggest starting by submitting the one logo you'd like to have and seeing how it goes. Use your best judgment, taking into account the guidelines listed.

Ultimately, the logo will be reviewed by one of our art directors and it'll be their taste and judgment that determines the outcome. This is the reason that art-related guidelines are not stated in strict, bright-line language.

Technical requirements (such as format, image size, non-premultiplication) should be treated as absolute, however.

I can't speak to how legal and content limitations will be evaluated.

CCP Darwin  •  Senior Software Engineer, Art & Graphics, EVE Online  •  @mark_wilkins

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2015-04-15 17:35:23 UTC
Can we please at least have the ability to create alliance logos using the in game tools the same way we do with corp logos? I get that CCP doesn't have the staff to approve a logo for every vanity alliance in the game and the minimum sizes aren't going away, but it'd be nice if we could get rid of the five pointed star at least.
Kailen Thorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#27 - 2015-04-15 17:36:35 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Seymarr wrote:
Should we, then, submit a ton of logos which seem in clear violation of the written guidelines, because "hey, you never know" - throwing **** at the wall and seeing what sticks, adding lots of work for CCP to sort through?

To the extent that submission guidelines draw bounds related to art style, I would suggest starting by submitting the one logo you'd like to have and seeing how it goes. Use your best judgment, taking into account the guidelines listed.

Ultimately, the logo will be reviewed by one of our art directors and it'll be their taste and judgment that determines the outcome. This is the reason that art-related guidelines are not stated in strict, bright-line language.

Technical requirements (such as format, image size, non-premultiplication) should be treated as absolute, however.

I can't speak to how legal and content limitations will be evaluated.



So an aritst who is bias toward certain groups ingame can lean heavily toward following rules strictly for some and others not so, based on his preferences?
CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#28 - 2015-04-15 17:42:19 UTC
Kailen Thorn wrote:
So an aritst who is bias toward certain groups ingame can lean heavily toward following rules strictly for some and others not so, based on his preferences?

I can assure you that the art directors who will be reviewing these logo submissions are most likely entirely unaware of, let alone unbiased by, any in-game politics.

CCP Darwin  •  Senior Software Engineer, Art & Graphics, EVE Online  •  @mark_wilkins

CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#29 - 2015-04-15 17:44:09 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Can we please at least have the ability to create alliance logos using the in game tools the same way we do with corp logos? I get that CCP doesn't have the staff to approve a logo for every vanity alliance in the game and the minimum sizes aren't going away, but it'd be nice if we could get rid of the five pointed star at least.

I'll run this suggestion past the appropriate people on the dev team. Sounds reasonable to me.

CCP Darwin  •  Senior Software Engineer, Art & Graphics, EVE Online  •  @mark_wilkins

Jaedar Metron
#30 - 2015-04-15 18:13:04 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:


The sheer number of corporations that are created means that this isn't really something that's feasible in terms of dedicating manpower to it.

This is why we also have restrictions on member count and size of an alliance with regards to eligibility for logo submission Smile


What if you restricted custom logos to Corporations of a certain size and age? If a corporation has lasted for, say, 8 years and have a large number of players, wouldn't it be nice to have them get a little extra?
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#31 - 2015-04-15 18:13:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
why does the concord logo have to be so big? I hoped it would be the size of the usual TM symbol

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

Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2015-04-15 18:20:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Ned Thomas
Beyond preventing offensive or pornographic material, I don't see why there should be any guidelines for style and substance.

If there's anything to be as hands off as possible about, it's the custom banners that players choose to fly under.

Also, it's kind of dumb to have alliances named things like "Test Alliance Please Ignore" but then require the logo to be "grim, dark, and spacey"
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#33 - 2015-04-15 18:26:33 UTC
Ned Thomas wrote:
Also, it's kind of dumb to alliances named things like "Test Alliance Pleas Ignore" but then require the logo to be "grim, dark, and spacey"


Or to have an alliance named "Clockwork Pineapple" who can't use anachronisms or Earth-things in their logo.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2015-04-15 18:37:49 UTC
Only complaint really is the alliance size. Should be 150 to 200.

Only real complaint

Yaay!!!!

Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#35 - 2015-04-15 18:48:08 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
Fantastic news for Alliances!




Links in the blog are broken.

o/
Celly

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.

SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2015-04-15 18:56:26 UTC
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Restricting creativity with some of these rules is a foolish mistake.
XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#37 - 2015-04-15 19:01:09 UTC
Ned Thomas wrote:
Beyond preventing offensive or pornographic material, I don't see why there should be any guidelines for style and substance.

If there's anything to be as hands off as possible about, it's the custom banners that players choose to fly under.

Also, it's kind of dumb to have alliances named things like "Test Alliance Please Ignore" but then require the logo to be "grim, dark, and spacey"


Not to mention how the Caldari shipline is named after Earth birds.

Or how the Minmatar station has a bright pink stripper sign in 0.0.

Or how the Guristas logo has rabbit ears.



Ranzera Stez
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2015-04-15 19:08:41 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Irregessa wrote:
Reading the guidelines, I would expect that the following alliances would not have their present logos accepted due being cartoon-like/anarchonistic:

GSF
TEST
NC
SMA
LAWN
Fweddit
INIT.
SOUND
IRC
-7-


Some of the most established and recognized alliances in the game.


Things that you don't expect often happen, and assumption is the mother of all mistakes.

Smile


Why have rules/"requirements" then Roll


Especially when more or less every CCP response is either "see how arbitrarily we apply our rules" or "you should know what we really mean /passiveaggressivegirlfriend"
CCP Falcon
#39 - 2015-04-15 19:27:57 UTC
Two step wrote:
Edit: Ignore this part, missed the grandfathering part


Also, I assume the 250 person count doesn't care about subscription status. What is to stop one from making an alt corp full of trial accounts and using that to get alliances over the 250 person limit? What happens if an alliance drops under 250 people after their logo is approved?


If an alliance has 250 characters in it, it's eligible.

If an alliance drops below 250 characters once its logo is in game, then that's not an issue. In the past when alliances have died, we haven't removed their logo. We've never done this in the past.

I don't know what could be more clear Smile

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#40 - 2015-04-15 20:06:30 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Real talk: does CCP actually have a legal team? What kind of lawyers would seriously advise them that the best way to avoid IP issues is by creating a blatantly derivative work?


I'm guessing (disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer) it's because CCP is intending to sell our alliance logos back to us for real money/Aurum , likely as add-ons to the new ship-skinning system, and so they need to jump through that particular hoop because they can't sell us something that they don't own. That's pretty much the only way any of this makes sense - when EA Sports makes a new FIFA game and they include the Manchester United team with the Chevrolet logo across the players' kits, that doesn't mean that EA Sports has legal ownership of the Chevrolet logo.

The only other possible explanation is that Icelandic IP laws are REALLY weird.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.