These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Test Server Feedback

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Next iteration of overview/bracket icons on Singularity

First post
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#81 - 2015-05-14 16:51:20 UTC
the red cross in the center on the icon is the best way forward i suspect

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Masao Kurata
Caldari State
#82 - 2015-05-14 17:02:56 UTC
I really don't understand people saying that ship classes are less clear now than on TQ. You really find squares of very slightly different sizes easier to distinguish than different shapes? That sounds more like a knee jerk reaction to change rather than a considered opinion.
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#83 - 2015-05-14 17:26:03 UTC
Mobile Depots... seriously... Keep confusing them with stations Lol

Been around since the beginning.

Masao Kurata
Caldari State
#84 - 2015-05-14 17:27:14 UTC
CCP Surge wrote:
Some of the other updates you might notice on Sisi:

It sounds like you're saying a new revision is live but it all looks the same to me.
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#85 - 2015-05-14 18:00:27 UTC
A little experiment.

Group 1: Take 100 brand new players, show them the current brackets for their first week.
Group 2: Take 100 other brand newbies, show them the new icons for their first week.

Take a survey on usability, aesthetics, immersion, etc. Gather gameplay statistics for the two groups. Have group 1 and group 2 engage in a few fleet fights against each other.

Then flip the icons. Group 1 gets the new ones. Group 2 gets the old brackets.

Conduct a few fleet fights again with the icons flipped. Repeat survey and continue gathering statistics. Ask for comparison between the two sets from both groups. Compare results.

I'd bet money on the outcome being heavily in favor of the new icons. They're not what current players are used to, for sure. But, just because they're different doesn't make them bad. They have a purpose, and I think they fill it well.

That's not to say they're perfect. They need polish and some icons are still in need of iteration. But, as a whole, I think they're beneficial.

I do still have to use tooltips when finding stuff in my neocom and station service panel, though. Different topic for another day.
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#86 - 2015-05-14 18:01:59 UTC
CCP Surge wrote:
I'm just curious which parts of gameplay do you guys find the lack of being able to tell players and NPCs apart from one another quick most noticeable? I'm just looking for more reasons to make the distinction more clear.

Knowing exactly who is, and who is not on grid with you. Simples.

I am a pod pilot:

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.

CCP Surge
C C P Alliance
#87 - 2015-05-14 18:08:22 UTC
Also you guys asked for it, so here are the new icon sheets for you to compare side by side with the client:

Ship & Drones

Other Entities

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#88 - 2015-05-14 18:12:09 UTC
make those NPC entity icons red also

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Masao Kurata
Caldari State
#89 - 2015-05-14 18:43:30 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
make those NPC entity icons red also

So that people instinctively shoot customs officers and CONCORD? Hostile NPCs are already red.
Mister Ripley
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2015-05-14 19:41:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister Ripley
I'm still not a big fan of the new icons. Old icons follow an own style for player ships, an own style for NPCs and an own style for the rest. Players/NPS ships were totaly different from the rest. New ones mix back and forth. Capitals are big containers. Depots are stations. Now there is one set of icons where this icon is A, this icon is B and this icon is C. But basically they all bolong to one "family". I don't know how to explain it better. Big smile
The only way to properly distinguish Players and everything else (which for me is the most important thing) is by setting the background color for "Pilot has no standing" (besides color settings for FW, war, corp, etc) in the overview settings.
Kurved Trading
#91 - 2015-05-14 20:54:53 UTC
The new icons are great. You can tell ship classes apart at a glance without worrying about relative size because of the different shapes. Also, the shapes become more complex as you move up classes. Of course, destroyers look like wrecks but this isn't a major flaw because that's just taking a shortcut to the inevitable for me.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

motie one
Secret Passage
#92 - 2015-05-14 20:58:22 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
CCP Surge wrote:
Also you guys asked for it, so here are the new icon sheets for you to compare side by side with the client:

Ship & Drones

Other Entities


You really need to stop using size as a ship differentiator. Below cruiser is just too small. Stretch them the full height of the icon "box" at the least in other words the frigate would be a long arrowhead not a stumpy one. Better still use the full icon space with a destinctive design. Little triangles are just a poor choice, and even poorer visibility.

Here is a good test, assuming you have good eyesight, put your eyes 3 inches away from the icon and try to tell them apart, you should be able to even blurred. If not, redraw as I suggest and try again.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#93 - 2015-05-14 21:07:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
i'm playing eve in a regular 1900*1100 window, and I'm playing at 90% UI scaling. The current iteration of overview icons is very not suited for 90%.

100% scaling
90% scaling

The differences are enormous, to the point where spotting ships compared to conatiners or even drones becomes difficult.
90% scaling - There are around 10 ships.

Finding ships without disabling drones is quite hard. There are 6 in this picture: 90%
It's a lot easier on 100% scaling.


Now to player-piloted ships: Can you draw a circle around them and maybe give something like a black glow to the outside? That way warriors and frigates would be clearly distinguishable. (Something in this direction)
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#94 - 2015-05-14 21:07:12 UTC
The latest iteration of icons look much better on the whole, namely structures. A few points of criticism, if I may:

1. NPC icons are a bit more difficult to differentiate from player ships. Hostile ones aren't an issue due to their color difference. Neutral and friendly ones, however, are a bit more difficult. A few ideas:

1. Color them. I don't think using blue, green, or yellow would be a god move due to conflicts with friendlies, corpmates, and other yellow objects (Cans, wrecks, next waypoint highlight). Perhaps adding am extremely faint tint to the icons in a cyan-ish color would be acceptable, but it may not be enough to differentiate when a handfull of icons begin to overlap and intersect.

2. Make them dimmer. If the lines of the friendly/neutral NPC icons were made to be less bright, and approaching a bit of a gray tone, it may be easier to identify. They'd be easily distinguished from player ships, and player ships would show up "over the top" of NPC icons when there are a lot of players and friendly/neutral NPCs in one spot on screen.

Once I have a chance to hop on SiSi again to look at these whenever they're put out for viewing in an in-game environment, I'l likely have more input.
Hegh Batlh
Stille Gewalt
Black. Flag.
#95 - 2015-05-14 21:52:08 UTC
Is it possible to seperate cyno and becons??? Would be perfect when cynos have their own symbol.
Exploration Frontier inc
#96 - 2015-05-14 23:06:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
Alright so, its better when you have the whole picture! I'm sold on most of the stuff.
Of course, there still are things that could be improved in my opinion:

- The non-looted wreck icon looks like a "contact" icon. I see a person's head and its torso. I do understand the logic behind it though, and its actually clever!

- The ice field icon looks bad in my opinion, you should try something else to differenciate it from the asteroid belt.

- The carrier and supercarrier icon (especially carrier) looks bad. Same for dreadnought, you should consider something like this. With the two turrets on the side, its very intuitive. Even if they are tiny once 32x32.

- The whole industrial ships line are... really meh.

- The destroyer icon looks too much like an old wreck icon, but I guess you cannot make design decisions based on that kind of previous stuff you're trying to get rid of.

- Why make a SBU icon? It is going to go away in two months anyway.

- I'm assuming the "beacon" works for both cynos and beacons? If yes, you should consider splitting it and using the "agent in space" icon for cynosural fields, instead. Find something else for the agent in space, their current icon just screams cyno :D

- I would honestly find something else entierly for NPCs. The distinction between players ships and friendly NPC ships is blurred, and even for ennemy NPC ships it doesn't seem very ergonomic to have the same shape. But that's just my opinion, red crosses are fine! Pretty sure you could make 7 different red crosses, which would cover: Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers, Battlecruisers, Battleships, Capitals, Non-combat (indus & co)

I would personally go for multiple variations of red crosses with various sizes and thicknesses, plus multiple geometric shapes made of lines that do not touch for the rest (non combat stuff and caps / supers). For NPCs.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO -

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Soleil Fournier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2015-05-14 23:10:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
CCP Surge wrote:

There are some aesthetic criticisms floating about. I won't shy away from that. The take on this particular set of icons was much more Military and Utilitarian themed; thus trying to stick with a lot of simple lines and shapes that would be easy to identify at a glance. However the old icons were even simpler in many ways, and I'm open to discussing what you guys found aesthetically pleasing about them.

Comparing the old to the new, aestheticly, I still prefer the old. I'm perfectly fine with new shapes. But the 'feel' of the icons seem to have taken a step down. Old ones seem to pop more, feel more solid if you will. New ones seem flatter.

Also not a fan of the gray fill. Could do without that. Prefer no fill.
Jon Dekker
Dekker Corporation
#98 - 2015-05-14 23:29:25 UTC
I will be blunt and honest here. I don't like the "pixel font" direction these are taking. I assumed new icons would be done from the same approach as the UI revamp, as vectors. These look ok, but pixel fonts aren't in style anymore. They stopped being in style 10 years ago.

I would like to see this system move to a more advanced HUD that combines and groups bracket clusters into a more readable layout. I'm all for the icon redesign, and anything is better than what currently exists, but it just feels like a missed opportunity to me.
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#99 - 2015-05-14 23:39:09 UTC
CCP Surge wrote:
Also you guys asked for it, so here are the new icon sheets for you to compare side by side with the client:

Ship & Drones

Other Entities


Thank you for the whole picture.
I am very happy with this new iteration, however, I would like to say some personal views.

1 – As some of people already point, would it be nice to have a different icon for cynosural fields.
2 – It would be nice to have an option to scale up the icons / overview. As already stated there are people who play the game in HD displays, and it became difficult to read / identify the icons.
3 – It is my personal opinion, but I like the old pod / capsule icon. I know the reason for the new shape, but since the pod has no combat capability I think the old one would be better.

Again, thank you for all your efforts to make the game better. Please, do not drop this project!

Oktura Ostus
#100 - 2015-05-14 23:45:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Oktura Ostus
CCP Surge wrote:

Dreadnought is too similar to cruiser, imho. It looks like subcapital ship.

UP: wreck (not empty) is too similar to any ship on the field, since it has same triangle-like top.