Test Server Feedback

These so called easier to read icons are just awful.I'm finding it difficult to tell a bunch of ships apart from their drones and thats just the tip of the iceberg.

Nothing good will come from putting this on tranquility.

Aside from the fact that targeted enemies look like the STOP Button from my old cassette Recorder, i'll have the following feedback:

I appriciate the attempt, but after flying some pve and pvp, i feel like it doesn't make much difference. There is more variation by now but it's not much use as i can't really tell the difference between the icons, especially since they seem rather random. The old ones where far more 'cleaner' and so easier to identify.

If you go for new icons, you'll probably to have to increase size/resolution for them. I really have a hard time to seperate a wreck from and empty wreck. And that's coming from someone who Plays Wargame: Red Dragon with NATO symbols.

It's terrific... Return old icons back, it's not funny at all

I have to admit, if some official CCP post comes up with the 'but feedback was so positive!' on the icon change...

Liar liar ship in structure.

>Jeven

Maybe we should have giving them this feedback on Reddit. I hear they read those threads.

New icon set seems bad for me.
Because there is no distinction between classes of objects.
Previously, we had white squares for player ships (and crosses for NPC) - but now we have a mess near the stargate (with all kinds of NPC and sentries).
In short - they are too different.
Making each icon 'unique' we lose eye-comfort, forcing player to channel even more perception focus to UI.

Oh, and wreck icons..
They are iconic! :) These sweety full-white wrecks are already established themselves in player's minds as something tasty and desirable. Dont let them go!

P.S.: For icons topic - I still cannot distinct these monochrome icons at Neocom panel. After the halfyear. So, someone who spoke about 'the form is better for recognizing than colour' was wrong. Tested and confirmed.

Oh you liked your old icons?

What? Ten pages of players telling us how much they dislike the changes?

Well we like them and you should too.

Here, have some more stuff you don't want.

CCP is like Honeybadger.

Dysa on overdrive, if I could get away with it I'd still be using Windows Vista Home Ultimate 64bit. It kept this hardware jockey but software gimped gal from fragging her own OS with that double check, you sure about that delete there?

As for icon fiasco. The only set I'm finding usable and kind of a positive change are the space rock size differentials for base ore type variations. And I will cheerfully give that up if everything else goes to opt out until a better set is tested, and the feedback heavier on up vote than this one had on Test Server Feedback.

Some suggestions to start from. Ain't broke don't fix. K.I.S.S. As a Dev is designing them, have open in proper native language a dictionary to the pages on definitions of the words 'Overview' and 'Streamlined'. How 'revamp icons' had a higher priority over 'repair Launcher so it quits breaking' is beyond my understanding. Then again, I'm a naturally born platinum blonde, brain power is at a minimum and seriously not cap stable.

>Jeven

+1

The strength of these icons is that they collapse a lot of unnecessary information into tiers. Please CCP use these.

The problem with the current CCP version is that they cause information overload. I mean, why not just have one icon per ship type? One for the Caracal, one for the Moa, .... That would be maximally informative, right?

Yesterday I found that it took me an extra two or three seconds to figure out that I was on grid with a dessie and to lock him. And that's a problem because small ship solo combat often comes down to the last couple of shots. I'm sure it will get slightly better with time. But it's pretty worrying.

Can we have the option to colour code icons? I really need *all* player ships to be in an obvious pop-out colour so that I can see the bloody things instantly. (I can see the NCP ships just fine; they're red.)

Did CCP do a proper human-computer-interaction usability study on these new icons? HCI is a real domain with real cognitive psychologists running real lab tests. The military does HCI studies on HUDs because if they didn't pilots would die. Now, this icon fiasco is not as bad as the jumpgate headswing fiasco of a few years ago. But I'm still scratching my head about why an HCI professional was not consulted. They're not that expensive. (CCP I can refer you to one that's currently in Iceland if you want.)