These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Carnyx release - General feedback

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jungleland Roy
#1661 - 2015-06-16 11:30:46 UTC
CCP Claymore

Being as restrained as i can be - roll back the icon changes. Just do it!

Then have all the discussions in the world you (and us) want, write all the dev blogs you want and introduce the new (and modifed) icons in stages.

All Problemss solved.

Why is this so hard for you to come to terms with??

Seriously, is there some probem in reverting temprorarily until a really good solution is found?

Roy

_if you could fly it before, you can fly it now. _ Read the Blog.
Iphigeneia
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1662 - 2015-06-16 11:38:20 UTC
CCP Claymore wrote:
Hey everyone,

Apologies for the silence about the icons but we have been following this thread with great interest.

We have been listening to your feedback and discussing where to go from here. We had a very productive meeting with the CSM last week about the current icon situation and the release of them. There will be a blog coming out once we have dotted the i's and crossed the t's where we will explain why we changed them and improvements we plan to implement from the feedback received on this thread.

Please keep giving us the constructive feedback you have supplied so far.


And presumably this blog will also explain why player feedback was discarded? I'm greatly interested to hear the answer on that one, as I've been following this thread and it sounds to me as though player reaction has been primarily (not completely or unanimously, however) averse to these new icons, while CCP reaction to feedback has been "we don't care." Now if that's not true I'm happy to be proven wrong, but as a rather new player I'm a bit discouraged that this situation with the icons -- something a lot of people have difficulty with -- will seemingly be glossed over with a "this is why we did it" blog post instead of a "we hear your concerns and this is how we'll fix it" post.

The icons are blurry, messy, and make it far more difficult to discern quickly what is in front of me. I too have considered removing the icon tab altogether as not having them, frankly, seems preferable to being bewildered by them. No, I have not scaled my UI to 90% and I still say they are blurry. I play on a 1920 x 1080 resolution screen and daily find myself wishing for the clearness of the old brackets. Instead of mousing over to determine frigate/destroyer, as with the old system, I now find myself mousing over to determine battleship, cruiser, or battlecruiser.
Specifically:
-Battleship icon does not convey a much larger size vessel than a cruiser/battlecruiser icon. I recognise this one may simply be personal opinion but I keep wanting to think the house shap is a battleship and not a cruiser, just because it "feels" like a larger vessel than that rhomboid shape which is the battleship.
-Large Collidable Structure icons are difficult to discern, either in space or in the overview list itself.
-The pod icon, most of the structure icons, and the asteroid icons feel like they are cramming too many lines and pixels into far too small of a space, leaving the impression of a blurry mess to my eyes. I realise that my eyes aren't the clearest 20-20 vision but surely you must understand many people play with less than perfect vision.
-While the drones icons are quite nice, as are the sun and acceleration gate icons, they too suffer from the too many pixels making it seem blurry issue that I have.
-NPCs are NOT easily discerned. I play zoomed out fairly far and when arriving at a gate, I had a rather difficult time telling player battleships apart from the Concord battleships present. Now I know some people will say i merely need to assign colours to players so I can tell them apart from NPCs but really, the previous system of crosses and rectangular brackets worked very well, I do not see why that had to be removed in place of a barely discernible difference as this one is.
-I believe in the case of overview icons that less is more. While it's nice that the various types of drones are differentiated, the various sizes of asteroids and ice are indicated, and we get a new icon for corpses ... I don't see that they were necessary. I only need to know whether it is a drone, not what kind of drone; I only need to know that it's an asteroid, I don't need to know it's size.
-I can see that the old brackets left a lot to be desired in terms of describing what you are looking at. However, the old brackets and pluses and drone xs had this advantage: that they were INSTANTLY discernible. You never had trouble telling apart Concord from player battleships at a gate. You KNEW instantly that it was a drone and not a frigate orbiting you. They were also not blurry to look at.
-for the love of god WHY did you take the triangle icon from the Mobile Tractor Unit and make it the frigate icon? I STILL start wondering why MTUs are shooting at me as soon as I see them on grid and I've been playing daily, which you'd think would be enough time to get used to that particularly nefarious change. If you had to reuse that triangle, could you perhaps have put it on something that wasn't piloted by a player?
-WRECKS. The extra pixels in wrecks are wholly unnecessary. Again, blurry and harder to make out.

I'm sure that's a lot of feedback but I'm really looking forward to reading this blog post. I'm getting cynical already and I'm not nearly old enough to be a bittervet but so far, the response from devs has been so underwhelming that I'm half expecting a post that doesn't address any player concerns at all.
CCP Claymore
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1663 - 2015-06-16 11:52:07 UTC
Iphigeneia wrote:
CCP Claymore wrote:
Hey everyone,

Apologies for the silence about the icons but we have been following this thread with great interest.

We have been listening to your feedback and discussing where to go from here. We had a very productive meeting with the CSM last week about the current icon situation and the release of them. There will be a blog coming out once we have dotted the i's and crossed the t's where we will explain why we changed them and improvements we plan to implement from the feedback received on this thread.

Please keep giving us the constructive feedback you have supplied so far.


And presumably this blog will also explain why player feedback was discarded? I'm greatly interested to hear the answer on that one, as I've been following this thread and it sounds to me as though player reaction has been primarily (not completely or unanimously, however) averse to these new icons, while CCP reaction to feedback has been "we don't care." Now if that's not true I'm happy to be proven wrong, but as a rather new player I'm a bit discouraged that this situation with the icons -- something a lot of people have difficulty with -- will seemingly be glossed over with a "this is why we did it" blog post instead of a "we hear your concerns and this is how we'll fix it" post.

The icons are blurry, messy, and make it far more difficult to discern quickly what is in front of me. I too have considered removing the icon tab altogether as not having them, frankly, seems preferable to being bewildered by them. No, I have not scaled my UI to 90% and I still say they are blurry. I play on a 1920 x 1080 resolution screen and daily find myself wishing for the clearness of the old brackets. Instead of mousing over to determine frigate/destroyer, as with the old system, I now find myself mousing over to determine battleship, cruiser, or battlecruiser.
Specifically:
-Battleship icon does not convey a much larger size vessel than a cruiser/battlecruiser icon. I recognise this one may simply be personal opinion but I keep wanting to think the house shap is a battleship and not a cruiser, just because it "feels" like a larger vessel than that rhomboid shape which is the battleship.
-Large Collidable Structure icons are difficult to discern, either in space or in the overview list itself.
-The pod icon, most of the structure icons, and the asteroid icons feel like they are cramming too many lines and pixels into far too small of a space, leaving the impression of a blurry mess to my eyes. I realise that my eyes aren't the clearest 20-20 vision but surely you must understand many people play with less than perfect vision.
-While the drones icons are quite nice, as are the sun and acceleration gate icons, they too suffer from the too many pixels making it seem blurry issue that I have.
-NPCs are NOT easily discerned. I play zoomed out fairly far and when arriving at a gate, I had a rather difficult time telling player battleships apart from the Concord battleships present. Now I know some people will say i merely need to assign colours to players so I can tell them apart from NPCs but really, the previous system of crosses and rectangular brackets worked very well, I do not see why that had to be removed in place of a barely discernible difference as this one is.
-I believe in the case of overview icons that less is more. While it's nice that the various types of drones are differentiated, the various sizes of asteroids and ice are indicated, and we get a new icon for corpses ... I don't see that they were necessary. I only need to know whether it is a drone, not what kind of drone; I only need to know that it's an asteroid, I don't need to know it's size.
-I can see that the old brackets left a lot to be desired in terms of describing what you are looking at. However, the old brackets and pluses and drone xs had this advantage: that they were INSTANTLY discernible. You never had trouble telling apart Concord from player battleships at a gate. You KNEW instantly that it was a drone and not a frigate orbiting you. They were also not blurry to look at.
-for the love of god WHY did you take the triangle icon from the Mobile Tractor Unit and make it the frigate icon? I STILL start wondering why MTUs are shooting at me as soon as I see them on grid and I've been playing daily, which you'd think would be enough time to get used to that particularly nefarious change. If you had to reuse that triangle, could you perhaps have put it on something that wasn't piloted by a player?
-WRECKS. The extra pixels in wrecks are wholly unnecessary. Again, blurry and harder to make out.

I'm sure that's a lot of feedback but I'm really looking forward to reading this blog post. I'm getting cynical already and I'm not nearly old enough to be a bittervet but so far, the response from devs has been so underwhelming that I'm half expecting a post that doesn't address any player concerns at all.


We absolutely do care and player feedback has not been discarded, although hands up we could have been better at replying to this thread.

The blog will be both, why we did it, and after reading your concerns and feedback what we plan to do.
We understand that NPC are not distinguishable enough and that is high on our list to improve. We are also looking at drones.

Hopefully the blog will cover your concerns. We will be looking for more feedback like this once we have published it.

Quality Assurance Analyst Team Psycho Sisters
Lara Divinity
Pidgeon Cartel
#1664 - 2015-06-16 11:54:32 UTC
thumbs up for tracking camera fix +1
this is raising hope
Steijn
Quay Industries
#1665 - 2015-06-16 11:55:44 UTC
CCP Claymore wrote:
Iphigeneia wrote:
CCP Claymore wrote:
Hey everyone,

Apologies for the silence about the icons but we have been following this thread with great interest.

We have been listening to your feedback and discussing where to go from here. We had a very productive meeting with the CSM last week about the current icon situation and the release of them. There will be a blog coming out once we have dotted the i's and crossed the t's where we will explain why we changed them and improvements we plan to implement from the feedback received on this thread.

Please keep giving us the constructive feedback you have supplied so far.


And presumably this blog will also explain why player feedback was discarded? I'm greatly interested to hear the answer on that one, as I've been following this thread and it sounds to me as though player reaction has been primarily (not completely or unanimously, however) averse to these new icons, while CCP reaction to feedback has been "we don't care." Now if that's not true I'm happy to be proven wrong, but as a rather new player I'm a bit discouraged that this situation with the icons -- something a lot of people have difficulty with -- will seemingly be glossed over with a "this is why we did it" blog post instead of a "we hear your concerns and this is how we'll fix it" post.

The icons are blurry, messy, and make it far more difficult to discern quickly what is in front of me. I too have considered removing the icon tab altogether as not having them, frankly, seems preferable to being bewildered by them. No, I have not scaled my UI to 90% and I still say they are blurry. I play on a 1920 x 1080 resolution screen and daily find myself wishing for the clearness of the old brackets. Instead of mousing over to determine frigate/destroyer, as with the old system, I now find myself mousing over to determine battleship, cruiser, or battlecruiser.
Specifically:
-Battleship icon does not convey a much larger size vessel than a cruiser/battlecruiser icon. I recognise this one may simply be personal opinion but I keep wanting to think the house shap is a battleship and not a cruiser, just because it "feels" like a larger vessel than that rhomboid shape which is the battleship.
-Large Collidable Structure icons are difficult to discern, either in space or in the overview list itself.
-The pod icon, most of the structure icons, and the asteroid icons feel like they are cramming too many lines and pixels into far too small of a space, leaving the impression of a blurry mess to my eyes. I realise that my eyes aren't the clearest 20-20 vision but surely you must understand many people play with less than perfect vision.
-While the drones icons are quite nice, as are the sun and acceleration gate icons, they too suffer from the too many pixels making it seem blurry issue that I have.
-NPCs are NOT easily discerned. I play zoomed out fairly far and when arriving at a gate, I had a rather difficult time telling player battleships apart from the Concord battleships present. Now I know some people will say i merely need to assign colours to players so I can tell them apart from NPCs but really, the previous system of crosses and rectangular brackets worked very well, I do not see why that had to be removed in place of a barely discernible difference as this one is.
-I believe in the case of overview icons that less is more. While it's nice that the various types of drones are differentiated, the various sizes of asteroids and ice are indicated, and we get a new icon for corpses ... I don't see that they were necessary. I only need to know whether it is a drone, not what kind of drone; I only need to know that it's an asteroid, I don't need to know it's size.
-I can see that the old brackets left a lot to be desired in terms of describing what you are looking at. However, the old brackets and pluses and drone xs had this advantage: that they were INSTANTLY discernible. You never had trouble telling apart Concord from player battleships at a gate. You KNEW instantly that it was a drone and not a frigate orbiting you. They were also not blurry to look at.
-for the love of god WHY did you take the triangle icon from the Mobile Tractor Unit and make it the frigate icon? I STILL start wondering why MTUs are shooting at me as soon as I see them on grid and I've been playing daily, which you'd think would be enough time to get used to that particularly nefarious change. If you had to reuse that triangle, could you perhaps have put it on something that wasn't piloted by a player?
-WRECKS. The extra pixels in wrecks are wholly unnecessary. Again, blurry and harder to make out.

I'm sure that's a lot of feedback but I'm really looking forward to reading this blog post. I'm getting cynical already and I'm not nearly old enough to be a bittervet but so far, the response from devs has been so underwhelming that I'm half expecting a post that doesn't address any player concerns at all.


We absolutely do care and player feedback has not been discarded, although hands up we could have been better at replying to this thread.

The blog will be both, why we did it, and after reading your concerns and feedback what we plan to do.
We understand that NPC are not distinguishable enough and that is high on our list to improve. We are also looking at drones.

Hopefully the blog will cover your concerns. We will be looking for more feedback like this once we have published it.



are you going to reinstate the old icons, even if only as a temporary measure?
Lexiana Del'Amore
Nouvelle Rouvenor
#1666 - 2015-06-16 11:55:47 UTC
The old icon's are superior in every single aspect...

Not only that but the red cross was as iconic to eve as many of the ships we have all come to love over the years...

The new systems tries and fails to convey the information needed to properly play this game...

please please please... with sugar on top... revert to the previous overview package.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1667 - 2015-06-16 12:06:02 UTC
CCP Claymore wrote:
Hey everyone,

Apologies for the silence about the icons but we have been following this thread with great interest.

We have been listening to your feedback and discussing where to go from here. We had a very productive meeting with the CSM last week about the current icon situation and the release of them. There will be a blog coming out once we have dotted the i's and crossed the t's where we will explain why we changed them and improvements we plan to implement from the feedback received on this thread.

Please keep giving us the constructive feedback you have supplied so far.

Looking forward to your blog, I think you got the pain points now.... but what I do not understand, why only now? The same quality feedback was given already weeks ago in the SiSi feedback thread. What sense does it make for us to test and give feedback there, if the changes go live anyway unaltered? Please go meet your colleagues working on the map, who acted a lot more clever to survive the field test by making the map optional.

I'm my own NPC alt.
Eraza
Fuzzyness Enterprizes
#1668 - 2015-06-16 12:11:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Eraza
CCP:
To put my problem with the new UI, both ship/item icons and the new neocom icons, as simply as I can:

I can NOT tell the new ones apart with my peripheral vision, like I could with the old ones.
Now, I NEED to focus on the area in question, and this slows me down in an annoying way I cant compensate for.

There is sadly no amount of practice that will get me over that, they all look the same until I focus on them.


Example:
Before this change, if I wanted to target all the crusiers, I had a feel for where they were immediately, and just targeted them.
With the new version, I need to look at the icon/name list, and then GET a feel for what I'm up against.
THEN I need to decide what my priorities are, AFTER looking at and reading the list.
This is a VERY infuriating extra step, that's slowing me down considerably.


And practice will not help, this is a visual problem.
The new icons are all very pretty, I'll give you that.
But the sizes and shapes are so similar, that my PERIPHERAL VISION, cant tell them apart.
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
#1669 - 2015-06-16 12:17:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Lil' Brudder Too
CCP Claymore wrote:

We absolutely do care and player feedback has not been discarded, although hands up we could have been better at replying to this thread.

The blog will be both, why we did it, and after reading your concerns and feedback what we plan to do.
We understand that NPC are not distinguishable enough and that is high on our list to improve. We are also looking at drones.

Hopefully the blog will cover your concerns. We will be looking for more feedback like this once we have published it.

Orly? Then why was the only change the "pacman" stargate from the original plan after nearly a months worth of the EXACT SAME feedback while it was on SiSi...i didn't see much response from CCP in the very thread YOU created for this same version while it was on SISi.

Why are you waiting that long? Just revert NOW, let people get back to enjoying the game they pay for (those that have not decided to leave because of this), then take the time to 'dot the i's and t's. Not the other way around.

If you cared soo much about player feedback, then what exactly did you do for the past 6 weeks after initially receiving said feedback. The only obvious change was the stargates, thats it. Period. There were/are much bigger functionality issues than the look of the pacman stargate. Why did you feel the need to push it anyways, if player feedback was soo important? (and it was begging you to use the 'rapid cadence' to delay it a bit to make it not crappy)

Note also, there were many valid concerns about the previous attempt (ISIS icons) that were still valid problems with the new set, its like you simply covered your ears and ignored ALL of the advice we that spent many hours/days giving you good solid feedback while this stuff was still on SiSi. This wreaks of the same old "we at CCP know better than you, and simply don't believe your feedback."

Best solution would have been to roll them back, THEN have the desired discussions as to how to 'improve' them...as stated before, the utter disregard for any help the player base tried to give you to improve these well before they were pushed to TQ, then after, is the straw that broke my will to continue to pay CCP $400 a year for subscriptions. Sorry, but in your arrogance and pride, not wanting to admit it was bad, when you should have known it, smells of the arrogance that CCP has displayed numerous times in the past, and i refuse to pay my hard earned money to be treated like that repeatedly.

New Icon SiSi feedback thread that got wholly ignored!

An example of that a good ship icon set looks like.
Steijn
Quay Industries
#1670 - 2015-06-16 12:39:56 UTC
funny how CCP can answer a post slagging them off within 15 minutes, but ask them a question and they just ignore you.

I dont like to see any firm go bust, but you deserve to because of your total disregard to the people who pay your wages.
Eraza
Fuzzyness Enterprizes
#1671 - 2015-06-16 12:45:25 UTC
Steijn wrote:
funny how CCP can answer a post slagging them off within 15 minutes, but ask them a question and they just ignore you.

I dont like to see any firm go bust, but you deserve to because of your total disregard to the people who pay your wages.

Someone over there seems to have noticed that tempers in this thread were slowly rising, not cooling off, like they perhaps hoped :)
Panterata
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1672 - 2015-06-16 12:47:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Panterata
You need more feedback??!! But you have ONLY 83 pages feedbacks.. you need more?!

I will give you one constructive feedback with simple words.

- we don't need your blogs
- we DO NOT ask you why you made this changes on the icons
- we WANT our old icons BACK
CCP Claymore
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1673 - 2015-06-16 13:46:44 UTC
Quote:

are you going to reinstate the old icons, even if only as a temporary measure?


The simple answer at the moment is no.

Without going into too much detail as the blog will cover it, we have ideas to simplify the current system from the feedback on this thread and discussions from the CSM.

Quality Assurance Analyst Team Psycho Sisters
CCP Claymore
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1674 - 2015-06-16 13:52:13 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
CCP Claymore wrote:
Hey everyone,

Apologies for the silence about the icons but we have been following this thread with great interest.

We have been listening to your feedback and discussing where to go from here. We had a very productive meeting with the CSM last week about the current icon situation and the release of them. There will be a blog coming out once we have dotted the i's and crossed the t's where we will explain why we changed them and improvements we plan to implement from the feedback received on this thread.

Please keep giving us the constructive feedback you have supplied so far.

Looking forward to your blog, I think you got the pain points now.... but what I do not understand, why only now? The same quality feedback was given already weeks ago in the SiSi feedback thread. What sense does it make for us to test and give feedback there, if the changes go live anyway unaltered? Please go meet your colleagues working on the map, who acted a lot more clever to survive the field test by making the map optional.


So we were using feedback on SISI and made changes on individual icons and they did change from the first iteration to the release all based on feedback from SISI.

Perhaps we could and should have done more to address the issues we are now seeing are real issues, we will strive our hardest to make the icons better, at the moment reverting them back is not an option we are considering.

Quality Assurance Analyst Team Psycho Sisters
DemetRYS
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1675 - 2015-06-16 13:54:25 UTC  |  Edited by: DemetRYS
CCP Claymore wrote:
Quote:

are you going to reinstate the old icons, even if only as a temporary measure?


The simple answer at the moment is no.

Without going into too much detail as the blog will cover it, we have ideas to simplify the current system from the feedback on this thread and discussions from the CSM.


In other words you value the feeling of you art department over the wishes of you paying customers.

I sincerely hope this is reflected in your company's sales figures.
Panterata
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1676 - 2015-06-16 13:55:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Panterata
CCP Claymore wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
CCP Claymore wrote:
Hey everyone,

Apologies for the silence about the icons but we have been following this thread with great interest.

We have been listening to your feedback and discussing where to go from here. We had a very productive meeting with the CSM last week about the current icon situation and the release of them. There will be a blog coming out once we have dotted the i's and crossed the t's where we will explain why we changed them and improvements we plan to implement from the feedback received on this thread.

Please keep giving us the constructive feedback you have supplied so far.

Looking forward to your blog, I think you got the pain points now.... but what I do not understand, why only now? The same quality feedback was given already weeks ago in the SiSi feedback thread. What sense does it make for us to test and give feedback there, if the changes go live anyway unaltered? Please go meet your colleagues working on the map, who acted a lot more clever to survive the field test by making the map optional.


So we were using feedback on SISI and made changes on individual icons and they did change from the first iteration to the release all based on feedback from SISI.

Perhaps we could and should have done more to address the issues we are now seeing are real issues, we will strive our hardest to make the icons better, at the moment reverting them back is not an option we are considering.


Loolll you have soo many like's on your post and I see that a lot of ppl are agree with you!!! (ironic) Jesus

Again you will not hearing the people who are your employers!
Eke Patang
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1677 - 2015-06-16 14:08:21 UTC
CCP Claymore wrote:
Iphigeneia wrote:
CCP Claymore wrote:
Hey everyone,

Apologies for the silence about the icons but we have been following this thread with great interest.

We have been listening to your feedback and discussing where to go from here. We had a very productive meeting with the CSM last week about the current icon situation and the release of them. There will be a blog coming out once we have dotted the i's and crossed the t's where we will explain why we changed them and improvements we plan to implement from the feedback received on this thread.

Please keep giving us the constructive feedback you have supplied so far.


And presumably this blog will also explain why player feedback was discarded? I'm greatly interested to hear the answer on that one, as I've been following this thread and it sounds to me as though player reaction has been primarily (not completely or unanimously, however) averse to these new icons, while CCP reaction to feedback has been "we don't care." Now if that's not true I'm happy to be proven wrong, but as a rather new player I'm a bit discouraged that this situation with the icons -- something a lot of people have difficulty with -- will seemingly be glossed over with a "this is why we did it" blog post instead of a "we hear your concerns and this is how we'll fix it" post.

The icons are blurry, messy, and make it far more difficult to discern quickly what is in front of me. I too have considered removing the icon tab altogether as not having them, frankly, seems preferable to being bewildered by them. No, I have not scaled my UI to 90% and I still say they are blurry. I play on a 1920 x 1080 resolution screen and daily find myself wishing for the clearness of the old brackets. Instead of mousing over to determine frigate/destroyer, as with the old system, I now find myself mousing over to determine battleship, cruiser, or battlecruiser.
Specifically:
-Battleship icon does not convey a much larger size vessel than a cruiser/battlecruiser icon. I recognise this one may simply be personal opinion but I keep wanting to think the house shap is a battleship and not a cruiser, just because it "feels" like a larger vessel than that rhomboid shape which is the battleship.
-Large Collidable Structure icons are difficult to discern, either in space or in the overview list itself.
-The pod icon, most of the structure icons, and the asteroid icons feel like they are cramming too many lines and pixels into far too small of a space, leaving the impression of a blurry mess to my eyes. I realise that my eyes aren't the clearest 20-20 vision but surely you must understand many people play with less than perfect vision.
-While the drones icons are quite nice, as are the sun and acceleration gate icons, they too suffer from the too many pixels making it seem blurry issue that I have.
-NPCs are NOT easily discerned. I play zoomed out fairly far and when arriving at a gate, I had a rather difficult time telling player battleships apart from the Concord battleships present. Now I know some people will say i merely need to assign colours to players so I can tell them apart from NPCs but really, the previous system of crosses and rectangular brackets worked very well, I do not see why that had to be removed in place of a barely discernible difference as this one is.
-I believe in the case of overview icons that less is more. While it's nice that the various types of drones are differentiated, the various sizes of asteroids and ice are indicated, and we get a new icon for corpses ... I don't see that they were necessary. I only need to know whether it is a drone, not what kind of drone; I only need to know that it's an asteroid, I don't need to know it's size.
-I can see that the old brackets left a lot to be desired in terms of describing what you are looking at. However, the old brackets and pluses and drone xs had this advantage: that they were INSTANTLY discernible. You never had trouble telling apart Concord from player battleships at a gate. You KNEW instantly that it was a drone and not a frigate orbiting you. They were also not blurry to look at.
-for the love of god WHY did you take the triangle icon from the Mobile Tractor Unit and make it the frigate icon? I STILL start wondering why MTUs are shooting at me as soon as I see them on grid and I've been playing daily, which you'd think would be enough time to get used to that particularly nefarious change. If you had to reuse that triangle, could you perhaps have put it on something that wasn't piloted by a player?
-WRECKS. The extra pixels in wrecks are wholly unnecessary. Again, blurry and harder to make out.

I'm sure that's a lot of feedback but I'm really looking forward to reading this blog post. I'm getting cynical already and I'm not nearly old enough to be a bittervet but so far, the response from devs has been so underwhelming that I'm half expecting a post that doesn't address any player concerns at all.


We absolutely do care and player feedback has not been discarded, although hands up we could have been better at replying to this thread.

The blog will be both, why we did it, and after reading your concerns and feedback what we plan to do.
We understand that NPC are not distinguishable enough and that is high on our list to improve. We are also looking at drones.

Hopefully the blog will cover your concerns. We will be looking for more feedback like this once we have published it.



It's all a bit Hegelian Dialectic really.

You just wanted to change something so you created a problem,we reacted and now we'll get a solution that isn't really what we want but it'll be a compromise that you hope will placate us and make us feel like we achieved something when really we just wanted you to leave things as they were.
Steijn
Quay Industries
#1678 - 2015-06-16 14:10:02 UTC
CCP Claymore wrote:
Quote:

are you going to reinstate the old icons, even if only as a temporary measure?


The simple answer at the moment is no.


then for me, i no longer have any interest in this thread or game.
Rio Bravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1679 - 2015-06-16 14:24:49 UTC
Not to create friction unnecessarily but...

Guys, it's only icons! You gotta keep improving the game, can't stand still. The problem with veteran players is they get in a rut, can't change. CCP can't rest on it's laurels. Any new player at the moment has no idea what old icons your talking about, they just play the game with what they started with. After all, icons just represent what is actually shooting you, no giant mechanic has changed...and there has been a lot of other quality improvements through out the years...that being said, *ahem* Rorqual...

Think of all this as 'Fozzie-sov' for your mind!

lol Lol

“You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. I dig.”  - Clint Eastwood, misquote.
Ben Zaye
Harakiri Cleaning services
#1680 - 2015-06-16 14:27:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Ben Zaye
Thank you CCP for the correction of camera bug.

CCP Claymore, I see in your title you work in quality assurance. Good!, good! In that case, can you tell me when you will correct the poor quality of the new Golems skins (Basic skin and Kaalakiota Golem skin) ?