These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Feedback on the new Overview Brackets

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tara Eves
Republican Guard
Shadow Cartel
#221 - 2015-06-20 16:41:25 UTC
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
The VAST VAST majority of your player base is sayimg NO we dont want these icons....Give us an option to revert and not use your terrible new icons....


This ^^

Your new Icons are a terrible, awful, train-wreck of an idea.

Either roll it back or give us the toggle option so those who want it can select it - just mucking about with what you've described in this dev blog is like attempting to polish a turd.
Jessica Serrato
Serrato Collective
#222 - 2015-06-20 21:34:45 UTC
All Those In Favor of a Roll Back....Reply "Roll Back!"

ROLL BACK!
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#223 - 2015-06-20 23:16:07 UTC
Roll Back!

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Mackenzie Hawkwood
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2015-06-21 02:22:54 UTC
This dev blog's hubris is up there with incarna's $1000 jeans, the 'the users don't know what they need, we do' for derpified inventry's X-tree gold port or the 'It would be a Cop out' response to the calls for an off switch for the jump animation. Not much point to feedback if it is only going to be ignored as it doesn't toe the company line of all dev's are infallible.

Icons are suppose to make identification of objects simple, a fact that seems to be forgotten or lost in the mission creep of the original idea. Do we really need 12 icons for cans? As an example

I support the calls for a Roll Back or failing that, the ability to switch to the old icon set. The same way we are able to switch between the working old map or the fail new map or the ablity to switch off notificiations, compass, transparency and window blur, sensor overlay and opportunities (thats an other issue in and of itself).

Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that. - Kina Ayami
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#225 - 2015-06-21 03:51:48 UTC
The community outnumber the developers by thousands to one, have more time, more knowledge and charge nothing for their services.

Give us the ability to fully customize the UI, including the icons and brackets. Make the customization shareable and then leave it to us.

Shipping us a centrally mandated UI does not work, because one size does not fit all.

With a customizable UI, those that want to play with a classic skin can, those that want to play with a Caynyx skin can and those like me that think both are terrible are would really like to see a decent UI in EVE for once can make their own or download the efforts of more talented members of the community.

Stop messing around.
Louanne Barros
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#226 - 2015-06-21 04:10:11 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:

Give us the ability to fully customize the UI, including the icons and brackets. Make the customization shareable and then leave it to us.


This please. Heck, I can even do this in Team Fortress 2.
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#227 - 2015-06-21 06:08:03 UTC
Rat Scout wrote:

And to be even more constructive, I even spent a few minutes in illustrator to draw something up that I would find easy to work with.

http://imgur.com/lMAkjjX

This wouldn't be easy to work with. The key to easy identification in the old icons was the difference in size. If we work from that, icons of bigger ship classes should feel bigger.

Now, in old overview that was working petty well with NPC icons because the size was easily conveyed by the line thickness.
PC brackets - not so much, since when looking at a sole bracket in space (not in the overview) there was no point of reference for the size comparsion.

Your example makes the same mistakes as the new CCP icons - at a quick glance all of that stuff are just similar triangles.

IMHO, to be able to serve as a good ship size indicator, an icon has to have
1) A constant and simple point of reference shared among all the relevant (read: ship) icons.
2) A pronounced HORISONTAL size difference of the main icon element. Why horisontal? Apparently studies show that horizontal and vertical size perception mechanics significantly differ from each other, and a) horizontal perception is more consistent and b) vertical perception is inertial over short periods of time. That is, a vertical size perception of an object is affected by a previously observed object.
3) Only 3 size classes are relevant - per navigation and weapon size. Destroyer and bc icons can be modifications of frig and cruiser icons, but done carefully. That is, the modification must not affect perceived size of an icon. That's where your and CCP icons fail - an auxiliary indicator blends with the icon.
4) Capitals are a different beast altogether and honestly could use a distinct shape of icons.
5) NPC and PC ships need completely different icon sets.

The simplest (but not the best) example of such a system is a set of triangles with an equal height (a common point of reference) but different base (for differentiating size). Better yet, hollow base arrows with different line thickness. For finer class distinction auxiliary tags in the icon top left corner could be used (opposite to bottom right used for colortags. Also in case of arrows the distance to the main part of the icon would be enough to prevent blending).

As for NPCs, just leave the crosses and mark dessies and BCs by filling the cross' top left corner.
Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2015-06-21 06:39:20 UTC
@Torgeir

I agree with your assessment, I merely tried to bring up the issue with the icons that I have, which is inconsistency. I believe that even if they didn't follow your basic rundown on how to create good icons for a large number of "stuff", if they at least made the same categories to use a base shape ( as I tried to use the triangle in all my ship icons ) and have something that is easy to differentiate between them, then people would not be so irritated with this change.

Change is inevitable but it should be progressive in the positive direction overall. If some of the POS icons were confusing, or we had the pacman gates while the ship icons made perfect sense, people wouldn't be so upset, and I am willing to bet Avrue's Token on this.
John Lawyer
Doomheim
#229 - 2015-06-21 07:00:41 UTC
Cleanse Serce wrote:
Ok i made some personnal studyn and here what i came up with :

http://i.imgur.com/ymH9r6M.png?1

I must sadly admit that there're some huge un logic tiny details, that could, if modified, change the whole set-up...

Added suggested layer re-positioning

http://i.imgur.com/QHvv3CK.png?1

Wow, man! Thats the constructive feedback!
Very accurate and intuitive conception.
Be good if people like you worked with CCP.
Mr Mac
Dark Goliath
#230 - 2015-06-21 07:33:37 UTC
I can live with new icons
But I want old capsule icon
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
#231 - 2015-06-21 08:06:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Cleanse Serce
John Lawyer wrote:
Cleanse Serce wrote:
Ok i made some personnal studyn and here what i came up with :

http://i.imgur.com/ymH9r6M.png?1

I must sadly admit that there're some huge un logic tiny details, that could, if modified, change the whole set-up...

Added suggested layer re-positioning

http://i.imgur.com/QHvv3CK.png?1

Wow, man! Thats the constructive feedback!
Very accurate and intuitive conception.
Be good if people like you worked with CCP.



Thank you ! :)

But yeah it might not be seen by CCP.
Even if i did something ok, i forgot some principle like :
- Spreading the Targetting Box to the whole line won't work for the InSpace Brackets, which is a simple square.
It would overcharge the in space informations. If technically faisable though : in overview = line / in space = square, could be awsome in an aesthetic way.

- Using the icone background is already used actually, and i noticed that it's a redudanced information, for instance, in space
you can see your fleet-mates with a purple background AND the fleet icone on the bottom right corner, same with corp mates, etc.
Very dependent to the vhoices the player did to his overview settings.

- The DevBlog and focus of CCP right now, is the readability of the icones and not the overall Overview / Brackets / Colors / Tags / Blinks / etc.., which is a bad way to do this whole revamp.
Even though i'm ok with them, i've noticed that some points could've be enhanced by a great amount while keeping the new shapes.

There are good points though :

- Repositioning the layers if tecnically faisable could give players way more informations. Like a second additional square on the top right or top left corner.
- Harmonizing the UI spirit months ago with the new icone set : add some glowish effects ! It also gives 'furturistic' mood.

The MAIN issue with those icones is not the icones themselvs, it's the fact that people were used to [not icones = player ship] opposed to [icones = in game objects].
Now that player ships get icones, it's disturbing, that's why it could be helpfull (even though i sure it's just a matter of habit) to add a square around the PLAYER SHIP icones like here : http://i.imgur.com/Ljd4GAM.png

- Organize the information.
Tell which thing tell what, and avoid repeated ones.
If you state [background = relationship state] DO NOT allow to say the same info by another way.
If you state [bottom right cornoer icone = standing] then DO NOT allow the background to tell this same information.
Line background = tell which information about the icone ?
Square bacj ground = tell which info on the icone ?
Bottom right icone = ?
Glowing = tell what ?
Blinking = tell what ?
etc...
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#232 - 2015-06-21 08:18:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Bad Bobby wrote:
The community outnumber the developers by thousands to one, have more time, more knowledge and charge nothing for their services.

Give us the ability to fully customize the UI, including the icons and brackets. Make the customization shareable and then leave it to us.

Shipping us a centrally mandated UI does not work, because one size does not fit all.

With a customizable UI, those that want to play with a classic skin can, those that want to play with a Caynyx skin can and those like me that think both are terrible are would really like to see a decent UI in EVE for once can make their own or download the efforts of more talented members of the community.

Stop messing around.


That's something worth noting. In most MMOS, the UI is a client based function: your client gets information ("this is a frigate") and then translates it into a visible element ("display sprite x"). This means that the client can have a custom UI because the server never knows nor cares on what is being displayed by the client. It's simple, sleek, and allows the palyer to do what better suits his needs.

Now, this is CCP. They have very weird ways to do things, like constanlty reinventing the wheel as a irregular polygon. It wouldn't be far fetched that the server managed the sprite as a part of its internal transactions ("this is object X, a bundle of a tag and a client sprite") and thus it was effectively impossible to use different UI sprites since that would mean that the server should be able to interact with all those hybrid objects: server side, "Frigate whose sprite is a cross" would be different than "frigate whose sprite is a triangle". That would make things horribly complicated; client customization would be impossible and coexistence of both interfaces too. It would be very, very !!CCP!! to reinvent the UI wheel like that...

...and my bets are that this is why the CSM and everybody in the knows says that it's impossible to return to the old brackets.

My hopes are that "more visible yellow brackets" are not a threat to the existence of TQ and *eventually* they may become a reality. It grows very tiresome when every single simple thing (as: "players must be able to see the GUI") becomes a struggle between Reality (aka The Players) and CCP.

(CCP developers) "See, we had 50 reasons to make the GUI as it is now, but we may modify a couple pixels if you ask it enough"
(Reality aka The Players) "We can't bloody see the GUI, isn't that enough reason to make it more visible?"
(CCP developers) "But, but... we can see it perfectly, and we had these additional 200 reasons to make it as it is now!"
(CSM to Reality aka The Players) "Seriously guys... CCP is doing their best"
(CSM to CCP developers) "Seriously guys... they can't even see the GUI!"
(Old grizzled CCP veteran) "Don't worry, chaps... the players are always wrong, it's a custom"
(CSM) *facepalm*
(Reality aka The Players) *facepalm*
(CCP developers) *onto new project*

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Panterata
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#233 - 2015-06-21 12:42:05 UTC
Roll back
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#234 - 2015-06-21 14:19:24 UTC
roll back
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
#235 - 2015-06-21 15:22:34 UTC
FOR WARD.
Sophia Mileghere
Scandium Defense and Security Inc.
Sleeper Protocol
#236 - 2015-06-21 15:25:58 UTC
@CCP

Can you tell us, what you are want to do after the 12 pages here and the 95 pages here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=427590&p=96

The Dev Blog was not taken up(accepted) well, so what happens now?
Since the Dev Blog you have written nothing more.
Want you to sit out the problems and annoy the customers or do you come on the persistent criticism?
MaverickScot
Diminishing Returns.
#237 - 2015-06-21 15:50:13 UTC
Sophia Mileghere wrote:
@CCP

Can you tell us, what you are want to do after the 12 pages here and the 95 pages here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=427590&p=96

The Dev Blog was not taken up(accepted) well, so what happens now?
Since the Dev Blog you have written nothing more.
Want you to sit out the problems and annoy the customers or do you come on the persistent criticism?



This
Ahed Sten
#238 - 2015-06-21 16:05:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ahed Sten
This is still a big "**** you" to anyone who dislikes the new icons.

"Okay people, the Eve playerbase hates the new icons. We have to appease them somehow."

"I know, lets write a dev blog about why we made these terrible decisions in the first place. At least we can make it look like our art team has two braincells to rub together. We'll put a gimmicky Eve quote in there to justify our unwillingness to listen to the players, and by the time we're done it won't even matter that we don't change a damn thing."

"I LIKE it. You're promoted, Surge."

This must have been how that conference went...

Edit:

Obvious Rollback
Lexiana Del'Amore
Nouvelle Rouvenor
#239 - 2015-06-21 16:35:26 UTC
Roll Back
Micky Forcet
Fortis fortuna adiuvat
#240 - 2015-06-21 23:11:02 UTC
Roll Back