These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Overview Filters

First post First post
Author
CCP Arrow
C C P
C C P Alliance
#101 - 2013-06-02 11:10:02 UTC
I endorse the idea of adding our Smart Filters to the Overview and allowing more contextual sorting. If we get to work on the Overview in the near future, this would be the kind of thing I would want to do to improve it.

I also hope our new Ship Group icons will eventually make it into the Overview, allowing players to read instantly what type of ships are around them. But first we need to make sure they are good enough in a feature that isn't as critical as the Overivew. So once we have released them in some way or form and evaluated their usefulness, then I would want to see them used in the Tactical Overlay and the Overiew.

CCP Arrow   |   Director of User Experience   |   EVE Online   |   @CCP_Arrow

Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#102 - 2013-06-02 12:04:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
the ship info panels could be helpful but not if they interrupt quick selection in the overview window.

i think the icons for the shiptype we are seeing on the overview should be reworked. The destroyer icon is too large, and they are in general too vague to draw much from.

building on a previous picture, it would be nice if the icons depended on the hull size (as they pretty much do currently) but with the added bonus of looking fairly distinctive for each hull size. My mockup isn't that great, but it should be reasonable to illustrate how distinctive each icon on the overview for player ships should be.

http://i.imgur.com/gegSlMJ.png

I guess the industrial icons sort of look like the station Icon, but either could change or both just left the same.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us

SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#103 - 2013-06-02 12:17:59 UTC
CCP Arrow, please look at this thing :

Supreme Commander Strategic Icons

This is a list of strategic icons in the RTS Supreme Commander.

This is how it looks like ingame :

Zoomed out view

As you can see, this is very easy to read. Any semi-competent player will notice where the blue defensive line is, what the attacking forces' units are.

Just imagine, Goonswarm's Tengus (Trapezoids) supported by Huginns (Diamonds), Scimitars (Squares) and some interceptors (acute isoceles triangles, because they're fast).

Now that's easy to read. You can see what their interceptors are going, how the logistics are placed and all that stuff.

You can even use Supreme Commanders' system for Tech 1/2 differentiation. Add small white tabs under the strategic icons. 0 for Tech I, 2 for Tech II, 3 for Tech III.

Done.
Chitsa Jason
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#104 - 2013-06-04 20:08:47 UTC
I will be following this thread as it seems a lot of good ideas are here. I will make sure to put them to CCP.

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me

Taliah Meyhin
#105 - 2013-06-07 15:27:43 UTC
Thank you, Chitsa Jason for your help.
Taliah Meyhin
#106 - 2013-06-15 06:05:48 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2013-06-15 06:27:43 UTC
Something I noticed about the current overviews (Crucible/Retribution) is that there are conflicting filters that are somewhat confusing, and also lots of filters not listed in the options. For instance, I made an overview filter setting and selected all hostile NPCs to show in it, selecting all categories listed of those NPCs. But not a single NPC ship showed at first, I had to right click every kind as I encountered them and select 'add to overview'. This is because the categories in the filter settings only included general types, like asteroid pirates, or mission pirates. But the actual pirates were set up by ship size and faction, ie. Asteroid Sansha Battleship.

So I spent two whole expansions adding ships to my overview, and am probably not done yet. I don't want to have to go through that again, so please make all options available in the settings menus, and if there are overlapping settings, setting one on or off should toggle the others it applies to, ie. setting asteroid pirates on should turn Asteroid Sansha Battleship on.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Josef Djugashvilis
#108 - 2013-06-15 06:40:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
CCP Arrow wrote:
I endorse the idea of adding our Smart Filters to the Overview and allowing more contextual sorting. If we get to work on the Overview in the near future, this would be the kind of thing I would want to do to improve it.

I also hope our new Ship Group icons will eventually make it into the Overview, allowing players to read instantly what type of ships are around them. But first we need to make sure they are good enough in a feature that isn't as critical as the Overivew. So once we have released them in some way or form and evaluated their usefulness, then I would want to see them used in the Tactical Overlay and the Overiew.



Do you have any idea of a time scale for any of this?

Even to state that it is intended to be done within the next year would at least give us all something to look forward to.

Once again, I would like to thank all those who have come up with such excellent proposals to improve the overviews.

This is not a signature.

Taliah Meyhin
#109 - 2013-06-23 10:53:21 UTC
Josef, I don't think you'll get an answer from developers (not because CCP devs are haughty but because (I think) they rarely browse the forum).

After all these months since this thread has been created, it seems only CCP Arrow knows about it..
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2013-06-23 19:41:18 UTC
They view it a lot more than you see them respond. If you ask for a blue response to a valid question, there is a good chance you'll get one.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Domin Paaltomo
Black Scorpion Society
#111 - 2013-06-25 18:32:54 UTC
Like this +100
Rammix
TheMurk
#112 - 2013-06-25 23:39:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Rammix
Taliah Meyhin wrote:

text
betoli wrote:
Colour icons, user definable icons - I want to be able to identify classes of ship easily - I want to use icon X for interceptors and icon Y for logi. A simple pattern match against ship type to set the icon, or the default ones for no matches.


Go away from eve with your unicornic rainbow colors. Eve is a dark spaceship game and multicolor madness doesn't suit to the dark style of its interface.
It's a complex game, just LEARN shiptypes. You reminded me of someone who wanted an indicator or smth like that which would let him know if someone's actively searching for him in the system. Lol

Taliah Meyhin wrote:

>other parts of text<

All of this is pointless except quick filter box for typing. Pointless - because it can be done with existing filters and tabs (maybe not very "easily" but eve is not about "easiness", it's about using your brain instead of having everything ready under your hand). I know because I use it to - almost - full extent: 5 tabs, several thematic filters in each tab. It can cover everything you need and comfortably enough. If it can't - then you're doing it wrong.

p.s. Didn't read the whole topic.

OpenSUSE Leap 42.1, wine >1.9

Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread

Taliah Meyhin
#113 - 2013-06-26 17:31:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Taliah Meyhin
Rammix wrote:

All of this is pointless except quick filter box for typing. Pointless - because it can be done with existing filters and tabs (maybe not very "easily" but eve is not about "easiness", it's about using your brain instead of having everything ready under your hand). I know because I use it to - almost - full extent: 5 tabs, several thematic filters in each tab. It can cover everything you need and comfortably enough. If it can't - then you're doing it wrong.

p.s. Didn't read the whole topic.


First of all, thanks for liking the idea to add the Quick Filter Box.

Now, I have to say that I completely - totally - absolutely disagree with your point of view when you say that "eve is not about easiness".

Well, in fact, you are right, it's unfortunately how it currently is. And I think that's a problem. EVE shouldn't be only aimed at hardcore 4X pro gamers.

The number of EVE players could even increase if the game was more accessible to the majority of people. It makes no sense to keep a feature in the game that frustrates players (and I think the Overview is one of them).

Of course you can customize the Overview, using the 5 available tabs, etc.. but frankly setting it up is a nightmare.

The more user-friendlyness CCP devs will add to the game (I am not saying CCP should add wizards or automation systems to play instead of players), the more players will enjoy their daily dip in the EVE universe.

Frustration = no fun = players unhappy
User-Friendly UIs = actions quickly executed = faster reactions during battles = players happy
Rammix
TheMurk
#114 - 2013-06-26 20:32:36 UTC
Taliah Meyhin wrote:
Rammix wrote:

All of this is pointless except quick filter box for typing. Pointless - because it can be done with existing filters and tabs (maybe not very "easily" but eve is not about "easiness", it's about using your brain instead of having everything ready under your hand). I know because I use it to - almost - full extent: 5 tabs, several thematic filters in each tab. It can cover everything you need and comfortably enough. If it can't - then you're doing it wrong.

p.s. Didn't read the whole topic.

EVE shouldn't be only aimed at hardcore 4X pro gamers.

I think EVE must remain an island (pun was not intended Smile ) in mmo gaming which would be oriented mostly to dedicated players and by all means avoid casualization. It's much more interesting to play with/against mature (25-60 y.o.) space sci-fi fans, instead of youngsters.
I can't approve lowering of 'entry barrier'. Eve CAN be improved by making it more comfortable but avoiding casualization has highest possible priority.
I think it should be done this way: if you simplify something or make more comfortable - be certain to add some complexity to the same area and deepen it.

Taliah Meyhin wrote:
The number of EVE players could even increase if the game was more accessible to the majority of people.

Quick growth of popularity means even more quick increase of average stupidity.
As it was said by some wise man, to improve yourself you need to play against stronger opponents.
You - on the contrary - want to invite weaker players, that will make you degrade as well.

Taliah Meyhin wrote:
It makes no sense to keep a feature in the game that frustrates players (and I think the Overview is one of them).

If overview settings and filters frustrate you it means you haven't mastered it decently. I have nothing against current overview, only against its lags.

Taliah Meyhin wrote:
Of course you can customize the Overview, using the 5 available tabs, etc.. but frankly setting it up is a nightmare.
...
... more players ...

Not at all. You really do it once. And while you do it you improve your understanding of game mechanics in general. After that 1st manual setup you just improve and polish it from time to time, until it reaches some optimal state which covers all your needs.

Quantity kills quality. Especially when you try to increase quantity too quickly. Eve still has the potential to gain more players without loss of quality and depth, but it's a relatively slow process which needs a lot more content and diversity (like multi-genre development).

OpenSUSE Leap 42.1, wine >1.9

Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2013-06-27 12:22:00 UTC
A lot of people seem to fall into the trap of thinking that providing ease of access is a slippery slope to making gameplay easier. It's not. Fact of the matter is that no matter how much ease of access you add, the only way to make scrubs play better in comparison to vets is to remove gameplay options and force everyone into a smaller range of gameplay styles. Anything that increases the options players have will invariably work to the net gameplay advantage of expert and veteran players. And anything that does not affect the options but makes them more accessible will generally draw more players with less skill, making the skill of the veterans and experts more apparent in comparison.

World of Warcraft is a testament to this trend, and has demonstrated exactly what will happen when you remove gamplay options as well as what will happen when you make everything more accessible. When at first they made gameplay more accessible, it brought in a wealth of scrubs, but the vets and experts remained solidly on top--the gap between the bottom and the top increased. But when Blizzard took away gameplay options, the gap between the top and the bottom grew steadily smaller.

I bring this up because I believe it is relevant to this discussion. More overview options that do not add info, but help to sort the info you already have and make it easier to process, are a good thing. Do not confuse this with things that add info to the overview that's not supposed to be there. No matter how clear it is what everyone's ship type is at a glance, you will never be able to tell what someone's fit is (beyond an educated guess) without using a ship scanner.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Rammix
TheMurk
#116 - 2013-06-27 20:50:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Rammix
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
A lot of people seem to fall into the trap of thinking that providing ease of access is a slippery slope to making gameplay easier. It's not. Fact of the matter is that no matter how much ease of access you add, the only way to make scrubs play better in comparison to vets is to remove gameplay options and force everyone into a smaller range of gameplay styles. Anything that increases the options players have will invariably work to the net gameplay advantage of expert and veteran players. And anything that does not affect the options but makes them more accessible will generally draw more players with less skill, making the skill of the veterans and experts more apparent in comparison.

I don't care about staying on top or in the middle or wherever.
I do care about average skill and intellect of players. You've read my previous post inattentively. Stronger opponents - more interesting opponents. Noobs can become strong if you don't lower entrance barrier and don't dumb down the game, but if you do lower it newly-coming average players will be weaker and more stupid than current average players.
If you still don't understand what I mean, imagine current minimum of eve players' intellect and skill (from all playerbase) - lowering entrance barrier will decrease that minimum.

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
No matter how clear it is what everyone's ship type is at a glance, you will never be able to tell what someone's fit is (beyond an educated guess) without using a ship scanner.

Players must learn shiptypes - it's just realistic that you need to LEARN if you want to reach something. A noob doesn't need to know all shiptypes, but after some time when he improves his skill and knowledge of the mechanics he will get to know every shiptype (gradually). That's just normal.
Eve is a wonderful game and a wonderful sandbox mostly because it doesn't take your hand to lead you through everything - it introduces some basic things to you but you have to learn deeper details by yourself, with your own brains through your own experience. You casualizators want to break that part.
Eve's interface should become a bit more comfortable but the game itself should NOT become more accessible - it's accessible enough, eve only needs more content and more genres plus more and more depth, diversity to it.

OpenSUSE Leap 42.1, wine >1.9

Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread

Taliah Meyhin
#117 - 2013-07-02 14:04:53 UTC
Taliah Meyhin
#118 - 2013-07-23 15:09:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Taliah Meyhin
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#119 - 2013-07-23 15:51:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
the multiple overview proposal probably ends up doing the same thing but could be easier to use.

imagine you could do the following:
- have as many tabs as you want
- be able to drag a tab out of the overview, creating multiple overview windows

so you could have a window for gates, targets, drones and maybe friends while still having the option to switch between tabs (e.g swap from drones to loot...)

i strongly believe that having multiple small lists is significantly easier to use as having one large list


but i am not against the filter proposal. Having an option to show only the 5 closest targets in one of the overview windows would be kick ass.

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

Taliah Meyhin
#120 - 2013-08-04 09:01:55 UTC
I am a bit sad because I have just discovered that my ideas are not in the list of the 1363 suggestions submitted by players in CSM8's "Reasonable Things" crowdsourcing initiative and of course not in the list of 99 reasonable things that now need to be voted.

I guess I should have discovered this thread earlier..

"99. Every list in the game should have a filter box." seems to match (in a way) some of the ideas of this thread but what about the Smart Filters ? Sad

I thought contacting a CSM member months ago was enough to promote my ideas during the CSM meetings, it seems I was wrong.

Sad sad reality..