EVE Information Portal

We realize there’s a huge strategic differences between ships of different tech levels and faction ships even though they carry the same base hull. And we want to figure out how we can include that information as well. One option on the table is simply adding a new overview column for tech type. This way the info can be toggle-able for those who want it, and won’t further complicate the already attribute-dense icon space.

Yep. These icons are what we're getting, the blog and feedback thread is just a kind of courtesy because CCP are still trying to make players think they have a say in the direction of their game.

The UI icon changes alone show CCP don't really care what players think or want.
Feedback in that thread was majorly against the changes but CCP had already made their decision and now we just have to live with it.

According to Dev feeback, these changes are for a specific technology which most of us won't consider using for 4 or 5 years due to the current cost of the technology. The majority will just have to suffer crappy looking, limited information icons so the minority can have icons that look good in a 4k monitor.

- - - - - - - - - -
Adding another column to the overview to for tech type?
Who are these geniuses ?

That sounds nice on paper, but falls flat on its face when it comes in contact with reality.

Of the things you listed, only one is of any real importance: ships. The others can be mashed into the same category of “stuff you might want to see, but no-one really cares and they'll all be properly marked at all times anyway”. As such, using a single shape for each of those categories is an immense waste of visual communication, and you've assigned by far the worst one to the one that, also by far, needs to be the most obvious and clear. You don't want them to be unified because that defeats the purpose of being able to spot the differences immediately.

So, again, pick a better shape than a thin triangle to represent ships. Then pick two or three more. Then let all of them represent various types of ships. Use the triangle for something where relative difference isn't particularly important (celestials come to mind, or hey: deployables — wrecks are already triangles so just expand that theme to apply to all kinds of containers). Whatever shapes are left over can be spread out over the stuff that lacks representation.

For ships, you must have a more complex language than just relative size and minute markings to create the distinctions you're after. Using different shapes trivially achieves this. Or pattern repetitions. Or increased polygonality. Anything, really, except thinner and thicker triangles with tiny decorations.

Also, the invader guys for drones are cute, but I get the distinct impression that it will clash to easily with the many other chunky icons that you have to create. In all honesty what was wrong with the thin ‘X’? Compared to the boxes and +:es, It communicated fairly well that this was something related to ships, but smaller. The invaders might conceivably work like this in relation to the triangle-ships, but the triangle-ships have to go because they don't work…


One problem with that strategy: they're not familiar. Another problem: they are almost completely unsuited for the kind of busy environment that the overview and in-space brackets offer. They work well enough when kept clearly separated against a carefully chosen monochrome background and when they can be allowed to be shown at full size.

None of those conditions hold true for where the icons have to show.

So what you should be doing is start in space, make them work there, and then put those icons in ISIS. If this means dumping the current ISIS icons, then so what? They're a very recent addition that holds no real significance or value, and they can replace without any loss of familiarity. Everyone will have to relearn anyway, so you might as well start with something good rather than cling to something that doesn't work.

Anyway, the thing is that allowing scaling doesn't actually solve the problem: that they are indistinct and that ostensibly crucial markings are lost in the cluotter at their smallest size. This is still a problem you have to address, and it's yet another reason why scaled-down ISIS icons are not the way to go. So honestly, suck it up, dump the old and create something new from the ground up — something that is actually designed with this purpose in mind — then put that into ISIS to achieve the recognition you're trying to achieve.

Poorly.

They get lost against any busy background — say, a planet, or a star field, or a nebula, or a gas cloud, or a station, or an asteroid field. They get lost against each other — overlaps just become a writhing mass of indistinct arrow-shaped noise covered up a smear of colour. They get lost when superimposed on top of the ships they represent. They get lost against colour markings and tags, which almost all except NPCs ships have, and which wipe out or cover up many of the minute distinguishing features they're supposed to have. They get lost anywhere there are NPC ships since they're the same icons. They require a point of reference since they rely on relative size — anything on its own is unnecessarily hard to identify. In the overview, there's a minute improvement over the bracket use since they don't line up properly, and you can use the uneven justification to figure out which ships are bigger than which… but again, since this is a relative difference, any ship on its own becomes needlessly difficult again. And of course, the colouration and tags cover them up just as much in the overview as in open space.

The idea of condensing the differentiating items into a second overview icon column, will be much smaller than that column, and simplify the primary icon, by seperating out the secondary attributes, to this new icon column. If done well, this would tell you the critical information at a glance, and offering the secondary info into an easily differentiated new icon, rather than overloading the primary with so much info that all is lost in the confusion.

Up next: I'm really curious about how the new icons perform in the field. We will be scheduling a mass test on Singularity for this on Thursday (more info on exactly when to come). And I'd be happy if you guys jumped in there and posted your reactions after checking them out in a live fleet engagement.

Looks like 2013 was the year when CCP Arrow & co did the overview job.