These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Any word about the old turret icons? (Now with the answer)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2011-09-13 20:43:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Stormshadow
Could someone with the knowledge let me/us know if there are plans to restore these?

The new icons are really messy compared to old ones and really difficult to see in space. I know very few - if any - who would disagree about old icons being better and easier to tell the difference between each other.

edit:
--> Dev answer @ page 4
CCP t0rfifrans wrote:
Guys, we're reverting the icons to the way they were before we introduced the new turrets.

We hoped that the rendered previews would turn out more clearly, but it's evident that usability suffered, and as a result, we're changing them back.

I can't comment exactly on when the change will go out, but it's in the pipe. They look right on dev machines with the latest internal build, at least.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
Baralosus
Caldari Provisions
#2 - 2011-09-13 20:48:38 UTC
I do think the new turret icons need looked at. They shouldn't revert to the old ones, but make it so that they are easier to distinguish between modules. The laser icons look like camel dung.
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2011-09-13 20:49:47 UTC
Baralosus wrote:
I do think the new turret icons need looked at. They shouldn't revert to the old ones, but make it so that they are easier to distinguish between modules. The laser icons look like camel dung.


Now that is pretty accurate description :)

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
Nyio
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-09-13 20:55:09 UTC
On the first few days after they changed it I would have agreed 100%.
I got used to them now and have no problems with the ones I see.

Perhaps we need a feature where we can choose icon layout? What?

Golem • CCP In-Game Event 2011.11.23 • Nyio • Grenade?
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-09-13 21:00:06 UTC
Baralosus wrote:
I do think the new turret icons need looked at. They shouldn't revert to the old ones, but make it so that they are easier to distinguish between modules. The laser icons look like camel dung.



So let me get this straight. You want CCP to get entirely new icons for the entirely new icons they currently use for the turret icons. Are you sure that it wouldn't be better to have the old icons instead of the new? The old look exactly like a gun. The new ones look like a wookie. And this doesn't maybe change your opinion of the situation?

Don't ban me, bro!
Xander Riggs
Slamtown Federation
#6 - 2011-09-13 21:04:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Xander Riggs
ITT: Easily confused people.

"A man with a drone-boat has nothing but time on his hands."
Xander Riggs
Slamtown Federation
#7 - 2011-09-13 21:04:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Xander Riggs
ITT: Easily confused people.

Edit: Alright, forum, I WILL say it twice, If you insist.

"A man with a drone-boat has nothing but time on his hands."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#8 - 2011-09-13 21:16:28 UTC
Xander Riggs wrote:
ITT: Easily confused people.
No. ITT: people who dislike functional deterioration (because that's what has happened — the new icons pictures are functionally inferior to the old (actual) icons).

…and I don't see the need to create new new ones, when there already exists a full set of icons that match the prevalent UI design. Just go back to using those (and send the person who decided to ditch the icons for pictures as UI elements to a basic class in HMI design).
Baralosus
Caldari Provisions
#9 - 2011-09-13 21:23:09 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Baralosus wrote:
I do think the new turret icons need looked at. They shouldn't revert to the old ones, but make it so that they are easier to distinguish between modules. The laser icons look like camel dung.



So let me get this straight. You want CCP to get entirely new icons for the entirely new icons they currently use for the turret icons. Are you sure that it wouldn't be better to have the old icons instead of the new? The old look exactly like a gun. The new ones look like a wookie. And this doesn't maybe change your opinion of the situation?


I really could give a **** less how CCP wants to do it. Anything would be better than the current ones we have right now.
Xander Riggs
Slamtown Federation
#10 - 2011-09-13 21:55:23 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Xander Riggs wrote:
ITT: Easily confused people.
No. ITT: people who dislike functional deterioration (because that's what has happened — the new icons pictures are functionally inferior to the old (actual) icons).

…and I don't see the need to create new new ones, when there already exists a full set of icons that match the prevalent UI design. Just go back to using those (and send the person who decided to ditch the icons for pictures as UI elements to a basic class in HMI design).


Let me see if I follow you correctly: The new icons are functionally more difficult because they actually look like the things they represent, rather than an abstraction of the weapon type?

"A man with a drone-boat has nothing but time on his hands."
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2011-09-13 22:02:17 UTC
i still have no clue what the weapon icons mean they are terrible, missiles are easy to tell apart though
Meryl SinGarda
Belligerent Underpaid Tactical Team
#12 - 2011-09-13 22:03:44 UTC
You're telling me you'd rather go back to the old, lower quality icons, because you don't have the ability to learn how to distinguish between different things. What did you do when you originally started playing and had no idea what any of these icons meant?

Case closed, /thread.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#13 - 2011-09-13 22:07:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Xander Riggs wrote:
Let me see if I follow you correctly: The new icons
…no, you're not following me correctly. The new pictures are not icons — they're pictures. They do not serve the same function.

Icons are meant to quickly, clearly, and cleanly represent a concept or action, and do so in a way that distinguishes the icon from the rest of the UI and from other icons, even ones that are closely related. The simple the icon can be and still communicate its use and be easily distinguished from the background noise and competing symbols, the better it is.

The old icons did all of that, because they were icons. The new pictures do almost none of it (unsurprisingly since they're not really icons).

So yes, the new pictures are functionally much worse than the old icons at the job of being icons, and yes, for icons, abstraction is better than fidelity.
Meryl SinGarda wrote:
You're telling me you'd rather go back to the old, lower quality icons, because you don't have the ability to learn how to distinguish between different things.
…except that the old icons were of a higher quality. Compare…
Di Mulle
#14 - 2011-09-13 22:09:45 UTC
Xander Riggs wrote:


Let me see if I follow you correctly: The new icons are functionally more difficult because they actually look like the things they represent, rather than an abstraction of the weapon type?



Where you got that fantasy ?
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Xander Riggs
Slamtown Federation
#15 - 2011-09-13 22:10:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Xander Riggs wrote:
Let me see if I follow you correctly: The new icons
…no, you're not following me correctly. The new pictures are not icons — they're pictures. They do not serve the same function.

Icons are meant to quickly, clearly, and cleanly represent a concept or action, and do so in a way that distinguishes the icon from the rest of the UI and from other icons, even ones that are closely related. The simple the icon can be and still communicate its use and be easily distinguished from the background noise and competing symbols, the better it is.

The old icons did all of that, because they were icons. The new pictures do almost none of it (unsurprisingly since they're not really icons).

So yes, the new pictures are functionally much worse than the old icons at the job of being icons.


So, what you're saying is that you're easily confused by pictures of objects. We're back to square one when you say you can't tell really obvious images apart from one another.

ITT: Easily confused and highly defensive people

I bet you argue with your optometrist, too.

"A man with a drone-boat has nothing but time on his hands."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#16 - 2011-09-13 22:13:12 UTC
Xander Riggs wrote:
So, what you're saying
Is that icons should be icons, not pictures.

The new pictures do not serve the purpose they're meant to serve — the old icons did. It's that simple.
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2011-09-13 22:14:22 UTC
Meryl SinGarda wrote:
You're telling me you'd rather go back to the old, lower quality icons, because you don't have the ability to learn how to distinguish between different things. What did you do when you originally started playing and had no idea what any of these icons meant?

Case closed, /thread.

I must borrow this lovely image by Tippia

[img]http://eve.beyondreality.se/incarna/TurretComp.png[/img]

Now... what was the statement about low quality there ?

btw there was thread about this in old assembly hall, but don't really want to start new one... It already made clear that many people seemed to be rather unanimous on the topic.

It just would be nice to know is this topic burried for good or are there any plans to do _something_.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
Xander Riggs
Slamtown Federation
#18 - 2011-09-13 22:15:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Xander Riggs wrote:
So, what you're saying
Is that icons should be icons, not pictures.

The new pictures do not serve the purpose they're meant to serve — the old icons did. It's that simple.


I am amused that you think a picture cannot be an icon, or that having icon pictures that look like the objects they represent is somehow confusing.

"A man with a drone-boat has nothing but time on his hands."
Xander Riggs
Slamtown Federation
#19 - 2011-09-13 22:19:02 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Meryl SinGarda wrote:
You're telling me you'd rather go back to the old, lower quality icons, because you don't have the ability to learn how to distinguish between different things. What did you do when you originally started playing and had no idea what any of these icons meant?

Case closed, /thread.

I must borrow this lovely image by Tippia

[img]http://eve.beyondreality.se/incarna/TurretComp.png[/img]

Now... what was the statement about low quality there ?

btw there was thread about this in old assembly hall, but don't really want to start new one... It already made clear that many people seemed to be rather unanimous on the topic.

It just would be nice to know is this topic burried for good or are there any plans to do _something_.


Yes, the old ones were low quality. When you see those new icons there? Yeah, that's exactly what it will look like when it's on your ship. I fail to see how this is SO UTTERLY CONFUSING.

I thought gamers were in general afraid of change, but this takes it to a whole new level of absurdity.

"A man with a drone-boat has nothing but time on his hands."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#20 - 2011-09-13 22:21:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Xander Riggs wrote:
I am amused that you think a picture cannot be an icon
So I take it you argue with you optometrist, or every other professional you come across. This is UI design 101. A picture makes a horrible icon for the simple reason that they're not simple. There's too much noise; too much detail; too much useless pixels; too much information loss at different sizes and scales.

If you want to use a picture as a basis for an icon, that's fine, but you will have to refine it something immensely and simplify and refine the defining characteristics to the bare minimums. Otherwise, it fails as an icon.
Quote:
or that having icon pictures that look like the objects they represent is somehow confusing.
Except, of course, that this is not what I'm saying — that's what you're saying.

What I'm saying is that pictures are not icons because they fail to do all the things an icon needs to do.
Quote:
Yes, the old ones were low quality. When you see those new icons there? Yeah, that's exactly what it will look like when it's on your ship. I fail to see how this is SO UTTERLY CONFUSING.
…except, of course, that what they look on your ship is entirely irrelevant for what the icon is there to do. Why are you so confused by having an icon that means “Large Long-range Laser Turret”? Why are you so confused by having an icon that stands out against its background? Why are you so confused by clarity?

So no, the new ones are not of a higher quality — they are of a higher detail level, which actually means they're lower-quality icons.
123Next pageLast page