These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Stay on Target!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#481 - 2012-10-11 14:07:14 UTC
CCP Prism X wrote:
Why am I saying this? It's not because we've got fragile egos and will cry ourselves to sleep if you don't treat us kindly.

Oh, CCP Guard isn't on your team? Twisted
CCP Prism X wrote:
That being said, I'm no saint. That should be obvious by the fact that I troll my own coworkers.

Every team has that guy. Good teams tolerate him. Great teams celebrate him. Which one is your team?

MDD
Angeliq
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#482 - 2012-10-11 14:08:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
well also allow me to help re-rail the discussion by offering an idea with a few mock up pictures....

http://i.imgur.com/8h0e9.jpg - red
http://i.imgur.com/CoehQ.jpg - orange
http://i.imgur.com/oTOEx.gif - green

Introduce a traffic light system for giving pilots indications of gun/ missile range and tracking. How it would work is as follows:

  • Red: out of falloff range and/or out of tracking speed
  • Orange: In falloff range and/or within +/- 10% of tracking speed
  • Green: In optimal range and/or within tracking speed

This traffic light system would only appear on the selected object and only when either a pilot has moused over a weapon group or has a weapon group activated on a target.
Nice. The colours might need some tweaking for all the usual accessibility and stand-out-against-the-Amarr-nebula reasons, but it's simple and direct.

As you point out, though, the actual “correct” combination might vary with the weapon system so it's important to teach what you want for different weapons — being within optimal with ACs is often, ironically enough, suboptimal. P

Perhaps some of that could be solved by having two of them — one for range and one for tracking — but ugh, clutter. It would certainly be much neater if it could be done like you showed it.


What about color blind ppl?

wow much space very ship such pvp many pew
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#483 - 2012-10-11 14:09:13 UTC
I would also like to see speed and maybe transversal with this new feature. This is important information that helps and would help new players and old as you can see at a glance if your turrets will track the target.
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#484 - 2012-10-11 14:11:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
well also allow me to help re-rail the discussion by offering an idea with a few mock up pictures....

http://i.imgur.com/8h0e9.jpg - red
http://i.imgur.com/CoehQ.jpg - orange
http://i.imgur.com/oTOEx.gif - green

Introduce a traffic light system for giving pilots indications of gun/ missile range and tracking. How it would work is as follows:

  • Red: out of falloff range and/or out of tracking speed
  • Orange: In falloff range and/or within +/- 10% of tracking speed
  • Green: In optimal range and/or within tracking speed

This traffic light system would only appear on the selected object and only when either a pilot has moused over a weapon group or has a weapon group activated on a target.
Nice. The colours might need some tweaking for all the usual accessibility and stand-out-against-the-Amarr-nebula reasons, but it's simple and direct.

As you point out, though, the actual “correct” combination might vary with the weapon system so it's important to teach what you want for different weapons — being within optimal with ACs is often, ironically enough, suboptimal. P

Perhaps some of that could be solved by having two of them — one for range and one for tracking — but ugh, clutter. It would certainly be much neater if it could be done like you showed it.


The range is fixed for the weapons and ammo you use. you should know that before you undock. Displaying this would indeed clutter up the hud imo.

Now tracking, that is an interesting stat to display for the selected target. +1 For this.

Ungi maðurinn þekkir reglurnar, en gamli maðurinn þekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.

Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#485 - 2012-10-11 14:11:45 UTC
space chikun wrote:
I hate to break it to you, I've only heard complaints from a small number of people on the UI. It was difficult to get used to, but once you've actually taken the time to explore its features, it makes a GREAT NUMBER of tasks a LOT easier than before. And a very, very small number a tiny bit more difficult if you're in a hurry.



I hate to break it to you, but if you have only heard a few complaints about the new UI, then you must have been living on an island for the last 6 months. There have been sooo many people on a number of the Eve forums complaining about the UI. There was a thread on the Test server Feedback which reached over a hundred pages saying that the new system was not in a fit condition to be brought onto TQ. They ignored everyone and did it anyway.

Once it was on TQ, CCP pretended to be surprised at the backlash and made hasty “iterations” to try and minimise the damage, promising weekly updates until “we(the players) were happy with it”. Well, surprise surprise, those weekly updates stopped pretty quickly, leaving quite a few promised improvements outstanding, probably never to be implemented.

So, forgive those of us who spent a lot of time testing the UI on SISI (ever heard of it) and giving meaningful feedback, to wonder what’s the point to it all when they will do what they want anyway.

Wake up and smell the coffee dude.
Nnezu
Artificial Memories
#486 - 2012-10-11 14:12:19 UTC
whatever you do at CCP HQ, as long as I can see the distance everytime when the target anchor is set to vertically, I am happypanda for a long time.

atm vertically target list is hiding the distance when name + corp use more than one line
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#487 - 2012-10-11 14:18:42 UTC
CCP Prism X wrote:


I'm probably being a rear-end-hat but it's very annoying to get the same feedback over and over again when you've already acknowledged it. It gives you the feeling that people are not reading the discussion. If they are not reading the discussion, then it's not a discussion but a shouting match.



Ask CCP Community to give you a day moderating the forums and you'll forget about this sensation of "annoying" and it will be replaced by a sensation of Compassion for the Community team and volunteers.

Lol

Where I am.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#488 - 2012-10-11 14:18:48 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nice. The colours might need some tweaking for all the usual accessibility and stand-out-against-the-Amarr-nebula reasons, but it's simple and direct.

As you point out, though, the actual “correct” combination might vary with the weapon system so it's important to teach what you want for different weapons — being within optimal with ACs is often, ironically enough, suboptimal. P

Perhaps some of that could be solved by having two of them — one for range and one for tracking — but ugh, clutter. It would certainly be much neater if it could be done like you showed it.



Slapping a border round any indicators should help differentiate them. Dark around light colours, light around dark colours.

That way you should always see the edges.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#489 - 2012-10-11 14:19:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Angeliq wrote:
What about color blind ppl?
Looking at my simulator, I'd say that he's actually done fairly well. The red and orange are a bit too similar for some of the more common kinds, but it should be fixable.

DeBingJos wrote:
The range is fixed for the weapons and ammo you use. you should know that before you undock. Displaying this would indeed clutter up the hud imo.
Well, yes. I was thinking more along the lines of “I will always be in falloff so I don't care about range that much, but I really care about tracking” (read: I'm using ACs) and being able to say the opposite “I have more than enough tracking, but how close am I to losing damage to falloff” (read: I'm using rails), which that kind of combo-display won't allow — either both are perfect, or you won't know what you need to adjust. And of course, there's always the chance that someone hits you with a TD so your range is no longer what you think it is.

But yeah, limiting it to tracking is probably the better solution to reducing clutter since it's a slightly more complicated factor than range is.
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#490 - 2012-10-11 14:21:46 UTC
Marcel Devereux wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
The red damaged stripes.. why they are not progressing counter clockwise? I think it's more intuitive. All damage is counterclockwise. This new circle indicators are different.
Heat buildup (on the HUD) is like a pressure gauge and builds up clock-wise. Module damage (due to heat) is clock-wise. The new targeting/damage system is clock-wise. The odd one out will be the HUD itself, there damage is counter-clock-wise. Are there any other damage indicators?
I agree that it is the odd one out, but it makes the most sense. Using your example, as heat builds up it is "filling up". Shields, armor, and hull do not "fill up" as they take damage, they deplete. To put it another way. Your modules take heat damage and it is usually represented as X% of heat damage. This starts at 0% and increases until it hits 100%. Shields, armor, and hull start at 100% and deplete to 0%. It is a bit confusing to count up and count down rotate the same way just for the sake of "that is what everything else does but this odd ball". Increasing should be clockwise and decreasing should be counter clockwise.
Yep, that's indeed the opposite argument that has been in internal discussion this morning.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#491 - 2012-10-11 14:24:34 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Marcel Devereux wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
The red damaged stripes.. why they are not progressing counter clockwise? I think it's more intuitive. All damage is counterclockwise. This new circle indicators are different.
Heat buildup (on the HUD) is like a pressure gauge and builds up clock-wise. Module damage (due to heat) is clock-wise. The new targeting/damage system is clock-wise. The odd one out will be the HUD itself, there damage is counter-clock-wise. Are there any other damage indicators?
I agree that it is the odd one out, but it makes the most sense. Using your example, as heat builds up it is "filling up". Shields, armor, and hull do not "fill up" as they take damage, they deplete. To put it another way. Your modules take heat damage and it is usually represented as X% of heat damage. This starts at 0% and increases until it hits 100%. Shields, armor, and hull start at 100% and deplete to 0%. It is a bit confusing to count up and count down rotate the same way just for the sake of "that is what everything else does but this odd ball". Increasing should be clockwise and decreasing should be counter clockwise.
Yep, that's indeed the opposite argument that has been in internal discussion this morning.


Best solution to this would be a cage match. Who ever comes out alive can have it the way they want. Please make a vid of it.
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#492 - 2012-10-11 14:28:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Rommiee
CCP Explorer wrote:
Marcel Devereux wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
The red damaged stripes.. why they are not progressing counter clockwise? I think it's more intuitive. All damage is counterclockwise. This new circle indicators are different.
Heat buildup (on the HUD) is like a pressure gauge and builds up clock-wise. Module damage (due to heat) is clock-wise. The new targeting/damage system is clock-wise. The odd one out will be the HUD itself, there damage is counter-clock-wise. Are there any other damage indicators?
I agree that it is the odd one out, but it makes the most sense. Using your example, as heat builds up it is "filling up". Shields, armor, and hull do not "fill up" as they take damage, they deplete. To put it another way. Your modules take heat damage and it is usually represented as X% of heat damage. This starts at 0% and increases until it hits 100%. Shields, armor, and hull start at 100% and deplete to 0%. It is a bit confusing to count up and count down rotate the same way just for the sake of "that is what everything else does but this odd ball". Increasing should be clockwise and decreasing should be counter clockwise.
Yep, that's indeed the opposite argument that has been in internal discussion this morning.


Or just leave it as it is now – perfectly clear.

CCP, can you please give a logical reason for changing it ?
Izi55IzI
Partizanski odred Slovenije
#493 - 2012-10-11 14:32:36 UTC
can you please make this useless crap optional?

i like the old UI, rectangles and all, the new one imho looks like you let loose a 2 year old with a crayon

also while you're at it please make the popup with range on modules optional as well
Valkyrs
Deep Vein Trading
#494 - 2012-10-11 14:33:52 UTC
Why not use the template that already exists, our own display

Have two smaller arcs above and one below, this implies an order while encompassing the target. Just slap the ship where the capacitor goes and you're set.

If this change does go through and it's not as I've detailed, consider changing the personal layout to match the overlay? to keep things consistent?

Didn't know this change was coming, very excited, I like watching my targets instead of the static images.

Keep up the good work CCP!
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#495 - 2012-10-11 14:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
Angeliq wrote:
Tippia wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
well also allow me to help re-rail the discussion by offering an idea with a few mock up pictures....

http://i.imgur.com/8h0e9.jpg - red
http://i.imgur.com/CoehQ.jpg - orange
http://i.imgur.com/oTOEx.gif - green

Introduce a traffic light system for giving pilots indications of gun/ missile range and tracking. How it would work is as follows and is listed in order of priority, where a higher priority colour overrides a lesser one:

  • Red: out of falloff range and/or out of tracking speed
  • Orange: In falloff range and/or within +/- 10% of tracking speed
  • Green: In optimal range and/or within tracking speed

This traffic light system would only appear on the selected object and only when either a pilot has moused over a weapon group or has a weapon group activated on a target.
Nice. The colours might need some tweaking for all the usual accessibility and stand-out-against-the-Amarr-nebula reasons, but it's simple and direct.

As you point out, though, the actual “correct” combination might vary with the weapon system so it's important to teach what you want for different weapons — being within optimal with ACs is often, ironically enough, suboptimal. P

Perhaps some of that could be solved by having two of them — one for range and one for tracking — but ugh, clutter. It would certainly be much neater if it could be done like you showed it.


What about color blind ppl?


the colours and animations i put is specifically tailored so that ALL colour blindness types can differentiate between them. i would say though that maybe the yellow could have been blinky, but it was made to use colours that have already been used in RL on things that matter when considering colouring (eg traffic lights)
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#496 - 2012-10-11 14:35:18 UTC
CCP Prism X wrote:
Kage Toshimado wrote:
Prism,

Not to heap on, but you have to understand that we are tired of this. Many, many people don't like the Unified Inventory, and we were told it was a work in progress and then BAM!!! we all got this piece of garbage anyhow.

If we don't speak up, chances are (at least we are worried) we'll have this forced upon us as well.


I'm not telling you to keep your opinions to yourself. Merely saying thta there's a difference between feedback and repeating the same feedback over and over again despite said feedback having been acknowledged.

Why am I saying this? It's not because we've got fragile egos and will cry ourselves to sleep if you don't treat us kindly.

It's because it creates a very bad atmosphere. We cant acknowledge the same feedback over and over again, so eventually we stop answering the question. That makes somebody feel like he is being ignored when it's really the issue having already been covered. That makes people angry. They start posting angry. Newcomers come to the thread and see an angry poster talking about being ignored. A bandwagon is created. Constructive feedback, such as making the triangles spin wildly out of control if your tracking is too **** for the traversal velocity, gets lost. Everybody loses and goes home a bit angrier than they had to.

That being said, I'm no saint. That should be obvious by the fact that I troll my own coworkers. But I cant do that if I start creating problems by doing that. Which is why I'm now making a longwinded attempt to re-rail the discussion that I feel I may have de-railed somewhat.
A couple of alternative thoughts on this topic.

1) Sometimes there will be repetitive feedback, especially with longer threads where people read the developer's blog and then write [hopefully honest] their opinion / findings. This is the nature of the medium, so do not take it personally.

2) In some cases, repetitive feedback might mean that significant numbers of people have similar impressions of the new feature or idea presented in the blog.

3) Perhaps there are other ways to solicit customer feedback, in addition to discussion forums, where repetitive and authenticated feedback is actually meaningful... Surveys, test groups, structured UAT, etc. If CCP, as a company, is exclusively relying upon forum feedback as its only means of per-determining the success of a project, then that might be the true problem here.

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#497 - 2012-10-11 14:39:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Misanth
CCP Masheen wrote:
P.S. there are several small advantages to the concentric circular arrangement which you may have missed, for example:

- We are able to make the target icons larger and therefore more recognizable, did you notice that?
- The length of the bar that indicates time-to-lock is approximately three times longer than before because it now wraps completely around the targeting bracket. This makes it easier to discern the speed at which your locking attempt is progressing.
- The spinning arrows around your selected target no longer cross over the shield/armor health bars
- Ship brackets are square, targeting brackets are rounded, this distinction should help new players especially


Funky that you posted this. When I read it, I tried to picture this in small scale PvP action, and all I saw was.. Alliance Tournament. I.e. something that only benefit me as a spectator, not really as someone playing the game.

I'm not sure this is positive or negative, to be honest. There are positive elements in it, for AT, spectators, for videos etc it might have a benefit. But for me as a player, it might just be 'too much' information that I can't take in in the heat of the moment. I personally play max zoomed out 95%+ of the time, not seldom with tactical overlay out. My information is generally coming from a zoomed out perspective, combined with a couple of vital tabs on the overview (distance, velocity, radial velocity, type). These suggested changes will not change or add a single thing to my gameplay, not for PvE either. Neither will it make it worse, tho, unless the new icons will take up more UI space than the present ones, and if the targeting bar etc will lose its number (like it has on the image). I really do hope you'll maintain the duration number/time in the locking bar, tbfh.

It just made me wonder if this change is for CCPs, and some kind of e-sports, sake?

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#498 - 2012-10-11 14:41:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Tippia wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
well also allow me to help re-rail the discussion by offering an idea with a few mock up pictures....

http://i.imgur.com/8h0e9.jpg - red
http://i.imgur.com/CoehQ.jpg - orange
http://i.imgur.com/oTOEx.gif - green

Introduce a traffic light system for giving pilots indications of gun/ missile range and tracking. How it would work is as follows:

  • Red: out of falloff range and/or out of tracking speed
  • Orange: In falloff range and/or within +/- 10% of tracking speed
  • Green: In optimal range and/or within tracking speed

This traffic light system would only appear on the selected object and only when either a pilot has moused over a weapon group or has a weapon group activated on a target.
Nice. The colours might need some tweaking for all the usual accessibility and stand-out-against-the-Amarr-nebula reasons, but it's simple and direct.

As you point out, though, the actual “correct” combination might vary with the weapon system so it's important to teach what you want for different weapons — being within optimal with ACs is often, ironically enough, suboptimal. P

Perhaps some of that could be solved by having two of them — one for range and one for tracking — but ugh, clutter. It would certainly be much neater if it could be done like you showed it.



Although this is a neat idea, I think it can be better represented in other ways.

I recommended a few pages back that simply drawing a line between your locked/selected target could put tickers along that line with colors perhaps to indicate weapons ranges (this line exists in tactical overview mode, so practically already implemented).

I think any tacked on info on the weapons systems can be more useful than that. Most of that information is easy to remember and really. I'd be more interested in having visual representations for radial velocity (coming/going) and vector in general.

Where I am.
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#499 - 2012-10-11 14:41:40 UTC
So, all the information for these new icons is already in the Client. Therefore, it follows that the Client will have to do some extra work to present all this additional information on screen in new fancy graphic format.

Fast forward to a 2000 ship fleet fight with all the new fancy brackets. Are you seriously saying that you expect minimal impact on client performance ? Can’t see it to be honest, so don’t forget to include the option to turn it off.

People still like to have brackets on in these fights to make it easier to orientate themselves, turning brackets off isn’t the answer.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#500 - 2012-10-11 14:43:01 UTC
Rommiee wrote:
So, all the information for these new icons is already in the Client. Therefore, it follows that the Client will have to do some extra work to present all this additional information on screen in new fancy graphic format.

Fast forward to a 2000 ship fleet fight with all the new fancy brackets. Are you seriously saying that you expect minimal impact on client performance ? Can’t see it to be honest, so don’t forget to include the option to turn it off.

People still like to have brackets on in these fights to make it easier to orientate themselves, turning brackets off isn’t the answer.


You just presumed a whole bunch of stuff that you have no basis for information.

Just because it's more graphically "fancy" doesn't mean it uses more CPU.

Where I am.