These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Test Server Feedback

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Next iteration of overview/bracket icons on Singularity

First post
Oktura Ostus
#101 - 2015-05-15 00:53:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Oktura Ostus
Imho, the idea to draw NPC things with filled background and player's things as wireframe is pretty strange.

There is 'background' tab in overview settings where player can turn on any background for any ship or drone. For example, it's very handy to have white background for neutrals in overview, but this makes icons on the grid to be very similar to white NPC.

Secondly, now we have got halo around icons, when background is turned on for them. As I understand it's drawn to solve problem above (halo fill => standing, normall fill => NPC), but, imho, it does not help, they are still similar. Instead of helping, it causes another disadvantage, it impacts readability of the grid. For examples:
big group of drones
few drones
As you can see even small group of drones already makes opaque spot that can hide something important. Medium set of drones can hide small gang. On Tranquility for instance, only large set of drones can hide something, because halo is much smaller.

Imho, the second problem is important one, it will impact our gameplay until it's fixed, since it's not a question of learning, or remembering icons, or graphic settings. I just can't see anything behind of cluster of 5 drones or ships.

To fix the problem it would be very helpful to remove halo from icons and use only internal filling to indicate standing, criminal state, fleet members, and other things from tab 'background'. For example, criminal (red background) could look like current red NPC. It's very compact icon, since no halo, and even big group of such icons won't make opaque spot.

Then it would be good to leave crosses or improved version of crosses for NPC ships. It gives much better visible difference then opaque/wireframed icons and won't conflict with standing backgrounds. I don't think there is big necessity to see is that custom office or container belongs to NPC or not, so only NPC ships (may be wrecks) needs own set of icons.

After this background can be used for non-ships things to reduce number of different icons or give better difference. For example: full/empty wreck, cyno/beacon, normal/ice asteroids, planet/sun and etc ...
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
#102 - 2015-05-15 02:09:32 UTC
CCP Surge wrote:

- A blurrier distinction between NPC and player ship icons: The NPCs have a light fill and I agree that the old crosses were dead simple to distinguish from players, although they had less info to convey. I'm just curious which parts of gameplay do you guys find the lack of being able to tell players and NPCs apart from one another quick most noticeable? I'm just looking for more reasons to make the distinction more clear.

Imho, we don't need the current level of information about the NPC's. A slight variation of the old crosses is what i think would end up working best to differentiate the NPC classes AND make them different from player ships. Why is this not even an option?

If i may suggest, we really don't need a different icon for carriers/dreads. Again, reiterating that cruisers and dreads look waay too similar.

And again, We used to have a single drone icon, it functioned well, without cluttering everything and getting very confusing. 8 is still too many in my mind.

Also, we've been saying, we don't need a fully separate icon for only the venture/prospect. They are frigates, as are rookie ships. Anyone who needs to know more information than "frigate" will know exactly what it is and what it is capable of when they see the various places in the overview that list that very specific information. "Type" column comes to mind.

I'm tired, and i know i'm forgetting some stuff. Recap, much much better than the last attempt, but still needs refinement before it is ready for TQ.
Warden Zorch
Caldari State Trade Central
#103 - 2015-05-15 03:44:52 UTC
Will you also directly design the brackets for the upcoming Citadel Structures, or will they have to live with a kind of workaround after they get published? @CCP Surge
My german blog:
Lars Erlkonig
Discrete Solutions Ltd.
#104 - 2015-05-15 03:45:25 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:

Finding ships without disabling drones is quite hard. There are 6 in this picture: 90%

Having tried the new Icons on SISI, I also thought this was the case. Currently it is easy to tell apart ships from drones, but with the new icons, it is very difficult to tell at a glance what targets are in space that I want to shoot at. Could we use a color to differentiate between the two or have the option to use a larger icon for ships and smaller icon for drones when they are visualized in space and not on the overview?

Additionally with the new icons, depending on how much zoom in/out one uses, they obscure a lot of the ship graphics CCP has worked hard to improve on. When trying to look at a gang to see if it is all shiny amarr ships or rusty minmatar hulls, these icons tend to obscure a lot of that detail without zooming in closer. The old icons weren't good at showing relative sizes, but they were good at letting you see the ships.
Maruk Ihnati
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#105 - 2015-05-15 05:48:44 UTC
As a player that needs less complexity to get a quick understanding on what is on grid when you don't have prior information, all these new icons will make the job even harder and more disorienting.

Also, the icons on sisi look like a 3 year old drew them.

Crimson Grimslow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2015-05-15 06:17:06 UTC
CCP Surge wrote:
Also you guys asked for it, so here are the new icon sheets for you to compare side by side with the client:

Ship & Drones

Other Entities


I dot like em. They add unnecessary clutter. I can no longer tell a station from a bs at first glance. And in a battle being able to tell where everything is at a moments notice is a crucial thing.
#107 - 2015-05-15 06:44:18 UTC
If it ain't broke don't fix it, is an old old saying which is very very true.

Please do not change the icons for everything into these weak new shape ideas. They are fine as they are all of them.

which crazy people think this is good? why are people not saying no?

just terrible terrible terrible terrible, change all back including dmg cntrl please.

I'm sorry but ccp has lost collective sanity if they let this test patch go through.
William Rokov
Better go yolo
Yolo Brothers
#108 - 2015-05-15 07:43:34 UTC
Hello gyus, icons for shiptypes are great and obvious. Its really nice to see intuitive icons for them - I understood every shiptype, even without checking descritption.

But what about drones?
I see there are some intuitive principle - pointy icons means dangerous ship, like frigates, cruisers, battleships, etc. Ships with flat face - peaceful ships, like industrials, mining barges, etc.
Combat drones, sentrys, logistics - okay, they fit into the concept. But mining drones, fighters and fighter bombers are not fit into concept - flat face fighters and pointy minning drones are not intuitive understandable.

Would be great if u will change them for more obvious icons. Smile

No links, no scouts. True solo pvp pilot.

Strata Maslav
Captain's Quarters
#109 - 2015-05-15 09:58:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Strata Maslav
I'd have to agree the dreadnaught is too similar to the cruiser.

My suggestion is to give the Dreadnaught the current Titan icon (which appears to be two battleship chevrons stacked so it makes sense to give it to the dreadnaught), and make the titan's icon a 5 pointed star shape (like a military General which seem appropriate as its the largest combat ship)
Circumstantial Evidence
#110 - 2015-05-15 15:29:24 UTC
When looking at Dred and Cruiser/BC icons, and thinking about the similarities people note - I wonder if we may be 'reading' the icons starting from the top, down to the bottom. The top of the shape is the same. The height is similar (I didn't count pixels.) Dred icon has a tiny v-shape extension at the bottom.

Consider moving that element up to the top: a v-shaped detent (two peaks) would, I think, be recognizably different at a quick glance. It would break the consistency of all combat icons having a single peak, all the XL ones might need a similar treatment (I don't think it would look too good if done to the Titan icon.)

Or just put a dot in the middle :)
Canon Makanen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#111 - 2015-05-15 18:38:07 UTC
Please don't change the station and stargate icons, they are perfect right now. IMO, this two redesign icons are terrible compared to the others; that is not even a perfect circle for the stargate icons, and i see no point to use grey square for the station icon.
Sol Maxis
Genesis Holding
#112 - 2015-05-15 21:35:46 UTC
I understand you wanting to make changes to the icons, but I really wish they could just be left well alone. Current icons work very, very well. They are VERY easy to learn for new players and they don't give you a headache / eyestrain trying to distinguish between them.

Would it be at all possible to give people a choice between 'Classic' and 'Current' icons? Seriously, I'm struggling with these. My eyes aren't what they once were and extended periods of play are actually taking a toll.

Really sorry, but I gotta give a thumbs down. Sad
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#113 - 2015-05-15 21:42:28 UTC
Give NPC icons a different color, red for hostile and blue for neutral. Right now they are too hard to differentiate from players.

I am a pod pilot:

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.

L'erwonees D'arthiva
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2015-05-16 12:09:02 UTC
CCP Surge wrote:
Also you guys asked for it, so here are the new icon sheets for you to compare side by side with the client:

Ship & Drones

Other Entities


new icons for entities, ships and drones sound like a pain
Awsome, now i'll need a magnifying glass on my screen, and the chart right next to it to know what i'm looking at.
and by the time i found out i'll either be dead or the intell wil be outdated...

implementing too much meaning into the icon itself and having one icon for each thing will only make things more complex.
-on top of that some of the things that would gain having particular icons are sharing design with radically different items.
-vice versa, some designs should be shared because they serve the same purpose but dont even remotely look alike.
-some designs do not look like what they should do or doesnt give a clue, but instead mimic old designs (and these do clue you on their function).
-some icons "meanings" are heavyly misleading
-why not keep the chevrons for fleet and star for corp ? who knows...

if we "accept" the -one icon per thing- why is a wreck changing icon? cant it just look like the npc that generated it preserving size, purpose and looks but slightly alterating the icon, thus making it clear it's a "ship class npc wreck" thus emphasing where it came from, giving the player information of what's happening (happend recently)?

but. it's still a better icon story than the previous icon soup you proposed. I'll be fine as long as you dont put these in game.
And again, why work on starbases if you are going for the space châteaux (citadels).
thx for reading, in the hope the devs. will not ignore my contribution ~~0
L'erwonees D'arthiva
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2015-05-16 12:21:08 UTC  |  Edited by: L'erwonees D'arthiva
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
When looking at Dred and Cruiser/BC icons, and thinking about the similarities people note - I wonder if we may be 'reading' the icons starting from the top, down to the bottom. The top of the shape is the same. The height is similar (I didn't count pixels.) Dred icon has a tiny v-shape extension at the bottom.
[...]Or just put a dot in the middle :)

Now i know what this icons replacement reminds me of !!!!
learning japanese kanjis stroke orders and counts, along with meaning and combination of the radicals!

in before we end up with these on the overview :
- 鬱 can you see all the 29 strokes?
- 瑠 how about these 14 ?

(edit: just2b clear i dont want to see that happend in eve MK ?)
Masao Kurata
Caldari State
#116 - 2015-05-16 14:02:29 UTC
L'erwonees D'arthiva wrote:
Now i know what this icons replacement reminds me of !!!!
learning japanese kanjis stroke orders and counts, along with meaning and combination of the radicals!

The hard part's the readings, your complaint sounds like you didn't get far in your Japanese studies :P
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#117 - 2015-05-17 05:44:14 UTC
So why are player entities (which are occupied by a person) the empty ones, while the NPCs are filled?

Seems backwards
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2015-05-17 16:24:56 UTC
Make it simple or Riot,get it? Nah you don't get it Lol
Lyta Jhonson
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#119 - 2015-05-17 21:37:03 UTC
CCP Surge wrote:

I agree with people saying about barely different dreadnought and cruiser icons. Also, I think that cruiser and battleship should be switched around as proposed battleship look more speedy while cruiser icon appears more bulky to me. And titan icon... it just breaks all of the logic: it looks fast and lightweight, it does not follow diamond shape rest of capitals have and it does not have underscore which one would expect it to have according to size pattern frigate->destroyer, cruiser->battlecruiser, dreadnought->titan.

So, what about this: ?
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#120 - 2015-05-17 21:42:04 UTC
Lyta Jhonson wrote:

You are good. Nice one!

+1 for that propose.