These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#121 - 2015-05-18 00:34:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Oktura Ostus
Lyta Jhonson wrote:

+1 for switching cruiser and battleship icons.

but, as for me, Titan is not like enhanced version of dread, and it deserves own icon.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#122 - 2015-05-18 11:36:21 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


So after further testing, as well as looking at the tables you provided, I finally uncovered what was bugging me.
It's inconsistency in the icon progression (ships and their 'relation' to each other) plus disconnection of similar behaving entities through vastly different icons
icons, such as Stargates and Wormholes for example.

To illustrate what I mean, let's have a look at the combat ships. Combat-oriented ships have pointy icons that get bigger, as the combat ships get bigger. So far, so good.
I like the line below the frigate and cruiser icon to symbolise destroyers and battlecruisers, respectively. But than, Battleships happen, introducing the chevron shape - totally different from its smaller brethren - just for dreads to be represented by a icon looking almost like the cruiser icon.
Squares for the carriers are fine, repetition of the underlined symbol for the beefed-up version, so called super carrier is good. that's how you repeat a theme.
But then again chevrons for the titan, now two of them. Why is a titan is closer to a battleship than a dread?It would make more sense to me if you switched the dread icon with that of the battleships.
As a follow-up, the newBS/oldDread icon would need further distinction from the cruiser icon. Maybe take the cruiser icon and slap the frigate icon turned upside-down under it, with a short line in between.
industrial section is fine. Maybe the barge/industrial icon could be a little bit longer in the vertical direction, or the mining frigate icon could convey more speed.

Fighter/Fighterbomber/Logistic and to some extend the attack drones are way to similar. I like the attack/ECM/Sentry differentiation in general, so maybe consider the following things:

- only one icon for salvage/mining drones, no big differency here, doing almost the same thing. Not important to discern them on a glance. overview is sufficient.
- logistic drones: center circle, like the ECM/sentry drones, but put two or three brackets on only one side of the circle, with brackets getting bigger the further they're away from the center circle - like so but pretty -> o)))
- attack drones: give them the TIE fighter shape, would be more in line with sentry and ECM but different as well. |o|
- give the shuttle a destroyer/BC treatment - capsule with some line underneath. looks more like a rookie now, but essentially shuttles are secondary plating on a capsule ^^
- possible design elements for identifying drones: small circle in the middle of the icon, geometric lines around them to emulate form (sentries) or function (my proposed logistic drones - resembles the RR rays coming of the drones)

All the other space entities:

- why are the asteroids so odly shaped? They look like a mix between a circle and a triangle. Please decide on one of the two and stick with it. I am voting for triangles in good roid-belt tradition.
- gas cloud looks weird as well. Have you tried going for the stylised cloud (like soundcloud with only three bulbs)? keep it's recognisable and simple.
- POS modules. Not using them much, how relevant will these be after the structure revamp? I'd say an icon for (each) for tower, offensive, defensive, industry and misc. ?
- And finally stargates/ wormholes. The first one still looks odd in its filled state. Right now Gate and Hole share some similarities. On the proposal list they look totally different.
Why not keep them as they are on TQ right now? Fit's even in the new set. Another possibilty I can imagine is keeping your new Wormhole icon and make the Stargate look related. Like a Wormhole with some stuff around (e.g. a torus)
showing that it is artificial? The two are basically doing the same. The icons should reflect that.

Circumstantial Evidence
#123 - 2015-05-18 15:35:32 UTC
Lyta Jhonson wrote:
...according to size pattern frigate->destroyer, cruiser->battlecruiser, dreadnought->titan.
So, what about this: ?
I like it Big smile
Ensign Kenway
#124 - 2015-05-18 21:46:40 UTC
Please fill player ship icons interior.I'm using no standing background color.I cannot understand any ship hollow icons.If this new icons will apply, you must replace with new icons in ISIS.
Christopher Mabata
State War Academy
Caldari State
#125 - 2015-05-19 00:55:02 UTC
Some of the icons are alright, others like the gates and deployables need a new coat of paint. But for the most part as a player who has spent years getting used to the current system i actually just opted to remove the icons column from my overview entirely and now just sort by name and distance, at least until i have had enough time to adjust again. Which was pretty much what i did anyway except for getting to stations or gates in the first place, but still an option to keep the current system would be a very appreciated feature by plenty of players im sure

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet

Vic Jefferson
Rote Kapelle
#126 - 2015-05-19 03:32:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Vic Jefferson
Please, please, PLEASE have an option to turn this OFF. I understand that you are working hard to make things better for the majority of players, and its appreciated, but I literally cannot play the game with the confusion this causes.

I seriously cannot even play the game with more than a few ships on grid. PLEASE have an option to disable this.
The old ones were extremely clear, if not artistic. but they worked!!!

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

bigbud berito
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#127 - 2015-05-19 03:35:47 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Please, please, PLEASE have an option to turn this OFF. I understand that you are working hard to make things better for the majority of players, and its appreciated, but I literally cannot play the game with the confusion this causes.

I seriously cannot even play the game with more than a few ships on grid. PLEASE have an option to disable this.

At least give us the opportunity to not use these brackets, they are horrible and alot of people i've talked to just hate them.
Gene Hawking
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#128 - 2015-05-19 03:36:12 UTC
Do not like this change.
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
#129 - 2015-05-19 03:39:16 UTC
These new brackets are incredibly annoying. While looking at a large grid, it is very hard to make sense of what is what (Drones vs ships especially blend together)
kai il
#130 - 2015-05-19 03:39:56 UTC
Do not want.
Vic Jefferson
Rote Kapelle
#131 - 2015-05-19 04:03:43 UTC
Like, if the complexity of the drone glyph/character/symbol whatever, were drastically reduced, this would work. The main problem here is that the drone shapes and patterns are too similar in complexity to the ship ones - differentiation is hard.

Like, the shuttle icon is perfect for a drone: simple. Or even filled in smaller shapes for drones and boxes for ships if you are too convinced on that. There is WAY too much overlap currently.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
#132 - 2015-05-19 04:05:03 UTC
I feel like having unique icons for all different drone types puts this over the critical mass for info on screen. Lots of fights are heavy on drones and having to pick them all out just becomes too much. Having the option for users to toggle the detailed icons for Drones / Ships / Deployables in groups would be a good idea.
LowSechnaya Sholupen
#133 - 2015-05-19 08:57:07 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


Attack drones look like frigates. In battle, frigates and attack drones will be difficult to discern. May be make the icons drones as they are now? But sentry drones icons like as the picture.
Roprocor Ltd
#134 - 2015-05-19 09:51:44 UTC
One thing that just struck me is how these new icons would look in Alliance Tournament Shocked

Imagine the commentators trying to find a good view angle/zoom with these

Seriously though would be interesting if some mockup battle on that scale could be
used for reference in CCP, you have a few old commentators on board allow them
to utilize your new icons and see how they find the readability in such a situation.

uhnboy ghost
retard hills
#135 - 2015-05-19 10:34:16 UTC  |  Edited by: uhnboy ghost
this is really bad, i cant see what im fighting it just a bigg cluster f***

Edit: old and new side by side of the same combat site
and if u pvp its even worst, all the white icons just blends in and makes it totaly impossible to see anything

//uhnboy 84K probe scans in 2014

Ensign Kenway
#136 - 2015-05-19 16:26:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Ensign Kenway
Almost Hum4n
Almost Human.
#137 - 2015-05-19 16:51:01 UTC
I've tried getting used to the new icons but they are just terrible, it may be cuz I'm an old bastard but this change is not needed.
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#138 - 2015-05-19 16:54:17 UTC
I found this iteration an improvement in general, however I still have some reservations:

- I still find it a problem telling the NPC icons apart from the non-NPC. This is information I need with just a glance at the overview, and I'm not getting it.
- Icons that are filled and not filled with shading - problem is with the opaqueness of the fill. The background colors are changing constantly while I pan the camera around - now your looking into deep space, now at a nebula, now directly at the sun. This changes the effect of the fill shading so you never become a costumed to viewing it. You end up double checking to see is that filled, or not fill, or just the background.
- I still try to warp to a mobile depot when I want to go back to the station. Could a size difference be used to differentiate? Even just a slight difference to better distinguish between the new 3 sizes of "deployables." See the above comment as regards the fill shading.

I am a pod pilot:

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

Sean Roach
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#139 - 2015-05-19 20:31:40 UTC
My impressions.
Combat is fine.
Industrial is fine.
Misc. is fine.
I think you should give more thought to the drones. I'd recommend trading Fighters with Mining, so the mining drones have the same blunt top as the mining ships, then recreate the fighter-bombers based on what the fighters end up being. Likewise, I'd consider redesigning logistics.
Salvage is unambiguous, within this sample, but doesn't really share any design motif with anything else. Then there is the pictograph soup of the POS set.
Perhaps, give salvage the same blunt end as the industrial ships, esp as the next page of icons is far more varied in design elements.
Might want to reconsider the Logi and EW drones, as well, and give them elements that indicate their relationship to the fighter drones. Maybe use the design tweaks of the POS batteries, underneath the carat of the fighter drone. The 'x' from the EW battery is an easy relationship to make, if the same 'x' were put under the carat to indicate an EW drone. A wrench icon under a carat might make a good logi drone icon.

On the other page...
First column is good.
POS, however..
The Mobile Reactor shape reminds me of an Erlenmeyer flask. Might that be a better symbol for Mobile Lab? Perhaps the classic 3 electron orbit atom symbol for reactor?
In general, it'd take me a good, long while before those symbols started to mean anything to me at a glance.
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#140 - 2015-05-20 10:59:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
Lyta Jhonson wrote:

Very nice.

CCP, make it so.