HUD Feedback Thread!

[MILINT_ARC_Trooper]

I get your point.

You deal with the actual business customer, and their practical considerations/needs. And their feedback and considerations drives the “Elegant/KISS method” of designing. Which is intuitive and or easy to learn at a glance or with some small coaching.

Now in this situation it feels like we are “Herding Cats” with people shouting squirrel for every idea that isn’t really a good idea.

Instead of this careful concept of design principle.

I feel like we are skipping a few steps in the mix with this concept heavily.

But yeah I see your point, where GUI needs to be simple/ intuitive/ relatively easy to understand [even if its complex or doing complex things]

And we will see how it goes.

[Syzygium]

It’s okay if you want that. And it’s okay that the game allows it. I think it’s a crutch, but if you need it, fine thing.

To claim that “serious PvPers have those shown” (yes, that wasn’t you, but my reply also wasn’t to you) is obviouslly nonsense as you can see in every video of the best PvPers EVE has to offer. I bet you can count the people on pro-level who have the passives shown on one hand.

[MILINT_ARC_Trooper]

Yeah even in PVE situations…knowing which passive is still alive…is a pretty important piece of information.

If you lose your armor plates/shield extenders you will lose HP. [Although you would think in the case of the shield extenders your signature would go down.] Losing a resist mod…means you become even more squishy. And losing engineering mods should destabilize your fit even more.

Now I can see where someone who is a station tether rep player…might not find passives important…because they get repped anyways on tether. But for long range solo/fleet hunter/gang/gank players…yeah you want to keep your eyes on the “resources” of your fit and try to extend its life. having the passives on the UI means you can repair them, and still keep fighting.

Passive module heat damage…has some serious consequences to a fit or activities. I can see where some people just want to focus on their active modules…fine…not really breaking…but I think if people want to toggle/hide them. [The option should exist…but a warning label should pop up…telling them the consequences of not being able to visually see them. But I agree with Dyver it shouldn’t be a default state from the get go…that would be really bad for explaining fitting to new players and potentially cause problems for PVP/PVE gameplay…because people are not monitoring the whole of their fit in overheating situations.]

[Aeon_Xao]

@MILINT_ARC_Trooper

I still have my reservations on the boosters bay system…because I see implications of botting.

Yeah, I’m not a fan of a new UI for them. Nor the mini-map concepts.

You may be on with some of the other suggestions. I’m a simple lowbie(old vet recently returned) that doesn’t do much w/ overheating or logi.

I’m a BIG opponent of moving the ‘medallion’ out of center too. Let people move everything, sure, but center should be default.

[Aisha_Katalen]

@Syzygium

I do PvP for like 15 years and overheat quite a lot. Nobody needs the passives shown. They will endure heat much longer than the active ones anyway.
Yeah, one shouldn’t forget to repair them when there is time, but you don’t need to display them at all times for that.

You mostly do fleet PVP and when you do solo it’s haulers or T1 frigates you ambush for the most part, like once a week. Sure, then it might be different.

If you roam and fight targets where it’s not a 99% foregone conclusion, and you expect to perhaps have another one of those fights 5 minutes later, you want to repair fully or at least as much as you can.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Syzygium

I do PvP for like 15 years and overheat quite a lot. Nobody needs the passives shown. They will endure heat much longer than the active ones anyway.
Yeah, one shouldn’t forget to repair them when there is time, but you don’t need to display them at all times for that.

I occasionally repair my active modules with nanite paste.

If the passives aren’t shown I’ll likely not see how much heat damage they took and forget to repair them as there is no visual reminder anywhere. So even if they get heat damage slower than the actives, if I only repair the actives the passives too will eventually burn out.

And I wouldn’t even notice if the passive modules are invisible.

No, I’ll keep the passive modules visible and save me some embarrassing deaths.

[Karash_Amerius]

I guess we could do a CAPTCHA to activate guns if that would satisfy you.

[MILINT_ARC_Trooper]

If I have to use a picture verification for module activation…and I get match the Hilmars.

I know whose suggestion that was. [Not mine.]

[Drosera_Binata]

what about you ban autopilot in exordium, make it so that it teaches players to not go afk

[Udisnme]

■■■■ eve, its shitty mechanics dont work, mysterious lag, character farming losers and worthless GMs, This is eve

[Laubrani]

@Ghennephir_Uuang

For us colorblind people, there is almost no color that will provide indication

There are multiple types of colourblind, all can with colour control set up coloured HUDs picking from select limited colour space, making it all distinguishable. Even as you mention people with (achromatic, greyscale) will still be able to set different colours appearing with different level of brightness.

This control was promised many years ago. CCP just needs to deliver. If you are truly achromatic you can make self tests in paint, see if there are 2 colours you can set next to each other and be able to see a difference. Then once CCP gives us the promsied colour control you simply input these two colours.

Now all the fanboys will keep saying its coming later in the project, just like they did with everything else CCP still owes. Which is of course just as much ■■■■■■■■ as it has always been. But don’t argue that colourblinds can’t do anything if they get the control do so, because they can.

[Silver_Andrard]

I think it looks cool. I know a lot of old hats will have mean words to say about it but I think it’s great

[Afriles_Jasmone]

As a new player, I will just chime in to say that I think some changes to the HUD (along the lines proposed) are definitely warranted, in several places. People that are really used to the HUD and its “weaknesses” (for want of a better word) may not feel this so acutely.

In particular, I often find it hard to tell which modules (weapons, prop, other) are active, and I frequently have to keep my eyes on them for a second or more to see if the little marker is orbiting them or not (because the colour change is so subtle - too subtle, IMHO). That’s time away from looking at what I really want to be looking at in a battle, which can be a real problem at times.

The overheating indication is somewhat less problematic, but some improvements will still be welcome there too. (I have found several times btw that if I use ctrl-shift-click to unlock targets, the “shift” modifier somehow seems to stick and then the next module I click on can get overheated. I recently destroyed my AB because this happened and I didn’t notice immediately, and of course ABs can burn out rather quickly. But this isn’t so much a HUD problem as a game bug, I guess.)

[PerfectWing]

Yea there in Carebear mode heance the new changes again lol.

@Arline_Kley

cation - to which the devs think redesigning the HUD will help retain player numb

yes basical. lol. its cool i just log in to see what other changes they make to mess up lol.

[Gordon_Calsari]

Just because the UI is not aligned with the modern minimalist trend, does not mean it looks “dated” or otherwise bad in any way. I personally abhor the modern shift to minimalist designs; they take away so much personality and depth to the visual design of the interface. I can get wanting to change up certain visual elements (like I thinking changing the green throb of an active module—which can be hard to tell is active when it throbs “off”—into a constant spinning circular indicator is a very good change so you can instantly know whether something is active or not), but gutting the gritty look of a physical dashboard for a simplistic minimal design with no emotion is not it.

That said, that’s an aesthetic complaint.
And maybe these are just flatter layouts for early concepting, before moving to a more stylised look closer to completion…

For technical feedback on the actual usability of it:

• I’m kinda torn on the adjustable-sized health bars to indicate the proportional values. On the one hand, it’s nice to see a bigger value for the defence type you have the most of… but on the other, having all the health on the same line so that the values are visually split (esp when damaged) is a turn off for me. I personally find it easier to see the all as relative to the same position: the further to the left the red bar is, the worse things are. If you want to telegraph the effectiveness of your shields/armour/hull in this way, I think a better solution would perhaps be adaptive ticks along the health bars (so more ticks = more value, fewer ticks = lower value; e.g. if I’ve got a lot of armour but little shields, I’d have a ton of ticks on my armour bar, but only a few segments on my shield bar).

• Speedometer: if we’re gonna touch that, a manual value input might be beneficial for some players?

• On the note of the module states: I think it’d make a lot more sense to have as follows:
  → Grey for a passive module
  → Grey interior with a green outline for an active module, not cycling
  → Green spinner for active module while cycling
  → Red spinner for an active module that’s heating
  → Small button above the module with a flame to manually click on it and overload it (when you hover over the button it might say “Overload” as a tooltip?)
  Maybe it’s just because the provided image doesn’t show what these look like animated, since it’s only an image, but they don’t really look any more intuitive than they are right now…

• I really like the Metro map, I think that’ll be wonderful for (as the patch notes say) having a quick map at a glance while roaming without needing to open the full map to see nearby star systems or jump to a nearby system, esp since the full map can take its sweet time opening up (and doesn’t update quite in real time if you leave it open). As for the on-grid map… I think I do echo the opinion of another commenter here that… don’t we already have the physical worldview for that kind of thing? It’s not like we’re in first-person and need to see a map overview of the surrounding area. We’re already in third person, so just zoom out if you want to see the battlefield better? System map is cool though.

• The booster slots are very nice. I saw some comments that people will accidentally activate them, but like… maybe make those a separate rack that you can toggle on/off or reposition somewhere else? Or just like… don’t accidentally click them…
  I’d love to see a similar display for implants, so you know at a glance what you’ve got plugged in, but… probably something for later.

[Jian_Mira]

I think they are using too much real estate, its too big! and there is too many buttons…

Let the player choose what is displayed, there should be multiple HUD and the player can choose which one they want to use… include a smaller HUD!

[Lugburz]

Yes because what all tools, manuals and maps need is more flair over function…

[Drosera_Binata]

still hate the HUD

[MILINT_ARC_Trooper]

I want to be very very clear with anyone who is criticizing or trying to “yes man” the changes.

We understand changes will happen to this game. And some of these players have seen and designed more GUI and UI…than some of you have even been alive (including the Devs at Fenris Creations). Including work for Industry, Commercial, Personal, and Entertainment concepts.

Hence why there has been some very vocal and frustrated response with this. And the problems that Fenris Creations has a track record of making very poor decisions based on some extremely limited feedback from an extremely small percentage of a fraction of the game playerbase. Sometimes without really factoring in necessary need based functions first.

First, the “definition” of “dated” as in the inference of “ancient” UI design. Needs to be dealt with very clear and destructive ends so it being used as an argument doesn’t ever come up again.

Function- all UI are basically (in generality) the same in intent and usage. Simple point and click. We are not dealing with command entry based UI like 1960-1980. So everyone here understands that UI needs to be able to accessible and functional from the get go.

And I can say pretty confidently, considering how many EVE players play this game. This game could be converted to a wireframe system like 1980s computers. And you guys would probably still play it without batting an eye.

which ironically no one has discussed that EVE Frontier…especially with their Keeper videos is using Retro 1980 graphic concepts.

So we know its not a graphics issue with the UI. In some cases people would like the older versions of EVEs UI back.

And ironically…looking at the “New UI” its not really new actually…it seems to be a rehash of an older concept. [So anyone trying to “yes man” the UI changes needs to probably go back and revisit older UI concepts in EVE since its inception.]

We have also dropped into this discussion…faction specific UI.

Which has been a standard in games even predating EVE Online. Its one oddity of EVE Online…that with all the factions in game, there hasn’t been an attempt to concretely make faction specific UIs for customization and immersion.

That said the playerbase is frustated, because alot of these changes confuse information. And in EVE Online confusion = a lost ship. You should be fighting other players, not trying to figure out your UI so you are not dying randomly.

I have stated in above posts about several major problems and considerations…I can see with this system. People have even done better modifications of the Devs own ideas. And some of us have pointed out various flaws, underconsidered complications, and ideas that were not factored in [active repping and logi repping. Which were not part of this design.]

I am concerned about the booster system, because knowing how bad the situation has become with multiboxing and botting. I can see where people can make a script to maximize max-min botting of mining/ratting. Especially of the 2 hour boosters (Which can go to 4-5 hours with max skills Biology V and Alchemist implant) I know the nullsec players want simplistic controls for the F1 Monkey line men.

But I also considering what is being changed to EVE, the F1 Monkey ball fleet tactics might become obsolete in the near future. If certain game mechanics that are tied to the Python code upgrade happens. [There is some interesting interplay between Frontier and EVE Online…that is ongoing with the Python Changes…to be seen.]

So don’t use the term “dated” as a devaluation for feedback that isn’t getting hyped or “onboard” for the change. Alot of us are fine with change…we are not fine with “Change for Change Sake.” And sadly to say…the last few years of “Hyping” of content. Now has made the playerbase much more cautious and reserved. Since the Hype didn’t always pan out with the materials. And content involved was either smaller than hyped, or was not something most people interacted with.

And some of us are very concerned that changes to a core component of the game which is the GUI/UI of the HUD of EVE, could have massive negative consequences. If some people are not understanding that…then we need a simple tutorial. [Ironically many EVE players have videos on various platforms discussing the various modes/functions/and inputs for the UI]

As last point, using an old X Box Windows XP Ui system as the closing idea. EVEs UI [bones] need to be solid/ intuitive [easy to learn with bare minimum fiddling and figuring out] so that then Fenris Creations can hang any little pretty customization or personalization of the UI to the players preference…yet the rules and functions are rock solid the same items. [Points to the X Box XP theme…its the same Windows XP UI…just with a skin…same function same rules…different looks.]

The problem is it feels someone at Fenris Creations is trying to justify their job slot, and doing something change for change sake to keep their job. And that is why this UI situation has gotten fairly ugly rather quickly, players want smaller meaningful UI changes. This is slower and requires Fenris Creations to listen to feedback. And this feels completely arbitrary in how its being implemented, we have the same problem with the Photon UI changes which happened a few years back, the game still has complications from that still ongoing. So I understand why there is now alot of “fighting over inches.” If you give them an inch [Photon UI]…they take the yard [Photon UI implementation and opt in which then became mandatory and they even patched out older UI elements so no one could compare and give feedback on problems too.] then you will be fighting for every inch. [Current HUD UI discussion.]

Maybe a conversation on the depth of UI concepts and perspectives would be more helpful. And you might find out a few interesting angles and perspectives.

[MILINT_ARC_Trooper]

I can understand the UI problem with overheating. Because the Green indicator for active…then to overheat…which the same but flashing in a pattern. Is a huge problem with color blind players.

The overheat blocks [red] is actually pretty straight forward. And I believe should be kept. Although again the colorblind argument comes up on that. [But the new UI is a horrible system for communicating damage and overheating.]

Overheating as a mechanic…isn’t exactly a very intuitively explained system. And depending on if you have grouped modules [generally turrets] (Why can’t you stack other modules mining/salvagers/passive modules) is an interesting question as well. Probably complications of code. [Tractor Beams I understand because its generally single target single cycle actions.]

Although Overheating discussions and changes would probably be more aggressively opposed even if it was only focusing on communication in the UI of heat effects and damage. Let say showing players via the overheat bars…the effects of heating damage. Although most players do not really have a grasp of active heat management. Only the limitations of fits and heat damage in total via fitting and fitting placement.

On the subject of your overheating AB. There are a few problems involved here to be discussed.

I will use a 10MN AB for point consideration.

1. Thermodynamics Skill all AB are 5.70 Heat Damage → 4.28 Heat Damage at Thermo Dynamics V ( On any ship except T3D/T3C)
2. Afterburner Skill adjusting AB cycle time from 10 secs → 7.5 second with AB Skill at V.

Now the 50MN MWD which is usually used…is a 10sec flat…no adjustment. But its heat can go from 11.4 to 8.5 in heat damage. I am comparing two cruiser propulsion mod classes for simplicity sake.

So what you are probably seeing with the AB situation…is the cycle is shorter…so its generating more heat damage via cycles. And depending on the ship you are flying with this fit. Lets say an Amarrian Frigate [Lets use Punisher] → Faster AB burnout. Where as on a Merlin with more mid slots the AB might take longer to burnout because the heat damage is being absorbed by the number of slots. This problem isn’t discussed often about heat balancing per faction, or has not come up to my knowledge in qualitative analysis.

Because if you were to face a player using a Rogue AB-600 series implant or Zors Custom Navigation Link. Which would increase the cycle time of the afterburner…you probably wouldn’t see the afterburner burning out as much [cycle wise]. Never mind an abyssal mutated module with cycle time mutated. [or Winter Nexus storm effects and the booster]

That being said…such information understanding isn’t really displayed clearly. [I highly dislike the whole decimal based adjustment system in game currently.] And mostly is gained by experience and experimentation. But understand the frustration for players who have come into the game and do not understand the mechanics, and or…get what feels arbitrarily damaged or killed by non-communicated functions in the UI.