Wait what? I cannot drag modules into one row anymore? they have to stay in their type row? 
Okay, false alarm. The poster’s craptalking.
2 Likes
You still can, they specifically call that out in the section about overheating:
When hovering over a rack control, the HUD will also show which modules belong to that rack. This is useful when you have rearranged the modules on your module bar, since their visual position does not necessarily match their rack position.
1 Like
Yes, I was confused by that poster above. This would have been a hilarious move.
Not sure if is in to-do list, but i think that is a great oportnunity to create a cycle countdown.
So if i want to activate a module just for 3 cycles, it turn off automaticly after.
1 Like
I think that the proposed options make it even less user friendly. People that have been in game long enough know what is what on the HUD, if new players struggle then it should be part of the tutorial.
I absolutely would not want a mini map, hopefully that can be toggled off if not required, not only will it be too small to be of use but it will take up even more valuable screen estate on a screen that already is cluttered by needed windows
9 Likes
I have my tomes worth of issues with UI in this game, but I’m keeping my comments to the UI to be changed not things bothered by, from before.
Legibility, but what about accessibility?
Many button, widgets, slidere, what have you… are very precise in their interaction.
Is the new speed slider manageable across the entire surface? Hopefully it’s not the ruler or the gauge bar. The graded lines don’t illustrate relative speed better. I would recommend experimenting with the max speed value at the top, 0 at the bottom and whatever midpoint is the midspeed.
The same impression with overheating. How about 3 percentage numbers for heat damage, instead of 3 bars. Which look again hard (precise) to hover over.
I don’t have a high dpi mouse and it’s very easy to overshoot these minuscule points
I like the idea of the minimap. Mostly the metro inspired one, but please make sure the layout of systems is the same as the 2D f10. But I have the same big reservation, targetable points look waaaaayyyy too small.
If simplifying for new users why keep passives?
What purpose does it have to keep coatings, stabs, and many other passive modules on the command bar? Keeping only the activeable modules leaves more room for purposeful use.
Safety mechanics give you room for style flourishes
The red yellow green safeties benefit from some change. But instead of going with something boring you could leave here room for your designers.
Let look at another sci-fi game, a classic, Starcraft. You could add ornaments around the command bar when any of those options. Like starcraft had its interface different for the race. You could even add a player faction flavour to it, or even ship faction flavour! More rigid polished metalic structures for caldari. Rounded metalics for Gallente. Very rusty for Minmatar. And gold embossed for Amarr.
Then safety lights could be a light on that command board with a text labeled switch for the 3 options.
1 Like
this man does NOT have thermodynamics trained
4 Likes
I am not sure the new UI is “easier to read” than the old one… The first impression seems to indicate that more space is blocked by default then now (which is bad). I really have no clue atm what I should use the “map” for. I can see whatever I need to see in the overview and a 2D map of a 3D scenario is misleading at best…
Also capacitor should definitely recharge in a piechart-style, showing on first glance at which percentage it is, not some obscure “level intensity glow”…
Safety Setting doesnt 'need an extra indicator, just colorize the background of the “medaillon” or draw a colored circular line around it.
5 Likes
that’s because it isn’t lmao. the only part of this that isn’t strictly worse for me is the metro map. did they borrow their UI team from Zynga??
6 Likes
How is putting MORE module symbols into LESS space ‘more intuitive’?
In my eyes and in my world it’s the opposite…
2 Likes
It looks great.
Please allow us to move the medallion HUD freely anywhere on the screen and lock the position.
The current medallion can only be top or bottom and to the left or right.
One of the main reasons I don’t play EVE anymore is D-scan.
I really dislike the fact that, in many situations, staying reasonably aware of what’s around you means constantly hitting the directional scanner button over and over again.
It doesn’t feel like meaningful gameplay to me. I’m not making an interesting decision by pressing D-scan every few seconds — I’m just repeating the same mechanical action because not doing it puts me at a disadvantage.
After a while it becomes genuinely irritating and exhausting. Instead of making me feel alert or immersed, it makes me want to stop playing.
I understand that situational awareness and gathering information are important parts of EVE, and I don’t think players should automatically know everything around them. But I wish the actual interaction with D-scan was less repetitive.
Any improvement to this mechanic would make a huge difference for me. For example, integrating D-scan more naturally into the new HUD, or allowing some form of periodic automatic scanning, would be enough to bring me back to the game — especially to low-security space.
For me personally, this small mechanic has become one of the biggest barriers to enjoying EVE, and improving it could genuinely make me return.
9 Likes
Overall, I really like the new HUD. I especially like the direction you are taking with ship status visualization — the idea of presenting shields, armor, and hull in a more proportional and intuitive way feels like a very strong improvement. The information is easier to read at a glance, while still feeling like EVE.
I also liked most of the other changes. The main area I would really like to see developed further, though, is the map and scanning/navigation side of the HUD.
I think a great next step would be to move away from directional scanning feeling like a completely separate window that you constantly need to keep open next to the main interface.
It would be very interesting to see D-scan and scanning information integrated more directly into the HUD itself — almost like an actual ship sensor or sonar system. For example, scanned contacts, directions, or at least some basic D-scan information could be visually connected to the tactical view, map, or the space around the ship.
I would not necessarily remove the traditional scanner window, because it is still useful for detailed work. But having basic spatial and directional information available directly through the HUD could make flying feel much more cohesive.
At the moment, we are flying spaceships, but a significant amount of our attention is still focused on separate UI windows rather than the space around the ship. I would love to see the new HUD gradually bring more of that information back into the actual game space.
Overall, I really like the direction of the new HUD, and I hope this is only the beginning. I would especially love to see the same design philosophy applied to the map, D-scan, and other navigation and sensor tools.
o7
Still hate it, just keep eve the same, let the players adjust, not the game!
It is kind of an insult to player intelligence, you said it keeps it complex, you’re wrong, you’re making it simple stupid!
If the new players are too stupid to understand the current one, then just let them figure it out or quit!
Come on people, are you sure you want eve to be played by people with an IQ of 2?!
The veterans are the ones who pay for omega, what if they quit, where do you get your money then Fenris? It is the best way to kill eve prematurely! Way to go people, you just killed eve!
7 Likes
Looks promising.
Alright, I’m providing the objectively correct take on this now that I’ve had a chance to examine it.
The new capacitor monitor, if I understood you correctly, is going to be awful. Please reconsider that. The one we have now is significantly clearer, if not as pretty, you’d be better off making the new one just a reskinned version of the old one instead. Consider showing at which level the capacitor will be stable with the currently active modules, and a countdown timer if it isn’t stable.
XL Projectile ammo is going to be indistinguishable from each other on the module bar with the text where it is. Not a major issue, but something you may want to consider. I would suggest adding icons to the top of the ammo display to show which damage types the loaded charge will do, this would be particularly useful for missile and projectile ships. I very much like that you’re letting us put boosters on the hotbar, consider adding an (optional) drone monitor to the HUD as well (this must be optional, so drone boats don’t become unusable in case the new HUD turns out to be unusable).
Either swap the icon on the overload button to a flame, or change all other terminology in the game from heat and overheating to overloading, to be consistent. The former would be less work and help new players understand that overheating is not necessarily connected to capacitor usage. Don’t make us click the overheat symbol to access the rack overheating options, just have the rack options visible at all times instead.
The grid minimap is going to be useless, please reconsider this. Such a thing works in Elite and Scam Citizen because there the player is directly piloting their ship around and don’t have a movable camera, but it’s not a good fit for EVE. I do like the metro map, add this as an optional compact mode to the map window instead so we can move it around freely. Make the metro map track the player route, for example by adding a visual indicator of systems the player has recently visited, and default its orientation so that the previous system visited is displayed at the bottom, giving a clearer indication of which way would mean “moving forward”. Let us right-click systems on the metro map to access the Jump through Stargate option.
The new speed indicator looks good. Please let us click the text display to input a maximum speed directly rather than needing pixel precision to click on the bar.
Generally, I’m very positive about these changes, particularly showing the ship’s HP bars as proportional to how much HP the ship actually has in each layer. @CCP_Swift please clarify whether you intend to also overhaul the locked target views. Will we be able to determine if a ship is shield, hull, or armour tanked just by targeting it?
looks dumb.
7 Likes
We have more problematic long term issues in game like the scanning screen can’t be made smaller, which I think should have been a fairly easy adjustment. I also am concerned that this UI HUD system doesn’t factor for smaller screens. Which has been a consistent problem for the last few years. Smaller screens laptops.
If they wanted to test bench “functionality” They could easily adjust the buttons of the current UI HUD and then listen to some feedback. [make the plus minus buttons into their newer full speed/ stop function buttons]
It shouldn’t be that hard to adjust some of the current UI systems. The other is we do not have good tutorials on how or why the modules work the way they are. Cool down/reloads are pretty self-explanatory…reloading modules flicker…so you know its reloading. I can get behind a UI change where each of the bars adjusts to the modules put in…for Shield/Armor/Hull HP, but the current system would just need a little revision to tick sizes. Or why not just show the numbers for the health bar?
So as your shield/armor/hull HP is deprecating you know exactly what is going on. And keep the UI as it is…just with that detail in the bars.
Capacitor Flow…idea…is so so. Not really necessary, but okay. Too much fluxtuating information on a UI can confuse players just as much…as too much static data hides various problems as well. Because if I am not mistaken this new system doesn’t factor in capacitor warfare resist profiles. And I think some of the data points of this new UI…might also not be helpful in information on what EWAR is affecting the player. Because things like a Scram would probably add confusion to the mix, because its not technically overheat/destroyed module…but it stops your MWD/MJDs from working. [Technically would be considered a “silence” mechanic as seen in other games.]
That said.
My biggest concern though…is that booster bay concept. I see a massive problem with botting on the horizon because of it. It seems workable for Volatile and Standard boosters. But no one is discussing the implications of an easy to script option that would allow people to load various long 2 hour baseline- upwards of 4-5hour boosters. This would give botting especially in mining/ratting scenarios the capacity to optimize for maximum yield/functionality. I do not support any changes that further increase the botting scenario.
I get why the F1 Monkeys want an easy click option. I can understand multiboxers wanting it for their clouds of alts. [easy…increases lethality of the ships for minimal effort.] Also remember if the ship is destroyed and the pod still survives the boosters are still operating. [This also is a major red flag for multiboxing ganker problems as well.]
I don’t think Fenris has fully understood the comprehensive dangers of the booster bay system. Yes I understand they want to stop the constant arguments and whining for it. Although I find the organization of boosters in a minimized or ‘sized down’ tab…too much for an F1 Monkey to be a bit laughable at best. [Maybe they are just lazy…but an F1 Monkey should have it easier…than lets say a multiboxer trying to singlebox…and Max/Min his alt farm. Looks over at Pochven] So F1 Monkey isn’t really benefitting or changing their activities…if you didn’t take your drugs…tough luck. But I see where this will benefit the MB/Botting crowd a bit too much.
The current system benefits good manual solo play and drug management. The new system will benefit automation, and multiboxing in ways I don’t think are properly considered.
If there was a problem with boosters, we need to discuss production, ease of access/purchase/usage of boosters. Mirror and stacking issues of boosters. [Some boosters are way too powerful in combination with other boosters creating balancing issues, while others seem less useful or beneficial if usable at all.] I think Fenris also needs to start pushing more Volatile boosters…much shorter time frames…[max 7-10 minutes with Biology 5 + Alchemist] so that we don’t end up with complete Drug Metas that throw balancing issues even further out of wack.
Because if this new booster bay…goes into function in this game without these realities not factored in. Its going to cause more problematic issues in the long run. [Short term convenience does not validate long term consequences in game.]
If the booster situation was this bad…why didn’t anyone ask Fenris to make a drug container…< =10m3 container you throw in your ship…and have it with sort/organizations by booster slot type. [which I am surprised hasn’t been considered for years.] Something that you can fit into a ship easily…and wouldn’t be too disruptive to game play. But wouldn’t be standardized enough…that people wouldn’t be able to script bots to just “click” once their boosters are dry. It can be dropped…or destroyed in a fight. [And picked up in vice versa…and if a corp/alliance has a booster doctrine…they hand out these containers in pre-fitted ships.]
2 Likes
For the overheat… why not a line under each rack? Goes Red to the right.
Get rid of the big bulge on the right side of the CAP display.
I like the concept of the total EHP surrounding the capacitor, showing relative amounts. Place the zero HP spot at the bottom?
ccp why do you think people would like to have less information consuming more space on their screen?
8 Likes