Ideas for improvement of Overview near and far distance display

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
#1
For me, correctly and quickly reading the difference between AU, km and m on the overview is:
    1. Hard
    1. Reasonable
    1. Easy

0 voters

Ever since starting EVE probably over a decade ago, with many breaks, correctly interpreting the overview distances has pretty much always been a fail for me when I had to determine if the distance was in kilometers or meters. How many times have I thought a ship was right next to me but would not lock, and then I found out its actually over a couple thousand km away rather than less than one km.

This poll is to determine how commonly this is viewed as a problem for pilots, to amass ideas for fixing it if the problem is deemed common enough, and also to promote a fix if so.

I myself have 6 possible ideas which can be used separately or some in conjunction. I will put them in order of (apparent) ease of implementation.

  1. Simply change the km to “KM”. That change alone would offer far greater differentiation from m.

  2. Abolish m altogether and instead list all distances below 1 km with 00. in front. For example 00.1234 km instead of 1234 m

  3. Left justify all readings in meters. At present, all measurements are pushed to the right. Being pushed either left or right will aid in immediately spotting the difference.

  4. Shift the “km” to the left of the number. For example, km 250 instead of 250 km. Also, KM 250 conjoined with the suggestion above.

  5. Add color coding options as with other parts of the overview, for all of the overview or even just the distance field. Allow for the distances in AU, km, and m to have separate colors.

  6. Add font options for this field or even all of them, such as bold font and/or italics where again numbers in different units appear differently.

If only options 5 and 6 are implimented pilots will have the option to change nothing from its current form if they wish.

1 Like
#2

I’d just like to be able to group my overview by a specific column and sort this column by another specific value. Similar how you group objects in windows explorer and then sort them by another value in the groups.

1 Like
#3

A related idea was presented here:

I will refer to this as idea 7.

#4

Never saw this as an issue. Do you not sort your overview by distance?

The most dangerous enemies are often the enemy ships closest to you. Sorting by distance is therefore almost equal to sorting by threat (provided the rest of your overview has been set up correctly).

Sort by distance and you won’t accidentally mistake m for AU.

#5

if you have problems with the distance don’t look at angular velocity, THAT is a cancer.

#6

It depends on the circumstances. I change back and forth.

Sounds like fairly obvious information for someone in a fleet battle. I don’t do fleet battles. And I am sure if that was my main gamestyle, this would be a practical non-issue. But my gamestyle requires getting this information fast and accurate so I can pinpoint single and multiple ships out of potentially more than a dozen “may or may not be” neutrals.

But I think I need to point something out here. I am not asking if everything is fine for you the way it is. I am asking if everyone can quickly and accurately read the overview. Pointing out work arounds that work for you is not the issue. Saying everything is fine as is for you is not answering the question. If your answer is “Well, I can’t do that, but I have a work around that’s pretty good. Besides its not really an issue for me.”, then you should have answered “Hard” in the poll.

#7

Amazing. I don’t think I haver ever mistook AU for m. Just you putting out that example makes me think you really don’t understand the issue. The issue is confusing km for m and vice versa. They are often similar numbers in the thousands with nothing but a small k to differentiate. AU is generally a single digit or double digit with a decimal point and one number following, not to mention that all cap “AU”. There are several clues between AU and the others. Between km and m its often only the k or lack thereof.

#8

My answer is “I never realised how this could be a problem for some” and when I started thinking why it is never a problem for me, it is because of the way my overview is sorted that it’s impossible to make that mistake.

Not a workaround, just a recommendation.

Also “easy” is still my answer.

Even without km or m I should be able to tell the difference by the way the numbers change when things move in space. One number moves about a 1000 times faster than the other when things like your ship are in motion.

#9

It sounds to me like you have no specific need to know if a ship is near or far, only if its near. I need to know which and I am looking for specific players, not random enemies. Since you have no actual need for the differentiation nor desire to close the gap between you and that ship, I think what is happening is that this topic has no meaning for you.

When I was primarlly mining this was also not an issue for me either. Just setting for distance worked well.

I cannot tell the difference between a ship ABing on me within 10km or warping up on me within 10,000 easily. Similar numbers moving at similar speed. Only the k gives it away unitl the ship either bumps or stops warping. I have this more often than you might think at hubs with other stations on grid and a dozen or more players shifting in and out. Set the overview to distance and that specific ship you are looking for can bounce around like a ping pong ball in the overview making it hard to even find the distance let alone gauge it.

#10

The problem with wanting to use “KM” instead of “km” is that the first is not the correct way to abbreviate kilometer (kilometre). By definition it is “km”. Even “k or K” is not recommended by international weights & balances

3 Likes
#11

Interesting point but I doubt they concern themselves with EVE or even games very much. If they did they might see things differently. They are scientists and engineers in mentality and I respect them.

But it reminds me of astronauts telling engineers and scientists they NEED a window on their space capsule and the engineers and scientists just not getting it. Those folks don’t need to differenciate between m and km, on a moving list of both, in a high stress millisecond. I do.

#12

In case of doubt, always assume they are close.

About the suggestions:

  1. Like Geo said, it’s not the correct way to abbreviate kilometer. And even if you wanted to ignore using the correct units, using KM for kilometer would demand usage of M for meters, if you want to be wrong yet consistent.

  2. While I see an advantage of using the same unit for all distances, the numbers themselves will become unnecessarily long and less readable, and won’t fit in a small distance column like they do now.

  3. Maybe, if you want CCP to overhaul how the overview works to allow some values to be pushed left… it would make the overview look messy and less readable though.

  4. No? See 1, this is not how you write a distance.

  5. Optional color coding to help people who have trouble seeing the difference between m and km is a decent option. As long as I can choose not to turn it on; I don’t want my overview to look like a mess.

  6. Like 5, a decent option, as long as it is optional and I can choose not to opt in.

Maybe there are more people who need this feature, so good luck getting CCP to implement it. Just make sure to tell them to make it optional, or you risk messing up the readability of the overview for other players just to solve your own issue.

#13

You’re going to make things harder to read by using a non-standardised format.

1 Like
#14

I don’t do fleet battles either and sorting by distance is still my standard go-to.

Sounds like you have more of a general overview layout issue more than a reading issue.
May I recommend:

  1. There is no “may be” neutral. Everyone on grid is a potential threat. Always.

  2. This article. A major point is to remove friendlies from your standard overview. Therefore anyone on grid = potential threat.

I answered “Easy” because I have a workaround and it’s not an issue.

1 Like
#15

Uh. That’s EXACTLY what I said. You just changed the words.

That is the EXACT POLAR OPPOSITE of what you just said.

Neither of those address the question. And i already explained why they don’t.

I am not an accountant. That does not mean I am a plumber. There are more than two options at work here.

#16

Just by virture of being standardized does not make a thing easier or better. If it did we could just go back to roman numerals for everything easy just so long its standardized.

Standardized can be garbage. Ever hear of metric time? Its real. And nobody uses it.

#17

I seriously cannot understand this insistence on the “correct” way to write something. Do you all go around correcting signs that say “tonite” rather than “tonight”? Or those that say “Xmas” rather than “Christmas”?

You do realize that the abbreviations were made long before video games even existed right? Long before video screens even existed right? You do realize they were made by people who only wrote on paper and blackboards right? You do realize that things can and do change as technology progresses right?

#18

I explained this to you directly before.

Please give me a number that lets me know how many times I have to explain the same thing to you so I can cut and paste it that many times.

I CANNOT assume. I NEED to know EXACTLY and QUICKLY. Its NOT optional. Its not for defense only. Its for OFFENSE at the same time, or a need to switch from one to the other. Assuming I will get a target lock will not get me one. I may need to warp to my target and if I waste time trying to get an impossible lock I won’t catch my target.

#19

I am glad someone could say something positive.

As much as I also like those two options, my concern was the difficulty of implementation. All the other options seem as though they might be easier and therefore, more likely.

Of course my preference if for all of them to be optional for the pilot to use or not.

#20

When it comes to measurements and such, you really don’t see “in” or “km” or “lb” or whatever else all of a sudden is changed to something new just cause of “technology progress”.

My comment had nothing to do with them watching or seeing what EVE is doing, its that EVE is using standardized (oh yea you hate that word) measurements for distances, and are highly universal in any language.

17 years… If you could show me more than one other person in 17 years that wanted to change actual measurements in EVE then i’ll be surprised… Not gonna support your ideas, but i’ll be surprised.