EVE Search - Blaster tracking with graphs

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Blaster tracking with graphs

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
kyrieee Brutal Deliverance Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2009.10.03 19:40:00 - [1] Since Gallente and blasters sucking seems to be the the thing to talk about here on EVE-O atm I decided to take a look at it and made a few graphs. It's hardly anything conclusive but it's more than a priori blaster comments from grumpy Gallente pilots. All the graphs were made assuming that the ships would be shooting a similarly sized ships, i.e. signature radius = signature resolution. Damage and tracking is calculated using max skills and no ship bonuses unless otherwise specified. I had more to say but forums ate my post :[ Here's a graph showing standardized DPS (meaning '1' is the max theoretical DPS of the blasters, because they do the most) as a function of range and transversal velocity. We can see that the Megapulses do roughly 85% of the blaster's damage but over a much wider range spectrum. The lasers, predictably, demonstrate a lesser ability to keep up with faster targets though. They do track worse after all. It's notable, though, that the blasters don't reach their maximum theoretical damage against any target moving at a realistic speed. It's a recurring theme Here's the same graph but with an MWD turned on. As you can see it makes a massive difference. It also demonstrates the fact that blasterboats were hurt by the web nerf / scram chance. A strong web + mwd running yields much better damage Here's graph showing the standardized DPS as a function of range, but with four different transversal velocities. Here we can see how, even with a transversal of 50 m/s, the tracking bonused Mega doesn't reach its peek DPS within optimal, but instead slightly into falloff. The lasers, on the other hand, have no problems tracking well inside of their optimal. Blasters still win out on damage within their intended range, but not by a significant amount. This is the same graph but for Cruiser sized weaponry. The same observations can be made, but they're even more prominent here. Now we move on to the small turrets. As you can see small blasters cannot get close to their theoretical damage. You can see the lasers again hitting well inside their optimal while the blasters struggle in any scenario. Here's the pure hit percentage in the same circumstances. Doesn't look too got for those small neutrons In my opinion the higher damage of blasters doesn't outweigh their bad tracking, poor range and limited adaptability.
VanNostrum The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.10.03 19:52:00 - [2] interesting what ships did u use for these calculations? or are they just from raw data? since amarr ships get cap use bonus instead of double dmg or dmg+rof boni, the results of these charts could be somewhat biased though out of curiosity i'd like to see the charts for null ammo as well
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.10.03 20:01:00 - [3] These are excellent graphs. However, you should really take ship bonuses into account. For example, when looking at battleships, I have found it best to examine the Armageddon vs the Megathron. They fulfill essentially the same role, and you can (as a bonus) ignore drone DPS. The Abaddon is also an interesting case (IMO), but it's not as easy to ignore drone DPS. The graphs can be offset by drone DPS if you like. It's worth noting that you should pick a standard ship to shoot at - such as Raven/Drake/Cerb/Crow or something. Sig res = sig rad isn't particularly useful since the ships have different sig radiuses. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
VanNostrum The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.10.03 20:17:00 - [4] I should also mention that IF lasers/pulse/scorch were nerfed to the level where they'd have equal amount of dps/range/tracking with blasters, nobody would be flying amar ships with the exception of curse/pilgrim, since -lasers us much more cap -gallente ships have superior drone bays/bonuses -gallente ships have higher total ehp -gallente ships have better bonuses
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.10.03 20:27:00 - [5] Originally by: VanNostrum -gallente ships have superior drone bays/bonuses I remind you of the Arbitrator line of ships, and the Armageddon Quote: -gallente ships have higher total ehp I remind you of the resist bonus vs rep bonus. Quote: -gallente ships have better bonuses Not really? -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2009.10.03 20:30:00 - [6] Originally by: VanNostrum -lasers us much more cap Not after the 50% Cap reduction bonus, the diffrence is minor. Also blaster ships spend more cap MWDing around. Originally by: VanNostrum -gallente ships have superior drone bays/bonuses Only one the dedicated drone ships. Brutix/Harb -> 50m¦ Gedon/Mega -> 125m¦ Originally by: VanNostrum -gallente ships have higher total ehp The oposite actualy, since amarr got more low slots -> more tank after a equal number of damagemods. Also the resistance bonus is supperior over the rep bonus, since it is more flexible(helps local tanking, buffertanks and RR). Originally by: VanNostrum -gallente ships have better bonuses Explain pls. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Stil Harkonnen	Posted - 2009.10.03 20:30:00 - [7] Originally by: VanNostrum I should also mention that IF lasers/pulse/scorch were nerfed to the level where they'd have equal amount of dps/range/tracking with blasters, nobody would be flying amar ships with the exception of curse/pilgrim, since -lasers us much more cap -gallente ships have superior drone bays/bonuses -gallente ships have higher total ehp -gallente ships have better bonuses But the problem right now is that people fly amarr ships and don't fly gallente because -lasers use cap, but blasters also suck down the cap -Amarr ships have decent drone bays, the second best race to use drones with, so the versatility of lasers AND decent drones makes Amarr better -Amarr ships are arguably better at armor tanking, and with the lasers which operate at almost all ranges, they can RR better and don't have to worry about mwd around too much -Amarr ships seem to have good enough bonuses since everybody uses them. The lasers' godly range and actual damage makes them more worthwhile than gallente ships just how i see it
VanNostrum The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.10.03 20:41:00 - [8] Edited by: VanNostrum on 03/10/2009 20:44:05 Originally by: Stil Harkonnen Originally by: VanNostrum I should also mention that IF lasers/pulse/scorch were nerfed to the level where they'd have equal amount of dps/range/tracking with blasters, nobody would be flying amar ships with the exception of curse/pilgrim, since -lasers us much more cap -gallente ships have superior drone bays/bonuses -gallente ships have higher total ehp -gallente ships have better bonuses But the problem right now is that people fly amarr ships and don't fly gallente because -lasers use cap, but blasters also suck down the cap -Amarr ships have decent drone bays, the second best race to use drones with, so the versatility of lasers AND decent drones makes Amarr better -Amarr ships are arguably better at armor tanking, and with the lasers which operate at almost all ranges, they can RR better and don't have to worry about mwd around too much -Amarr ships seem to have good enough bonuses since everybody uses them. The lasers' godly range and actual damage makes them more worthwhile than gallente ships just how i see it no, you're twisting reality. People are flying Amarr because they are superior in numbers. Since everybody is fighting in blobs these days it's not an issue that you can't tank&tackle at the same time, as you get dedicated tacklers. So not being able to fit tackle/ewar on amarr ships is no longer an issue. Nobody can convince anyone that an Amarr BS would be better solo than ANY Gallente BS. Actually, show me one person that flies any Amarr ship solo other than the recons. A gallente ship gets much higher TOTAL ehp with a single dmg control than an Amarr ship. The 1 extra low slot doesn't get Amarr ship higher EHP (do the math). Enough with this Gallente whine already! edit: i admitted in a previous thread that blasters do need higher tracking, but nothing more. and Amarr ships don't deserve anything less since anything less will make them unplayable (welcome back 2006)
Cpt Branko The Scope	Posted - 2009.10.03 20:55:00 - [9] Originally by: VanNostrum no, you're twisting reality. People are flying Amarr because they are superior in numbers. Since everybody is fighting in blobs these days it's not an issue that you can't tank&tackle at the same time, as you get dedicated tacklers. So not being able to fit tackle/ewar on amarr ships is no longer an issue. Nobody can convince anyone that an Amarr BS would be better solo than ANY Gallente BS. You're not seriously suggesting solo BS is viable at all? Currently, the only ones which could be deemed as 'solo-worthy' would either have dual heavy neutralizers (meaning, NOT the Mega/Hype) or even better, be full neut/droneboats. Everyone else needs to have support. Originally by: VanNostrum Actually, show me one person that flies any Amarr ship solo other than the recons. Well, I don't know. Except Punishers, Crusaders, Arbitrators, Curse & Pilgrim, Harbinger and Sacriledge I have not seen any Amarr ships solo successfully. All solid choices. Originally by: VanNostrum A gallente ship gets much higher TOTAL ehp with a single dmg control than an Amarr ship. The 1 extra low slot doesn't get Amarr ship higher EHP (do the math). Have you heard about the silly thing we call modules? Last I heard, your tank does not end with a damage control II. Oh, no! You actually tend to fit a buffer of the appropriate type. And guess what, the difference between a three slot tank and a four slot tank with more base armour + trimarks on all easily covers the hull HP difference. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
kyrieee Brutal Deliverance Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2009.10.03 20:59:00 - [10] Edited by: kyrieee on 03/10/2009 21:00:34 Originally by: Liang Nuren These are excellent graphs. However, you should really take ship bonuses into account. For example, when looking at battleships, I have found it best to examine the Armageddon vs the Megathron. They fulfill essentially the same role, and you can (as a bonus) ignore drone DPS. The Abaddon is also an interesting case (IMO), but it's not as easy to ignore drone DPS. The graphs can be offset by drone DPS if you like. It's worth noting that you should pick a standard ship to shoot at - such as Raven/Drake/Cerb/Crow or something. Sig res = sig rad isn't particularly useful since the ships have different sig radiuses. -Liang Yeah I know The reason I didn't apply ship specific bonuses other than the Mega's tracking is that there are just so many different cases to cover. Geddon vs Mega would probably just turn out even more in favour of the Geddon though since they both have a DPS bonus (RoF / Dmg bonus gives equal DPS boost) but the Geddon has a smaller sig and they're equally fast Most of the good Amarr ships have a damage bonus. Zealot, Harbinger, Geddon, Abaddon etc. I should probably add Null (how often do you actually change hybrid ammo in a fight though?). Drones would skew ship damage slightly in favour of Gallente but then you have to look at how many turret slots a ship has etc. I tried to just look at the guns, and they don't track well enough to hit in their optimal. It may be the way CCP wants it The real issue is how much damage they should do though. Before you determine that you can't really say that they do too little.

The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2009.10.03 21:01:00 - [11] Originally by: VanNostrum A gallente ship gets much higher TOTAL ehp with a single dmg control than an Amarr ship. The 1 extra low slot doesn't get Amarr ship higher EHP (do the math). So we lost the state of a reasonable discussion allready? Ofc a gallente ship will allways have the higher EHP with a single DCU because gallente have the most structure. This doesn¦t mean you will end up with less EHP after the extra low is used for another plate or resistance module. For example: Mega 97.3k EHP(3 damagemods, 2 plates, DCU, ANP) Gedon 109.1k EHP(3 damagemods, 3 plates, DCU, ANP) ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Bernard Bolzano	Posted - 2009.10.03 21:22:00 - [12] Edited by: Bernard Bolzano on 03/10/2009 21:24:49 some nice graphs to start with. but other info you can draw from these too: -in bs vs bs scenario the blasters outdps lasers by 20% if you orbit at 5km. -in bs vs bs scenario the blasters outdps lasers till 10km distance and are about equal till like 12km with CN antimatter. so assuming gang warfare and the popular buffer rr fits this seems quite fair to me. group of megas vs group of geddons: -ehp is quite similar. -if both groups are below 12km and don't move at all megas deal more(same in 10-12km window) dps, if group distance is above 12km geddons deal more dps. -so during a rr fight the mega offers more dps and lower cap use if the distance is below 12km, and geddons deliver more dps but more capuse if the fight is farer away then 12km (in this scenario the megas can close range via mwd). of course if the distance between the two groups is way more then 20 that closing range does not rly work that good. just my 2 cents
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2009.10.03 21:29:00 - [13] As if it wasn't obvious enough the difference in tracking is not enough.
bloodlust priest	Posted - 2009.10.03 21:35:00 - [14] you put in scorch but not null, do a graph with null pls
kyrieee Brutal Deliverance Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2009.10.03 22:40:00 - [15] Edited by: kyrieee on 03/10/2009 22:42:10 Here ya go Null included. It's not that impressive. Generally it's like AN MF but will less damage First off: Null vs Caldari Navy Antimatter vs Amarr Navy Multifrequency on Battleships Null vs Scorch on Battleships: All four on BSes: Cruisers: Frigates:
Vernice Cicali	Posted - 2009.10.03 23:28:00 - [16] Edited by: Vernice Cicali on 03/10/2009 23:34:06 Edited by: Vernice Cicali on 03/10/2009 23:33:22 Edited by: Vernice Cicali on 03/10/2009 23:30:15 They're all beautiful graphs that show how well a weapon does at a specific range against a target flying at a specific speed. Comparing the two weapon types' damage does get difficult though when you normalize them both. If you set the maximum blaster damage at 1 and use that method on the lasers too (so their max damage won't be 1, it will be slightly below it), it will be easier to compare the damage. edit: nevermind, I just noticed you already did that, getting somewhat late here ^^ What's the point you're trying to really make though? Blasters might need some work, or not (never really used them), but why is it bad that their optimal damage lies somewhat in their falloff? Autocannons have that even worse if I'm not mistaken, it's the way tracking works at higher orbiting speeds.
Jack Icegaard The Omega Project	Posted - 2009.10.04 00:15:00 - [17] Nice graphs indeed. What i also think would be interesting is normalized graphs where the dps of the blaster is subtracted from laser dps. So the negative value shows the area where blaster have the advantage and positive value for laser. That would clearly illustrate the narrow envelope of range and transversal speed, where blasters is at advantage vs pulse lasers.
Don Pellegrino	Posted - 2009.10.04 01:15:00 - [18] Originally by: Vernice Cicali but why is it bad that their optimal damage lies somewhat in their falloff? Autocannons have that even worse if I'm not mistaken, it's the way tracking works at higher orbiting speeds. The reason is that blasters get a little bit more damage at an insanely high cost. They do have a better tracking than pulses, but since they have to operate under 5k, the tracking isn't enough and diminishes the dps. Basically, they do more damage, but the slight dps advantage is not worth the bad range, bad relative tracking and having to MWD all around the place. Yes, lasers use more cap, but they dont need to use their MWD all the time and have (in general) a better capacitor.
TigerWoman Amarr The Circle	Posted - 2009.10.04 08:55:00 - [19] Originally by: Don Pellegrino The reason is that blasters get a little bit more damage at an insanely high cost. They do have a better tracking than pulses, but since they have to operate under 5k, the tracking isn't enough and diminishes the dps. doesn't this mean that laserdamage diminishes even more in theese ranges since blasters naturaly track roughly 25% better then lasers (before any shipbonus applys) ? i know that falloff lowers hitquality but at 5km this rly is not a huge effect. another thing that the little bit more dps you speak off is 20% which is like the difference between bs lvl 1 and bs lvl 5 ? Originally by: Don Pellegrino Yes, lasers use more cap, but they dont need to use their MWD all the time and have (in general) a better capacitor. what do you mean by "use their MWD all the time" ? for solo its get in range once and thats it, in rr fleet the oppsoing fleet form a bubble of ships anyway to be in range for the rr so you need it to get in range only once again. and for the capacitor, the gallente capacitors are quite close to the performance of the amarr ones. and assuming equal ammount of cap charges in cargo for both ships, cap boosters will deplete for the amarr group earlier then for the gallente one. so that can be a problem if the fight takes longer.
Spooks'em	Posted - 2009.10.04 10:10:00 - [20] I am going to $%^& about formatting and presentation. ----- Grid lines would be very useful on the color gradient graphs. More conventional distance notation would also be welcome as not everybody is comfortable with scientific notation. I might also consider cutting the transversal speed by a third or so on the battleship color gradient graphs. It is pretty rare, though possible, that a battleship in the wild would maintain 400+ m/s transversal against another battleship without experiencing signature bloom. Trends on the graph are already established by the time the transversal reaches 400 m/s anyway so relatively little would be lost from such a change. A similar treatment of the length scale might be in order. The attempt to make the graphs big and easy to read is appreciated by those of us with poor eye sight. However, a width reduction of about 300-400 pixels of the pictures would keep the forums from being stretched on smallish but still common screen sizes.

Dasalt Istgut	Posted - 2009.10.04 10:13:00 - [21] Edited by: Dasalt Istgut on 04/10/2009 10:14:07 Originally by: TigerWoman doesn't this mean that laserdamage diminishes even more in theese ranges since blasters naturaly track roughly 25% better then lasers (before any shipbonus applys) ? i know that falloff lowers hitquality but at 5km this rly is not a huge effect. The further something is away from you, the easier it is to track. That is to say its easier to hit something moving 1km/sec at 20km than it is at 10km. So given lazors have more than 2x the range of blasters, the 25% better tracking isn't even by far. Range itself is an advantage, so versus blasters amarr have range advantage, real DPS advantage, tracking advantage. The blaster only wins against a heavily tackled target right inside its optimal range. Real fights never work out that way. Offhand I can't think of any fight I'd choose a blaster over scorch fit pulses. Same can be said for barrage vs scorch as well.
Eli Porter Amarr Altruism.	Posted - 2009.10.04 10:58:00 - [22] Except that your targets can escape if you're an Amarr BS in Scorch range and they're dead if you're in Blaster range. Gallente have more mid slots for a reason, and that is tackle. Scram+Web on Blaster boats is hardly a new concept, making sure your target stays put and is easily tracked. And in a scram+web situation, Gallente wins against Amarr almost every time(Almost meaning that against poorly fit shield tankers Amarr can pull ahead). Naturally mid slots(And point blank DPS) matter less in big fleets, and Amarr excels in big fleets where Gallente excels in solo and small gangs.
Trigos Trilobi Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.10.04 13:03:00 - [23] Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 04/10/2009 13:02:58 Nice graphs. I think you've chosen a bit inconvenient speed scale on many of them, but even at those scales it's easy to see that tracking isn't much a problem, except on pulses, which track significantly too well.
Arrador	Posted - 2009.10.04 13:58:00 - [24] I'd like to see a small buff to Optimal range & tracking, and/or remove the tracking nerf of t2 ammo.
london Gallente Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.04 15:10:00 - [25] Fantastic thread! CCP, are you listening?
Don Pellegrino	Posted - 2009.10.04 15:28:00 - [26] Originally by: TigerWoman Originally by: Don Pellegrino The reason is that blasters get a little bit more damage at an insanely high cost. They do have a better tracking than pulses, but since they have to operate under 5k, the tracking isn't enough and diminishes the dps. doesn't this mean that laserdamage diminishes even more in theese ranges since blasters naturaly track roughly 25% better then lasers (before any shipbonus applys) ? i know that falloff lowers hitquality but at 5km this rly is not a huge effect. another thing that the little bit more dps you speak off is 20% which is like the difference between bs lvl 1 and bs lvl 5 ? No, on a medium blaster, the effective range is 3k, more than 3k and you lose your dps very quickly. Less than 3k, the tracking becomes a nightmare and you lose all the dps. Yes, lasers lose against blasters under 1k for small blasters, 3k for medium blasters and 5-6k for large blasters due to slightly lower dps and tracking. The reason blasters need a rework is because their effectiveness is extremely limited and dps doesn't compensate for the fact that they suck 85% of the time while lasers are very effective 85% of the time. Originally by: TigerWoman Originally by: Don Pellegrino Yes, lasers use more cap, but they dont need to use their MWD all the time and have (in general) a better capacitor. what do you mean by "use their MWD all the time" ? for solo its get in range once and thats it, in rr fleet the oppsoing fleet form a bubble of ships anyway to be in range for the rr so you need it to get in range only once again. and for the capacitor, the gallente capacitors are quite close to the performance of the amarr ones. and assuming equal ammount of cap charges in cargo for both ships, cap boosters will deplete for the amarr group earlier then for the gallente one. so that can be a problem if the fight takes longer. What you're saying is right, but you forgot a couple of things. Not all BS are used in RR fleets and a blaster boat will have to MWD all around the place to get in range. Almost all the time, the (lightly) higher blaster dps won't compensate for the time you wasted to get in range. Same for solo (for those that really want to solo in a bs), when you will finally get in range and start doing some damage, it's already too late, unless you both start at zero, and that almost never happens. Finally, in RR BS fleets, having a 6-7k range means you will not be able to actually do damage all the time like other ships can (except for a little bit of drone damage). Yes, blasters are meant to have very short range and that's fine, but dps simply doesn't compensate for all the downsides.
Stuart Price Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2009.10.04 15:29:00 - [27] As others have alluded to: More optimal, more tracking. If we take Opt+Fall as maximum range, optimal accounts for just under 40% of that. I'd like to see it increased to around 75-80% of that with the current falloff bonus ships (Deimos, Astarte) applying their bonus to tracking OR (this will be controversial) armour. Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate'
arbiter reborn	Posted - 2009.10.04 15:49:00 - [28] so between the shortest and longest range close range wepon systems, a blaster with null outdamages a lazor with scorch till 20 km and trks better, im gallente i dont see the problem, if your gonna boost blaster traking ull need to boost ac traking as "they dont hit properly at there optimal"either, it would be game breaking if anything traked that well, scorch L maybe slightly op against small ships at range but its not hard for a megathron to kill small ships at close range that seems to be the difference in ethos between the races. i wouldnt argue against a drop in traking by like 20% on scorch, but id like to see any traking increses on gallente go onto null rather than a base traking increse on wepons. any traking boost bothers me as the megathron already diposes of small ships with frightening ease and thats the biggest issue really, keep traking as it is boost damage by 20% on L blasters 10% on medium across the board imo
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.10.04 16:01:00 - [29] Originally by: arbiter reborn so between the shortest and longest range close range wepon systems, a blaster with null outdamages a lazor with scorch till 20 km and trks better The problem with that is that the Amarr ship will use MF up to that 20km. Do the comparison with that in mind and you will not like the results. -- Gradient forum
Trigos Trilobi Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.10.04 17:22:00 - [30] I don't quite get how anyone could suggest blasters need a tracking boost based on those graphs, unless they assume the standard combat scenario is a dead still blaster bs trying to shoot a max speed bs on perfect orbit and neither have webs. That's why I said the speed scale is somewhat poorly chosen, 100m/s or even 50m/s transversal speed in a bs vs bs scenario inside web range is just not very relevant. The speed differences (and therefore maximum theoretical orbit speeds as well) fall somewhere in the 10-20m/s range, and at those transversals blasters hit just fine. At cruiser level likewise, the 200m/s+ graphs, while looking ugly, aren't that meaningful. Even the 100m/s graph describes a rare situation and the most interesting graph is the 50m/s one where blasters, again, have no significant trouble. I just don't see how any reasonable tracking boost would achieve anything useful, and a lot of the cries for more tracking sound a lot like people are just unhappy that they can't hit smaller ship classes anymore. Optimal is another big no, considering especially on bs level acs are already pushed past point range. Some more damage would probably be fine, 15% maybe to compensate for the upcoming ac ammo changes and then some. And, pulses obviously need a huge tracking nerf, but that's another matter.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.