EVE Search - A better Incarna? Should I be a dev?

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

A better Incarna? Should I be a dev?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Herr Wilkus	Posted - 2011.07.03 11:43:00 - [1] -Remove AUR, as needless complexity and for needless PLEX destruction. -Clothes initially seeded on NPC-market, for ISK. -Eventually clothes will be player-produced via PI or a few high end 'officer drops'. -Now, clothing 'design space' not wasted as 'vanity' only, and grant combat abilities. -Also, make clothing destructible when pod-killed. -OK, functionally, they aren't much different than implants....but... -they are VISIBLE, so you can tell if you've caught (or killed) someone with something good, and allow for higher ransoms. (as apparently, listing implants on pod KMs is just too difficult to implement) Result: -Good ISK sink -Items actually useful. -Gives PI industrialists something else to make. -More fun for pirates/sui-gankers/ninjas. -More money for CCP, as more people will subscribe. Can anyone see a problem with this plan? Would still be a disappointment for a large expansion, but much better than the current arrangement, C/D?
kerradeph Gallente Penumbra Military Industrial Complex	Posted - 2011.07.03 11:47:00 - [2] ya, CCP wants to make EVE free to play using AUR and their primary source of income. meaning subscribers will mean nothing.
Mina Sebiestar	Posted - 2011.07.03 11:47:00 - [3] no instant cash from moma boys need time to implement so nope eve is heading in another direction show me the moneyz or GTFO sadly.
Masamune Dekoro	Posted - 2011.07.03 11:50:00 - [4] except the purpose of an item shop is to generate revenue, not add to gameplay value. If you were developing a Pay to Play game, your ideas would be great. However, free to play MMOs such as Eve online depend on Microtransactions for profit, and as such depend on an item shop.
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar The Python Cartel. The Defenders of Pen Island	Posted - 2011.07.03 11:58:00 - [5] I say we don't intervene and let will what may...
Bad Messenger draketrain	Posted - 2011.07.03 12:01:00 - [6] luckily you are not a dev
dicen3	Posted - 2011.07.03 12:16:00 - [7] Originally by: Masamune Dekoro except the purpose of an item shop is to generate revenue, not add to gameplay value. If you were developing a Pay to Play game, your ideas would be great. However, free to play MMOs such as Eve online depend on Microtransactions for profit, and as such depend on an item shop. Eve Online is free to play? Another one who works for CCP! You get a prize. I pay over $120 dollars a year to play this game. After over 4 years that is $500 dollars. I still play Halo, which I bought like 10 years ago. I paid $50 for that game. CCP you are slime, pure slime. I am not giving you anymore money. Enough. Greed is Good!
Masamune Dekoro	Posted - 2011.07.03 12:42:00 - [8] Originally by: dicen3 Originally by: Masamune Dekoro except the purpose of an item shop is to generate revenue, not add to gameplay value. If you were developing a Pay to Play game, your ideas would be great. However, free to play MMOs such as Eve online depend on Microtransactions for profit, and as such depend on an item shop. Eve Online is free to play? Another one who works for CCP! You get a prize. I pay over $120 dollars a year to play this game. After over 4 years that is $500 dollars. I still play Halo, which I bought like 10 years ago. I paid $50 for that game. CCP you are slime, pure slime. I am not giving you anymore money. Enough. Greed is Good! I think you left your sarcasm detection goggles in your other pants.
xxxTRUSTxxx	Posted - 2011.07.03 12:44:00 - [9] Originally by: Herr Wilkus -Remove AUR, as needless complexity and for needless PLEX destruction. -Clothes initially seeded on NPC-market, for ISK. -Eventually clothes will be player-produced via PI or a few high end 'officer drops'. -Now, clothing 'design space' not wasted as 'vanity' only, and grant combat abilities. -Also, make clothing destructible when pod-killed. -OK, functionally, they aren't much different than implants....but... -they are VISIBLE, so you can tell if you've caught (or killed) someone with something good, and allow for higher ransoms. (as apparently, listing implants on pod KMs is just too difficult to implement) Result: -Good ISK sink -Items actually useful. -Gives PI industrialists something else to make. -More fun for pirates/sui-gankers/ninjas. -More money for CCP, as more people will subscribe. Can anyone see a problem with this plan? Would still be a disappointment for a large expansion, but much better than the current arrangement, C/D? ^^^^^^^^^ is why you're not a dev
Kirsi Kirjasto	Posted - 2011.07.03 14:13:00 - [10] +1 Yeah, most of the clothing stuff seems like a waste of time as 'vanity' only, especially if it has no in-game benefit and it can't be destroyed (thus zero interactivity in any way that matters in EVE). So why try to jury-rig it into a LOL 'cashcow' with a clunky new currency, and kill immersion in the process. Its a dead end, concept-wise, unless you go the P2W route. I agree, clothes should just be 'visible implants' - some manufactured, others as rare drops, all available for ISK. Then taking away solid functionality (ie; hangar view) to force people into the CQ/NEX is just a **** move, straight up. If CQ was such a winner, people would go, given the choice. So why so skeered, CCP? Afraid to put the flashy, resource-hog CQ up head to head against the 'old fashioned' hangar view? Afraid to put the inferior 'new forums' up against the old? Of course they are, and they should be - as they represent a step backwards.

Patient 2428190 DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School	Posted - 2011.07.03 14:18:00 - [11] Originally by: dicen3 Eve Online is free to play? Another one who works for CCP! You get a prize. I pay over $120 dollars a year to play this game. After over 4 years that is $500 dollars. Its pretty much free to play if you can find a halfway decent income stream. ...Then when you stopped to think about it. All you really said was Lalala.
dicen3	Posted - 2011.07.03 14:20:00 - [12] Originally by: Patient 2428190 Originally by: dicen3 Eve Online is free to play? Another one who works for CCP! You get a prize. I pay over $120 dollars a year to play this game. After over 4 years that is $500 dollars. Its pretty much free to play if you can find a halfway decent income stream. Only for that player. CCP is still paid.
Silas Cooper	Posted - 2011.07.03 14:27:00 - [13] Originally by: Herr Wilkus -Remove AUR, as needless complexity and for needless PLEX destruction. -Clothes initially seeded on NPC-market, for ISK. -Eventually clothes will be player-produced via PI or a few high end 'officer drops'. -Now, clothing 'design space' not wasted as 'vanity' only, and grant combat abilities. -Also, make clothing destructible when pod-killed. -OK, functionally, they aren't much different than implants....but... -they are VISIBLE, so you can tell if you've caught (or killed) someone with something good, and allow for higher ransoms. (as apparently, listing implants on pod KMs is just too difficult to implement) Result: -Good ISK sink -Items actually useful. -Gives PI industrialists something else to make. -More fun for pirates/sui-gankers/ninjas. -More money for CCP, as more people will subscribe. Can anyone see a problem with this plan? Would still be a disappointment for a large expansion, but much better than the current arrangement, C/D? - AUR was introduced for accounting reasons, so no they don't want to remove it - first point makes makes this one redundant - first point makes makes this one redundant - first point makes makes this one redundant - you just slipped in non-vanity items, so no - with your amazing changes, they better be - while interesting it's overshadowed by the bad design in itself so no; stick to playing EVE, not designing it. -- You can't cure stupid.
Herr Wilkus	Posted - 2011.07.03 21:01:00 - [14] Originally by: Silas Cooper Originally by: Herr Wilkus -Remove AUR, as needless complexity and for needless PLEX destruction. -Clothes initially seeded on NPC-market, for ISK. -Eventually clothes will be player-produced via PI or a few high end 'officer drops'. -Now, clothing 'design space' not wasted as 'vanity' only, and grant combat abilities. -Also, make clothing destructible when pod-killed. -OK, functionally, they aren't much different than implants....but... -they are VISIBLE, so you can tell if you've caught (or killed) someone with something good, and allow for higher ransoms. (as apparently, listing implants on pod KMs is just too difficult to implement) Result: -Good ISK sink -Items actually useful. -Gives PI industrialists something else to make. -More fun for pirates/sui-gankers/ninjas. -More money for CCP, as more people will subscribe. Can anyone see a problem with this plan? Would still be a disappointment for a large expansion, but much better than the current arrangement, C/D? - AUR was introduced for accounting reasons, so no they don't want to remove it - first point makes makes this one redundant - first point makes makes this one redundant - first point makes makes this one redundant - you just slipped in non-vanity items, so no - with your amazing changes, they better be - while interesting it's overshadowed by the bad design in itself so no; stick to playing EVE, not designing it. Odd. You are living so far up CCP's rear end that you fail to realize that 'AUR' took a perfectly usable game mechanic, or valuable 'design space' and made it significantly less good - 'for accounting reasons' as you say. Because clothes are sold for 'real money' they can have no function. Thats a shame, as they clearly could - be far more interesting than just Implant +6 or Hardwire BS-X, especially considering they are visible to other players while in space. All they would have to do is stop selling them for 'real money' and start seeding them on the market, find a way to make them player constructable, or officer drops. Are you seriously saying that the current system makes for a 'better game?' Or are you just saying that CCP wants AUR, therefore AUR is good?
Samir Duran Xadi	Posted - 2011.07.03 21:11:00 - [15] Originally by: Herr Wilkus Originally by: Silas Cooper Originally by: Herr Wilkus -Remove AUR, as needless complexity and for needless PLEX destruction. -Clothes initially seeded on NPC-market, for ISK. -Eventually clothes will be player-produced via PI or a few high end 'officer drops'. -Now, clothing 'design space' not wasted as 'vanity' only, and grant combat abilities. -Also, make clothing destructible when pod-killed. -OK, functionally, they aren't much different than implants....but... -they are VISIBLE, so you can tell if you've caught (or killed) someone with something good, and allow for higher ransoms. (as apparently, listing implants on pod KMs is just too difficult to implement) Result: -Good ISK sink -Items actually useful. -Gives PI industrialists something else to make. -More fun for pirates/sui-gankers/ninjas. -More money for CCP, as more people will subscribe. Can anyone see a problem with this plan? Would still be a disappointment for a large expansion, but much better than the current arrangement, C/D? - AUR was introduced for accounting reasons, so no they don't want to remove it - first point makes makes this one redundant - first point makes makes this one redundant - first point makes makes this one redundant - you just slipped in non-vanity items, so no - with your amazing changes, they better be - while interesting it's overshadowed by the bad design in itself so no; stick to playing EVE, not designing it. Odd. You are living so far up CCP's rear end that you fail to realize that 'AUR' took a perfectly usable game mechanic, or valuable 'design space' and made it significantly less good - 'for accounting reasons' as you say. Because clothes are sold for 'real money' they can have no function. Thats a shame, as they clearly could - be far more interesting than just Implant +6 or Hardwire BS-X, especially considering they are visible to other players while in space. All they would have to do is stop selling them for 'real money' and start seeding them on the market, find a way to make them player constructable, or officer drops. Are you seriously saying that the current system makes for a 'better game?' Or are you just saying that CCP wants AUR, therefore AUR is good? just ignore him his little brain is not enough to comprehend what you said... I agree with your main point clothes should be player constructable and that's what ccp promised to us in the past. It's amazing that they made us focus on another issue "introducing non vanity items" to forget the existence of the nex store. it shouldn't be there and it's enough imo to go back to protesting.
Silas Cooper	Posted - 2011.07.03 21:35:00 - [16] Edited by: Silas Cooper on 03/07/2011 21:35:19 Originally by: Samir Duran Xadi Originally by: Herr Wilkus Originally by: Silas Cooper - AUR was introduced for accounting reasons, so no they don't want to remove it - first point makes makes this one redundant - first point makes makes this one redundant - first point makes makes this one redundant - you just slipped in non-vanity items, so no - with your amazing changes, they better be - while interesting it's overshadowed by the bad design in itself so no; stick to playing EVE, not designing it. Odd. You are living so far up CCP's rear end that you fail to realize that 'AUR' took a perfectly usable game mechanic, or valuable 'design space' and made it significantly less good - 'for accounting reasons' as you say. Because clothes are sold for 'real money' they can have no function. Thats a shame, as they clearly could - be far more interesting than just Implant +6 or Hardwire BS-X, especially considering they are visible to other players while in space. All they would have to do is stop selling them for 'real money' and start seeding them on the market, find a way to make them player constructable, or officer drops. Are you seriously saying that the current system makes for a 'better game?' Or are you just saying that CCP wants AUR, therefore AUR is good? just ignore him his little brain is not enough to comprehend what you said... I agree with your main point clothes should be player constructable and that's what ccp promised to us in the past. It's amazing that they made us focus on another issue "introducing non vanity items" to forget the existence of the nex store. it shouldn't be there and it's enough imo to go back to protesting. If you're going to try and bash, at least have some facts and knowledge. There's too many plex in circulation, ingame plex is a liability for CCP as it's a promise for game time and services redeemable at any given moment, making your accountants frown a lot. So they want to increase the usage of plex and their plan is to do so by offering goods for plex. Ofcourse the increase in plex demand will also affect plex supply, creating a new equilibrium, and even if it doesn't help a whole lot in the long run it'll still increase their profits. Aurum helps in two ways. First of all it allows for better pricing options (instead of everything costing 1 or more plexes). Secondly it replaces the liability with "space pixels". The extra clothing isn't in the game for our "benefit", it's there to make money and to act as a test bed for WoD so no; they won't introduce clothing for isk or have it player created. -- You can't cure stupid.
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.07.03 21:38:00 - [17] Originally by: dicen3 Originally by: Patient 2428190 Originally by: dicen3 Eve Online is free to play? Another one who works for CCP! You get a prize. I pay over $120 dollars a year to play this game. After over 4 years that is $500 dollars. Its pretty much free to play if you can find a halfway decent income stream. Only for that player. CCP is still paid. How dare they make money to provide 600 jobs.
Xercodo Amarr Daj'Juntar	Posted - 2011.07.03 21:56:00 - [18] Edited by: Xercodo on 03/07/2011 21:58:10 these things alone won't increase subscriber numbers, the reason for AUR is cause we DO need a PLEX sink. People buy a lot of PLEX at once and then the market get a bit stagnate as the stockpile trickles out to the market. One of the problems CCP has is that someone can buy like 20 PLEXes one month but not buy any for the next several months. That period of time where CCP doesn't make money in this scenario is kinda dangerous financially for CCP. What WILL bring in more subscribers is expanding on incarna, adding the other CQ's, making it multiplayer and letting people hang out. The fact that up till now our "character" was just a static image that we never got to really interact with has been a big game killer for people that have tried the game. It's a story I've seen repeated countless times since i joined. "My cousin/gf/bf/co-worker/friend tried the game but didn't like being just a ship 24/7" -------------------------------------------------- The drake is a lie
Herr Wilkus	Posted - 2011.07.03 22:49:00 - [19] PLEX on the market are a liability? Seriously? Yes, the represent a 'promise to pay', but... PLEX in the market represents a HUGE windfall for CCP. Why? Its simple. Money in hand now is worth more than money promised in the future. Would you rather I paid you $15 now, or $15 a year from now? Now, of course. Because with $15 now, you can do many things - pay off credit card debt, invest, buy assets. Inflation further erodes value of money over time. The IRS nets a huge windfall the same way (involuntarily, of course), by withholding your income against a future (April 15) tax liability - then giving you the remainder as a 'refund'. Simply an interest-free loan to the government. PLEX represents subscription time bought up well in advance, giving the CCP the freedom to do a great many things far earlier than they otherwise would have - provided the money is invested wisely. (ie, improving the game, adding content, upgrading servers and insuring that PLEX continue to be sold...) Its sad, because its clear that, instead, they spent this windfall looking for ways to simply escape these 'liabilities' by tearing up the PLEX 'receipts' as quickly as the monocle wearing player base will let them. I just want 'real content' and an improved game. I was trying to illustrate how Incarna was not just a slap in the face - but a missed opportunity to do something interesting within the confines of the game's ISK economy.
Silas Cooper	Posted - 2011.07.03 22:57:00 - [20] Originally by: Herr Wilkus I have no clue what I'm talking about, if I would have stayed in school a tad longer (and/or followed the discussion on this very subject a bit) then I'd know better. Exactly that. Don't try to rationalise things you'd LIKE to see in game with RL facts you don't know about. -- You can't cure stupid.

Wilhelm Riley	Posted - 2011.07.03 23:00:00 - [21] Originally by: Herr Wilkus -Now, clothing 'design space' not wasted as 'vanity' only, and grant combat abilities. French Connection UK no.
Herr Wilkus	Posted - 2011.07.03 23:15:00 - [22] Originally by: Silas Cooper Originally by: Herr Wilkus I have no clue what I'm talking about, if I would have stayed in school a tad longer (and/or followed the discussion on this very subject a bit) then I'd know better. Gee, I'm not smart enough to point out anything wrong with his argument, so I will just pretend like he is wrong, anyway. Go me! Are you still seriously saying that the Incarna 'PLEX/$$$ for useless clothes' model provides superior gameplay than keeping the mechanic completely within the EVE/ISK economy? After all, if the 'apparel' is player manufactured, and sold for ISK (rather than $$$) granting the clothing actual abilities is no longer verboten. Then, it would at least add something (however minor) to gameplay.
The Offerer Minmatar	Posted - 2011.07.03 23:17:00 - [23] Originally by: Bad Messenger luckily you are not a dev
Alara IonStorm Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.07.03 23:26:00 - [24] Originally by: Herr Wilkus Are you still seriously saying that the Incarna 'PLEX/$$$ for useless clothes' model provides superior gameplay than keeping the mechanic completely within the EVE/ISK economy? Really not saying that, CCP sold plexes and used that money as current revenue without looking at the long term implications of them being built up. That means that there is enough Plexes floating around that more and more people can afford to just cancel there Subs and use plexes already on the market. They wan't to keep the current number of Subs paying while Gametime goes to non Gametime things. It is not about game play value or content. It is about money, the money they will use when more and more people buy the massive stockpile of plexes off the market and less people buy them to sell because the current supply is pushing down the demand. CCP is already in Dept, they didn't keep that Plex Money for a rainy day and now it is biting them. -- EVE Online is commited to $$Excellence$$
Xercodo Amarr Daj'Juntar	Posted - 2011.07.03 23:34:00 - [25] Edited by: Xercodo on 03/07/2011 23:37:09 Originally by: Herr Wilkus PLEX on the market are a liability? Seriously? Yes, the represent a 'promise to pay', but... PLEX in the market represents a HUGE windfall for CCP. Why? Its simple. Money in hand now is worth more than money promised in the future. Would you rather I paid you $15 now, or $15 a year from now? Now, of course. Because with $15 now, you can do many things - pay off credit card debt, invest, buy assets. Inflation further erodes value of money over time. The IRS nets a huge windfall the same way (involuntarily, of course), by withholding your income against a future (April 15) tax liability - then giving you the remainder as a 'refund'. Simply an interest-free loan to the government. PLEX represents subscription time bought up well in advance, giving the CCP the freedom to do a great many things far earlier than they otherwise would have - provided the money is invested wisely. (ie, improving the game, adding content, upgrading servers and insuring that PLEX continue to be sold...) Its sad, because its clear that, instead, they spent this windfall looking for ways to simply escape these 'liabilities' by tearing up the PLEX 'receipts' as quickly as the monocle wearing player base will let them. I just want 'real content' and an improved game. I was trying to illustrate how Incarna was not just a slap in the face - but a missed opportunity to do something interesting within the confines of the game's ISK economy. It is, the new AUR thing has stimulated the economy in ways you probably havent seen notice how the chart describing the currency cycle in the Aurum devblog didnt have RL money on the chart...everything is related to ISK some how and yes PLEX in game is a liability, just not quite in the sense you're saying. Having money now is good, yes, but not when you need that money to come in a constant stream. CCP would much rather have a slower consistent flow of income then huge spikes of it followed by short parts of it. It's bad for business and its bad for being able to plan for financial things. So they need something dependable to count on being able to use it in the future. there is content, but just not much of it. I'm justifying the lack of content over all the technology that CCP has put into developing CQ and Incarna. From what I can tell of things iv'e been hearing the past few months is that all of the cool little tech demos they have been showing us of WiS type stuff was scrapped over and over. Given my experiences with software i can tell you its very painful to have to scrap a project and start over but im guessing they had their reason to do it. but now we finally have the first leg of incarna why only release 1 CQ? cause that way they can get the technology out and see how it runs on our systems cause not every one tries things on SiSi and among the few that try them, even fewer file bug reports. So now we see how there are some performance issue and card are overheating...now the department of programmers at CCP that are in charge of the performance and rendering efficiency can work on it by the time they are done the artists should be done putting together the other 3 CQs and they deploy both at once this is why CCP deploying expansions in chunks is a good idea, it keeps things moving. This way they can deploy part 1, use the feedback to work on it, and then deploy changes to part 1 along with changes to part 2. They also dont have to hold back on deploying anything at all cause one feature is lagging behind on the schedule. I'm happier that we got things like the agent finder, new turrets, and at least one CQ when we did instead of having to wait till August to get any of it cause they wanted to wait until all 4 CQs were done as well as the new newbulae -------------------------------------------------- The drake is a lie
Silas Cooper	Posted - 2011.07.03 23:38:00 - [26] Edited by: Silas Cooper on 03/07/2011 23:45:15 Originally by: Herr Wilkus Originally by: Silas Cooper Originally by: Herr Wilkus I have no clue what I'm talking about, if I would have stayed in school a tad longer (and/or followed the discussion on this very subject a bit) then I'd know better. Gee, I'm not smart enough to point out anything wrong with his argument, so I will just pretend like he is wrong, anyway. Go me! Are you still seriously saying that the Incarna 'PLEX/$$$ for useless clothes' model provides superior gameplay than keeping the mechanic completely within the EVE/ISK economy? After all, if the 'apparel' is player manufactured, and sold for ISK (rather than $$$) granting the clothing actual abilities is no longer verboten. Then, it would at least add something (however minor) to gameplay. CCP DOESN'T GIVE TWO ***S ABOUT YOUR SUPERIOR GAMEPLAY, THEY HAVEN'T DONE SO FOR A LONG TIME AND WITH THE CURRENT SITUATION EVEN LESS. THEY NEED CASH, FAST! THEY NEED A BETTER REVENUE MODEL TO PLEASE THE BANKS AND INVESTORS SO THEY CAN KEEP POURING MONEY INTO DUST AND WoD! Jezus H Christ, you really are* dunce. Quote: Gee, I'm not smart enough to point out anything wrong with his argument, so I will just pretend like he is wrong, anyway. Go me! Post 16, read it. -- You can't cure stupid.
Herr Wilkus	Posted - 2011.07.03 23:49:00 - [27] To the 'French Connection UK' guy, I'm with you. I'd much rather have T3 Frigs, supercarriers balanced, less lag, and new ship designs. But if clothes is what we get, I'd rather they had a purpose, a role contained completely within the ISK Economy, and were EVE interactive (ie able to influence PVP and destructable). This would be far superior to the sad PLEX-atomizing MT model we have now. Alara, some people might take the stance that CCP f'ed up, squandered that large PLEX advance the player-base granted them, and AUR is now a necessary evil to keep the company afloat. I just think its sad that a game mechanics, design space, and dev resources have to be squandered on something that could have been a simple, straight forward addition of game content. But for people like Silas/Bad Messenger/etc to propose that the current MT/vanity model is superior to a theoretical ISK-market/player produced/non-vanity model is simply idiocy, or more likely just trolling.
Alara IonStorm Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.07.03 23:53:00 - [28] Edited by: Alara IonStorm on 03/07/2011 23:53:40 Originally by: Herr Wilkus Alara, some people might take the stance that CCP f'ed up, squandered that large PLEX advance the player-base granted them, and AUR is now a necessary evil to keep the company afloat. I just think its sad that a game mechanics, design space, and dev resources have to be squandered on something that could have been a simple, straight forward addition of game content. I agree completely, when they were talking about painting ships I was like \o/. Then out of no where this Nex Blog comes up and they are suggesting charging RL money for it. I thought that was complete Bullsh*t that they would turn around and offer something they been promising for years as a MT. Especially when the Halfa$$ the content of their Expansion. I understand why they did it, I just don't like it. -- EVE Online is commited to $$Excellence$$


Pages: [1] :: 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.