EVE Search - Falloff disruptable, but not boostable?

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Game Development Forum

Falloff disruptable, but not boostable?

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page

Author	Topic
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.19 02:44:00 - [61] Not everyone is within optimal by choice. A general increase in falloff decreases the differences between the snipers as they are cropped by the the 250km cap. And you rounded 10.7% to 12%? How in the world did you do that? Not to mention that you can drop from 425 to 220s without running over powergrid[about 4.5% difference] You cannot do the same with blasters which lose 20% falloff and then 25% falloff have a higher damage drop per teir and are roughly half in falloff and half in optimal and so benefit half as much from each rig. And you cannot do the same with pulse lasers which lose 16% optimal[20% increase the other way], 20% falloff, and have no middle ground option while losing a greater amount of DPS than either the drop from neutrons to electrons or 425s to d180s.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.19 07:59:00 - [62] Originally by: bldyannoyed Edited by: bldyannoyed on 18/02/2008 11:11:11 Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: bldyannoyed And downgrading turret size should give a meaningful decrease in DPS as soon as downgrading ammo gives a meaningful increase in range. Its called barrage. What, you act like lasers and blasters dont only use AM/null and mf/scorch. Quote: And i assume of course that you would take the largest tier AC as the baseline and simply nerf all the others? Cos tahts all balancing is right? Of course. Well thank ** you're not a dev. It's not even worth getting into an argument about how ** Minnie AC boats would be with everything under largest tier AC's nerfed. Actually, what am i saying? Sounds like exactly the sort of thing we should be expecting to go live on sisi any day now. Makes me glad i had training ADHD when i first started playing and trained EVERYTHING cos i thought it would be clever. Concession accepted troll.
Pilgrippa 0utbreak	Posted - 2008.02.19 08:54:00 - [63] Even if they made a script to boost falloff on TC's, I can't really see any Minmatar pilot using them. An extra 5km of falloff isn't worth 4k shields. (talking about vagas and sleips here) Besides, it's not like people are complaining about getting pwned by tracking disruptors now.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.19 09:18:00 - [64] TBH, all I really care about is making TDs effective on bonused ships. If it's going to be a very effective form of EW, make it effective on bonused ships and it's fine. It's not like you're actually going to fit TCs much (except on sniper arty ships where they're already fitted) - I believe most people are arguing for the same of argument really, I don't see anyone fitting a falloff-boosting TE/TC really. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Eaterof Children	Posted - 2008.02.20 13:50:00 - [65] Edited by: Eaterof Children on 20/02/2008 13:50:57 Originally by: Gamesguy Downgrading from 425mm to dual 180s give a decrease of 10.7% dps, and about 5% range loss(optimal only). You gain 25% more tracking. Downgrading from heavy pulse to focused medium gives a decrease of 13.6% dps decrease, and 19% range loss. You gain about 10% more tracking. Balance those numbers, and a falloff script should be added. Add here that the "normalized" dps decrease for autocannons is even less if you count reloading times because the smallest guns hold much much much more ammo and this counts for a lot because autocannons have an extremely fast rof.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.21 01:53:00 - [66] You almost never have to reload in the space of normal combat. Gangs have to be large enough that you will be better off fitting artillery and going range than autocannons at the point where you will be reloading in combat.
Vaal Erit	Posted - 2008.02.21 08:01:00 - [67] TOTALLY agree that minmatar gun tiers need to be changed, having 5% more optimal for 5% less damage or whatever is ridiculous. I would rather the 2nd and 3nd tier autocanons get +5% falloff because fighting in falloff is so painful. I would also like emp to be fixed. I remember bringing up these issues in amarr whine fix me threads and was always told I was a noob, nice to see some people are actually looking at minmatar balance. Of course this is a off-topic issue... Also agree that TDs should wtf pwn any turret ship, including falloff boats and lastly agree that almost no minmatar ships would fit TC falloff mods. TE falloff might be a fun mod to have.
Eaterof Children	Posted - 2008.02.21 14:28:00 - [68] Originally by: Goumindong You almost never have to reload in the space of normal combat. Gangs have to be large enough that you will be better off fitting artillery and going range than autocannons at the point where you will be reloading in combat. How did you figure the bold part? I come to the exact opposite conclusion. I find it much more probable to need to reload when solo than when shooting a gang, because while the ratio of damage/hitpoints remains the same, active tanks and shield recharge are negated so that the gang needs a lot less time to kill the same ships than if the same ships that are in the gangs were one on one. But anyway, it doesn't matter all that much does it? It just emphasizes a point that is already known - AC's lose too little damage when downsizing to make a difference, so everyone downsizes.
SirDanceAlot	Posted - 2008.02.21 14:38:00 - [69] Originally by: Vaal Erit TOTALLY agree that minmatar gun tiers need to be changed, having 5% more optimal for 5% less damage or whatever is ridiculous. I would rather the 2nd and 3nd tier autocanons get +5% falloff because fighting in falloff is so painful. I would also like emp to be fixed. I remember bringing up these issues in amarr whine fix me threads and was always told I was a noob, nice to see some people are actually looking at minmatar balance. Of course this is a off-topic issue... Its not the top tier that is broken with minmatar gun tiers. Its the lower tiers that are so good for such little penalties that everyone fits them. Amarr on the other hand have high tier weapons that are hard to fit and a low tiers that are extremely underpowered. If anything they should make the penalty for downsizing guns greater for minmatar, because thats the broken thing.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.21 16:05:00 - [70] Originally by: Eaterof Children Originally by: Goumindong You almost never have to reload in the space of normal combat. Gangs have to be large enough that you will be better off fitting artillery and going range than autocannons at the point where you will be reloading in combat. How did you figure the bold part? I come to the exact opposite conclusion. I find it much more probable to need to reload when solo than when shooting a gang, because while the ratio of damage/hitpoints remains the same, active tanks and shield recharge are negated so that the gang needs a lot less time to kill the same ships than if the same ships that are in the gangs were one on one. But anyway, it doesn't matter all that much does it? It just emphasizes a point that is already known - AC's lose too little damage when downsizing to make a difference, so everyone downsizes. Because what is important is the number of targets and total hit points. It takes minutes for these guns to run out of ammo, if the fight isn't over by then someone is doing something wrong.

Corin Nebulon	Posted - 2008.02.25 21:30:00 - [71] Hmm to argue about the different tier guns for Minmatar and Amarr ships doesn't make much seens in my eyes. You could also argue that Minmatars medium size smallest tier artilliery (650mm's)need way more powergrid than the Amarr counterpart (Focused Medium Pulse Laser). Therefore some Minmatar ships with their natural low powergrid will not be able to fit them ... However a discussion like that will not solve the main problem and thats imho : A small change to falloff range on minmater ships WITHOUT falloff bonus will make them completly useless. A perfect example would be the stabber. Currently you have usually 2km optimal and 14km falloff. Now you need to orbit at least at 14km to avoid webs. If you know reduce the falloff to lets say 8km. The Stabber will be useless. On the other hand why do tracking disruptors have to affect optimal or falloff range at all? Why not making them affect tracking speed and signature resolution of the turrets? This way a mwding Minmatar ship will have no gain from using tracking disruptors with signature resolution scripts (the MWD is increasing the signature of the Minmatar ship by 550% so why bother with it?). On the contrary a Amarr ship that uses a TD with sig. resolution script could increase the sig. res. on the Minmatar turrests by lets say 30%. This will reduce the Minmatars damage by 30% BUT will not make many ships useless like a falloff script would do. Only for destroyers vs destroyer or bc vs bc this kind of Ewar wouldn't work to well. But even on the harbinger many ppl would fit AB, Cap booster, Webber and disruptor so the drawback is not that bad. Also this way we would have modules to counter this ewar : Target Painters (minmater "EWAR") and tracking computers /enchancers.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists	Posted - 2008.02.25 22:07:00 - [72] Originally by: Corin Nebulon On the other hand why do tracking disruptors have to affect optimal or falloff range at all? Why not making them affect tracking speed and signature resolution of the turrets? This might have worked in a game where everything was proportional. Eve isnt. Webs are on off switch to tracking for example. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.25 22:27:00 - [73] Originally by: Eaterof Children Edited by: Eaterof Children on 20/02/2008 13:50:57 Originally by: Gamesguy Downgrading from 425mm to dual 180s give a decrease of 10.7% dps, and about 5% range loss(optimal only). You gain 25% more tracking. Downgrading from heavy pulse to focused medium gives a decrease of 13.6% dps decrease, and 19% range loss. You gain about 10% more tracking. Balance those numbers, and a falloff script should be added. Add here that the "normalized" dps decrease for autocannons is even less if you count reloading times because the smallest guns hold much much much more ammo and this counts for a lot because autocannons have an extremely fast rof. Autocannons do NOT have an extremely fast rof, like a year ago ccp halved the rof of autocannons and increase their damage accordingly. They have the same rof as blasters and pulses. In any fight, you will never have to reload, it literally takes 5 minutes of firing or something stupid to empty an autocannon(especially a lower tiered one).
Dlardrageth Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.02.27 03:19:00 - [74] Edited by: Dlardrageth on 27/02/2008 03:22:37 Originally by: Corin Nebulon Hmm to argue about the different tier guns for Minmatar and Amarr ships doesn't make much seens in my eyes. You could also argue that Minmatars medium size smallest tier artilliery (650mm's)need way more powergrid than the Amarr counterpart (Focused Medium Pulse Laser).[...] Errr... you don't really know much about lasers or bothered to look them up? Comparing Artillery to Pulse Lasers is utterly wrong. If you want to make a comparison on "longer-range" weapons, then go for Artillery turrets vs. Beam Lasers. And in that case... what was your point about fitting issues again? Quote: [...]On the other hand why do tracking disruptors have to affect optimal or falloff range at all? Why not making them affect tracking speed and signature resolution of the turrets?[...] Why not make them affecting explosion velocity of missiles alternatively? If you want to rebalance TDs in a totally different "area" than the one they did not really excel at all the time, then you're asking for a new module basically. TBH, I don't see CCP doing that. Sure, the revamped TDs will hurt most turret users, while missile users will rub their hands and cackle with glee. But if you drop the falloff component, you just add projectile users to those unaffected. I doubt that would be "more balance" in a general sense. Quote: This way a mwding Minmatar ship will have no gain from using tracking disruptors with signature resolution scripts (the MWD is increasing the signature of the Minmatar ship by 550% so why bother with it?). On the contrary a Amarr ship that uses a TD with sig. resolution script could increase the sig. res. on the Minmatar turrests by lets say 30%. This will reduce the Minmatars damage by 30% BUT will not make many ships useless like a falloff script would do. The problem, though, is that the Tracking Disruptor buff is not just the knifefight between Minmatars and Amarr some people try to conjure up. (Strawman, anyone?) Every turret user will be affected. And I'm not sure how Railgun or Laser users will like the 30% signature resolution redux and especially not a 30% penalty to tracking speed. Especially not on the BC- and cruiser-class. Especially not as they do not counter the inherent MWD-signature increase by going very fast, thus it balances out to a certain extent. It's not like I do get hit with MWD engaged automatically in my Minmatar ships. I just try to imagine how with 30% worse tracking I might ever hit a Minmatar cruiser with even small railguns or laser turrets. Now if we use 2 TDs and make that 60%... Thus a sig resolution/tracking speed redux will not affect those ships out of TD range anyway (snipers) and play more or less just the role of making smaller ships invulnerable to fire from bigger ones... except for any kind of missile again. Oh, and ofc those ships who are hard to track anyway (due to high speed) will be affected least. Wait, remind me, which race predominantly speed-tanks? Ah, yes, of course... Quote: Only for destroyers vs destroyer or bc vs bc this kind of Ewar wouldn't work to well. But even on the harbinger many ppl would fit AB, Cap booster, Webber and disruptor so the drawback is not that bad. Indeed, most likely candidate for fitting a TD in the BC class would be... mhm... the Hurricane? What a surprise... Quote: Also this way we would have modules to counter this ewar : Target Painters (minmater "EWAR") and tracking computers /enchancers. Sure, let just my TD then have the ability to counter ECM or Damps, too. Or would it be imbalanced again, that anyone else besides Minmatar got a direct counter to another race's EWAR? Moreover, that gives three modules to counter TDs, I don't see that many to counter ECM, Damps or TPs. What a coincidence, eh? snicker
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.27 11:46:00 - [75] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 27/02/2008 11:51:54 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 27/02/2008 11:47:05 Originally by: Dlardrageth If you want to make a comparison on "longer-range" weapons, then go for Artillery turrets vs. Beam Lasers. And in that case... what was your point about fitting issues again? Er. 650mm arties: 220 PG 720mm arties: 275 PG Quad lights: 99 PG Focused medium beams: 165 PG Heavy beams: 275 PG Lasers aren't any harder to fit, and given the increased PG of Amarr ships, are, in fact, easier to fit. Originally by: Dlardrageth Oh, and ofc those ships who are hard to track anyway (due to high speed) will be affected least. Wait, remind me, which race predominantly speed-tanks? Ah, yes, of course... Speedtanks? Minmatar do not speedtank, unless you are confusing the, say, Vagabond to a Curse or a Sacriledge. Speedtanking in a Vagabond leads to two things: -practically no DPS on target due to messing your own tracking -capdeath in under a minute Well, our interceptors do speedtank, but, guess what, who has the more speed-tanking (i.e. tracking-untroubled, perma MWD) ships? Amarr Originally by: Dlardrageth Indeed, most likely candidate for fitting a TD in the BC class would be... mhm... the Hurricane? What a surprise... Actually, Myrmidon is the obvious candidate for a TD. In ALL the Myrmidon setups, the fifth midslot is either a sensor booster or your EWAR of choice, because it's for all purposes a spare midslot. Only the plated Hurricanes will ever have a spare midslot (given how rep Hurricanes must have a cap injector, and nano hurricanes really need their dual LSEs given they're not fast enough to avoid missiles or most drones and a lot of turret fire). If you are going to plate a Hurricane, buy yourself a Harbringer, and before Guom trolls the thread with more of his plate the Hurricane stuff, well, sacrificing your only real racial advantage (speed/agility) isn't a stellar move for any non-blobfest combat. Originally by: Dlardrageth Moreover, that gives three modules to counter TDs, I don't see that many to counter ECM, Damps or TPs. What a coincidence, eh? snicker Current amount of modules that counter TDs with falloff script: 0 Current amount of modules that counter ECM: 1 (well, one for each race that is) Current amount of modules that counter damps: 1 Current amount of modules that counter TPs: 0, but TPs are utter rubbish except for a torp raven gang anyway At any rate, I don't mind TDs having no counter. Just make them ineffective on unbonused ships. That can't be so complicated, and even the Amarr Whine Brigade can't complain about it, given Amarr ships other then the bonused ones aren't going to be using them in the first place. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Dlardrageth Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.02.27 14:15:00 - [76] Originally by: Cpt Branko 650mm arties: 220 PG 720mm arties: 275 PG Quad lights: 99 PG Focused medium beams: 165 PG Heavy beams: 275 PG You made my point, thank you.:) These stats show that the original statement of "way more PG" is not quite true. Top-tier turret use the same, second tier have a difference of 55PG. Which might seem a lot, but discounts the mixed high slots of Minmatar ships. Taking that into consideration (for example on the Bellicose/Rupture compared to Maller/Omen) it almost evens out. And the missile launchers are not that heavy on PG usage, unless you plan to mix up Arty with HAMs... Now, the quad light beams do seem nice to fit... until you look at their other stats which make them turn out as a kind of paintgun. Quote: Lasers aren't any harder to fit, and given the increased PG of Amarr ships, are, in fact, easier to fit. Makes one wonder why so few Minmatar use beam lasers... Quote: Speedtanks? Minmatar do not speedtank, unless you are confusing the, say, Vagabond to a Curse or a Sacriledge. Oh, so I should throw plates on my Stabber? And the former Nano-phoon was a mere myth? Mind me, I claimed they "predominantly" do it, not each and every does it. You won't claim Caldari are the speed-tankers, will you? I mean, I do not remember many Caldari ships with speed bonuses... opposed to some Minmatar ones. Quote: Well, our interceptors do speedtank, but, guess what, who has the more speed-tanking (i.e. tracking-untroubled, perma MWD) ships? Amarr Yeah, right, perma-MWD with maxed cap skills and carefully avoiding to fire your laser turrets eventually... too bad not every Amarr pilot does have max skills... Quote: Actually, Myrmidon is the obvious candidate for a TD. In ALL the Myrmidon setups, the fifth midslot is either a sensor booster or your EWAR of choice, because it's for all purposes a spare midslot. You are referring to a solo-PvP fit, I reckon? Must be me, but I would rather consider a drone speed link. Going by the awesome popularity of the Myrmi (stats about ships build are readily available) and the fail of TD popularity ATM this does not match up quite well numbers-wise. If TDs were already that good, the prices and volumes traded would be different IMHO. Quote: Only the plated Hurricanes will ever have a spare midslot (given how rep Hurricanes must have a cap injector, and nano hurricanes really need their dual LSEs given they're not fast enough to avoid missiles or most drones and a lot of turret fire). You're aware that apart from solo PvP not every Hurricane in gangs/fleet does fit Scram/Web and thus a rep Hurricane has more than one spare midslot eventually? And using a shield-tanked 'cane in PvP is a conscious decision to forsake the "utility" mid slots for more free low slots, thus possibly damage/tracking modules. Noone forces you at gunpoint to use that setup. Quote: Current amount of modules that counter TDs with falloff script: 0 Current amount of modules that counter ECM: 1 (well, one for each race that is) Current amount of modules that counter damps: 1 Current amount of modules that counter TPs: 0, but TPs are utter rubbish except for a torp raven gang anyway I don't see TPs as that useless, but that might be a matter of personal preference/gang composition. I do admit that the sheer amount of TD effect on falloff might need some tweaking, but that is the case with many "new" implementations. But taking into consideration how awesome and widespread the use of TDs is right now, how TDs (in contrast to other EW types) do not at all affect one ship niche, the missile boats (and yes, Minmatar have quite a few ships with a couple of launcher slots), I think they should hit hard those ships they can affect after all. I doubt ppl would prefer TDs to work on a percentage chance like ECM and in case of success reduce falloff to zero. Funny as it may be.
Caius Sivaris Dark Nexxus	Posted - 2008.02.27 17:04:00 - [77] Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Trigos Trilobi stuff. Downgrading from 425mm to dual 180s give a decrease of 10.7% dps, and about 5% range loss(optimal only). You gain 25% more tracking. Downgrading from heavy pulse to focused medium gives a decrease of 13.6% dps decrease, and 19% range loss. You gain about 10% more tracking. Balance those numbers, and a falloff script should be added. Going from HP to FMP saves you 99 grid per guns, going from 425 to dual 180 saves you 66 grid per gun (it's the same percentage of reduction). Considering the tanking gear is same on Hurricane and Harbinger and is grid constrained the second one gain much more overtanking ability by downgrading guns. You can't just look at guns ignoring the rest of the ship.
Ruah Piskonit Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.02.27 19:20:00 - [78] Funney, the desire for some pilots to get a falloff rig on TC/TEs has turned into a frank discussion about how ACs in particular need a 're-balancing'. ----
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.28 02:13:00 - [79] Originally by: Dlardrageth Top-tier turret use the same, second tier have a difference of 55PG. Which might seem a lot, but discounts the mixed high slots of Minmatar ships. Nice way to ignore it by saying Minmatar ships (which have less grid as a rule) have mixed slots (often, just one gunslot less anyway) and therefore the artillery fitting is the same, eh? ;) Quote: Oh, so I should throw plates on my Stabber? And the former Nano-phoon was a mere myth? Mind me, I claimed they "predominantly" do it, not each and every does it. You won't claim Caldari are the speed-tankers, will you? I mean, I do not remember many Caldari ships with speed bonuses... opposed to some Minmatar ones. Er. Nano-phoon is former and deceased, and mind you, TURRET BASED CAP UNSTABLE SHIPS DO NOT BLOODY WELL SPEED TANK. THEY KITE. It's a big difference. Quote: Yeah, right, perma-MWD with maxed cap skills and carefully avoiding to fire your laser turrets eventually... too bad not every Amarr pilot does have max skills... Again. TURRET BASED CAP UNSTABLE SHIPS DO WHAT? KITE! On the other hand, a sacriledge can in fact perma-mwd and run circles and pelt you with HAMs. A Vagabond/Zealot doing this is going to be capdead in a minute and will hit practically nothing with its tracking. Quote: You are referring to a solo-PvP fit, I reckon? Must be me, but I would rather consider a drone speed link. Going by the awesome popularity of the Myrmi (stats about ships build are readily available) and the fail of TD popularity ATM this does not match up quite well numbers-wise. If TDs were already that good, the prices and volumes traded would be different IMHO. Post-patch. Currently, I see tons of Myrmidons (well, in low-sec) actually fitting sensor boosters. Occasionaly, ECM (in hopes you'll get a lucky jam). Post-patch, the ability to render useless any falloff-unbonused Minmatar ship as well as majorly mess up pulses (and reduce the damage from null-using blasters somewhat as well) will be very appealing. It IS utterly redicilous that you get cut from 14km falloff (which means you'll be doing roughly 80% DPS at 10km) to a roughly 8km falloff where you do a paltry 50% DPS via a unbonused module. Quote: You're aware that apart from solo PvP not every Hurricane in gangs/fleet does fit Scram/Web and thus a rep Hurricane has more than one spare midslot eventually? And using a shield-tanked 'cane in PvP is a conscious decision to forsake the "utility" mid slots for more free low slots, thus possibly damage/tracking modules. Noone forces you at gunpoint to use that setup. In a <10 man gang, you're going to fit a scram/web. The Hurricane is, after all, decently fast, and you have a good chance of webbing things with heat, plus, points are always necessary. Anyway, if you do blob your target 5-10 to 1, you could as well fit unbonused ECM in 9/10 of your ships and not care, or fit some random civilian junk. Basically, OK, I agree that on bonused ships TDs should be very potent. But, quite definitely NOT on unbonused ships. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.28 04:35:00 - [80] Originally by: Cpt Branko Er. 650mm arties: 220 PG 720mm arties: 275 PG Quad lights: 99 PG Focused medium beams: 165 PG Heavy beams: 275 PG Lasers aren't any harder to fit, and given the increased PG of Amarr ships, are, in fact, easier to fit. Quad lights are also useless with so little range and the inability to use scorch crystals there is no reason to ever fit them. Focused medium beams are also terrible, with a full 20% DPS difference compared to heavy beams, and 50% alpha. Compared to a 5% dps and 30% alpha between 720s and 650s. As well, regarding their specific fittings, Minmatar artillery ships either have similar powergrid compared to their amarr competitors, or fewer turrets to fit and an extra damage bonus making up for said turret reduction. There isnt any minmatar ship where it is harder to fit artillery on it than it is to fit lasers on the comparable amarr ship.[that is, where artillery is reasonably expected to be fitted, arty-phoons and arty-bonds need not apply]

Pattern Clarc Quam Singulari Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.28 11:07:00 - [81] if added, falloff scripts would need to stacking penalise with ambit rigs

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: 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.