EVE Search - Remove insurance completely

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Remove insurance completely

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Topic
mishkof Caldari Finis Lumen Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:07:00 - [31] Originally by: Mika Meroko Edited by: Mika Meroko on 06/08/2008 09:03:31 Remember, CCP doesnt think the way you pew pew ers do... CCP accounting wont like alot of suggestions that turns eve lopsided/too harsh... yes, the dev blog change might **** off a few pirates to quit (btw, send me your stuff) but chances are, the account loss will be less than if well, quite frankly, if its let continue.... atm, suicide ganking is just too profitable =P even a failed one doesnt mean much loss for the ganker (and barely any sec status loss) hell, I have a JC in npc pie 0.0 space on my pie, and yeah, even ganking a 50 mill loot indy in highsec isnt that big of a set back of sec status for me.. Dont be silly. More grinding is the answer. It worked for WoW amiright? I own a T2 BPO and Capital alt, therefor all of my views will be pro-Capital Alt/T2 BPO orientated. Please pick one of the following settings for your response. []hate me []troll me []smack me
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:13:00 - [32] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in". I'm set in this game and don't insure anymore. Even forget when I go on suicide missions . Are you aware that your idea is a godsend for suicide gankers as they will always benefit from the insurance, while it make it almost worthless for other people? Suicide gankers are so used to being subsidized by CCP that they don't choose the target anymore? Venkul is 100% right. Hence, remove all insurance! I was thinking about it a little, a reasonable solution could be something like this: Increasing insurance costs The first time you insure a ship in a ship class (frigates, destroyers, ecc.) you pay the current price. After you have gotten 1 insurance payout in that ship class your insurance cost go up 5%, 10% with the second payout and so on. That will leave a buffer for players that have just learned a new ship class and are prone to make errors (so essentially for new players), while people experienced in that kind of ships but that have lost plenty of them will get no return from insurance. Combined with removing insurance when killed by Concord (but still counting the loss as a insurance payout for the ship class used) it will discourage casual suicide ganking (while keeping it viable on well chosen targets) and keep subsidized the new players, but it will not support war expenses covering the losses.
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:14:00 - [33] I agree with OP. put it to the CSM, although you might end up with furry slippers in Ambulation instead.... Vote against the nano nerf! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=832371
midge Mo'yb Antares Shipyards Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:24:00 - [34] Edited by: midge Mo''yb on 06/08/2008 09:27:22 Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: El'Niaga No what they are doing is fair. This is a risk vs reward game. There is no risk in hi sec suiciding because the person gets more back in insurance than he paid for his ship and fittings. Thus they eliminate the insurance for concord deaths and they reintroduce risk vs reward. You can still gank that hauler in hi sec if you want, just better be sure he's carrying enough to make it worth your while. Makes you have to be selective in targets which is good. Since concord does not respond in low sec and 0.0 it will not affects ganking there :). Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk. If suicide ganking is too risk free, the solution is to increase the risk, not decrease the reward. Tradable killrights would be a good start. Alternatively, simply nerf NPC corp wardec protection and these changes can stay. Newbies would be kicked out of noob corp after say 6 months or so. Most mission runners dip into low sec at some point, thus most can be killed at some point. Tradeable killrights wouldn't help. You couldn't trust the person getting it to actually kill the guy. What pirates would do is set up an alt (I'm sure you've never heard of those) and then just use it to get the killrights to their main assuring he never dies as a result of the tradeable killrights. Almost the same way they operate now. Tradable killrights could be like a Contract but when someone kills you you get a "token" that enables you to setup a contract to kill said player, a player picks the contract up and has x amount of time to complete the contract or it goes back on the board for another guy to pickup, upon termination of player x you get the isk reward set by the player. Or even better give the bounty system a use, this "token" could be taken to a bounty office and inserted into the system there with a price and then a bounty board is available for bounty hunter who can hunt that player SWG players will remember the bounty system for jedi, something like that but with the players using the token to put the baddies on the board -----------------------------------------------
copasetic sideways	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:25:00 - [35] Originally by: Sorted put it to the CSM, although you might end up with furry slippers in Ambulation instead.... don't take bloody side swipes at the csm... i fully intend to make all my future isk by station busking with my e-trombone...
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:28:00 - [36] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 06/08/2008 09:30:29 Deleted for the request to avoid discussion on mission/ratting comparison.
Sheriff Jones Amarr Please Enter Password	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:31:00 - [37] Aye, when i rat at my lovely 0.0 place at...you really thinkk i'm gonna tell ya? ...anyway, when i rat OVER THERE, i get plenty of more ISKies and plenty a lot faster then when doing missions. It's a common myth that missions pay that much more. Heck, running trades is more lucrative and i don't se people complaining about that. My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:35:00 - [38] I think completely removing insurance would be an over the top move to do all at once, much in the style of CCP's recent changes. However, I like the idea, T1 ships can be afforded too easily, and there is a huge disparity between comparable T1 and T2 ships. Many people seem to be saying (and have said in the past) that this change would cause many to leave the game or be unable to PvP because they could not afford ships with the greater losses incurred without insurance. Well, I can't afford to PvP in captial ships, but that doesn't mean I can't PvP, I simply have to fly smaller ships. By the same token, if people become unable to afford to field BSes due to no insurance, they could simply go back to cruisers. This wouldn't cause them problems, as everyone else would be in the same boat (if you'll pardon the pun). I for one would like a return to a larger proportion of small ships, and would like losses to mean something even for T1 ships. However, as I said, I think something less drastic than complete removal might be good. - DesuSigs
Derdre Esme	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:37:00 - [39] remove insurance, lowering the number of new player which stay ingame as stated above ppl who start game try to have biggest ship as sonn as possible, and throw all theyre money in it then when they loose it, many loosing everything and leave game. Remember initialy default insurance payback when you didn't get any insurance was too low and it was a too big hemmoragie of player for ccp then they turn it to 40% (dont know what it was before, perhaps 0% even) and secondly would make t1 ship less interesting and t2 ship demand increasing = t2 ship price big increase
Axhind Caldari Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:40:00 - [40] Edited by: Axhind on 06/08/2008 09:44:54 Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: El'Niaga No what they are doing is fair. This is a risk vs reward game. There is no risk in hi sec suiciding because the person gets more back in insurance than he paid for his ship and fittings. Thus they eliminate the insurance for concord deaths and they reintroduce risk vs reward. You can still gank that hauler in hi sec if you want, just better be sure he's carrying enough to make it worth your while. Makes you have to be selective in targets which is good. Since concord does not respond in low sec and 0.0 it will not affects ganking there :). Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk. If suicide ganking is too risk free, the solution is to increase the risk, not decrease the reward. Tradable killrights would be a good start. Alternatively, simply nerf NPC corp wardec protection and these changes can stay. Newbies would be kicked out of noob corp after say 6 months or so. Oh cry me a river. Most of those NPC L4 runners are 0.0 alts anyway. And considering how nasty 0.0 judging by your post, you guys seem to be doing just fine.

Cambarus The Baros Syndicate	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:43:00 - [41] Insurance works just fine the way it is. Did the guys who suicide ganked you not lose a lot of money? GOOD! That means you didn't either... If people are losing a lot of isk because of suicide gankers then they're living proof that the insurance system DOES work, because if not then you wouldn't be losing any real amount of isk. Also, so what if Insurance payouts are an isk faucet? Last time I checked more isk faucets were just what this game needs. The value of isk is skyrocketing, which is PRECISELY why there're ships available at almost no loss after insurance. Can you imagine what would happen to ship prices if they removed insurance? There would be NO lower limit for ore prices, so you would effectively be completely destroying the game for ANYONE who mines for their isk. There we go, let's make mission running even MORE profitable then it already is To the OP: "It makes it hard to cripple an opponent financially"? Are you serious? First off, it's STILL easy to do if they fly tech II ships, and if they don't, why SHOULD it be easy? Replace 'financially cripple' with 'render the game unplayable for' and see how much sense your argument makes. You want the ability to completely ruin the game for your opponent rather then just enjoying some good pvp, and TBH that's not a very good reason for CCP to remove insurance... As far as ransoming as a pirate goes, you're not usually supposed to even bother ransoming ships. You can offer to ransom it, but it's the pod you REALLY want. 100mil+in implants is common assuming the character's 6 months +. And that CAN'T be insured. Oh and btw I love how you think you can place an arbitrary limitation on how long you get insurance for. No 2 people get into eve at the same rate, a newb who gets into the right corp can become competent in 4 weeks. I was on my own and was still fitting arties to my domi at 4 months What you're suggesting would either kill PVP (no one would want to risk their ships), kill the market and mining (no lower limit for ore means bots can drive prices through the floor) or both. PVPers can no longer sustain their losses, miners can no longer make any money mining. You sure you're not caldari? Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Axhind Caldari Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:44:00 - [42] Originally by: midge Mo'yb Edited by: midge Mo''yb on 06/08/2008 09:27:22 Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: El'Niaga No what they are doing is fair. This is a risk vs reward game. There is no risk in hi sec suiciding because the person gets more back in insurance than he paid for his ship and fittings. Thus they eliminate the insurance for concord deaths and they reintroduce risk vs reward. You can still gank that hauler in hi sec if you want, just better be sure he's carrying enough to make it worth your while. Makes you have to be selective in targets which is good. Since concord does not respond in low sec and 0.0 it will not affects ganking there :). Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk. If suicide ganking is too risk free, the solution is to increase the risk, not decrease the reward. Tradable killrights would be a good start. Alternatively, simply nerf NPC corp wardec protection and these changes can stay. Newbies would be kicked out of noob corp after say 6 months or so. Most mission runners dip into low sec at some point, thus most can be killed at some point. Tradeable killrights wouldn't help. You couldn't trust the person getting it to actually kill the guy. What pirates would do is set up an alt (I'm sure you've never heard of those) and then just use it to get the killrights to their main assuring he never dies as a result of the tradeable killrights. Almost the same way they operate now. Tradable killrights could be like a Contract but when someone kills you you get a "token" that enables you to setup a contract to kill said player, a player picks the contract up and has x amount of time to complete the contract or it goes back on the board for another guy to pickup, upon termination of player x you get the isk reward set by the player. Or even better give the bounty system a use, this "token" could be taken to a bounty office and inserted into the system there with a price and then a bounty board is available for bounty hunter who can hunt that player SWG players will remember the bounty system for jedi, something like that but with the players using the token to put the baddies on the board It is a bit strange how the blog managed to totaly forget about that part. If I remember correctly it was quite high on CSM list. Could be that it needs a lot more work (actually I'm sure of it) but it would be great thing. That plus nerfing NPC corps (ie forcing players (even 0.0 alts) in to player corporations if they want to run L3+ and do combat). That will not hurt the noobs but it will make a large part of the high sec players targetable by wars (just need to change the switch corp timers during the war dec to prevent corp hopping).
Larg Kellein Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:45:00 - [43] Unfortunate side effect of completely removing insurance: People become more risk adverse, meaning fewer people willing to get their pew on if it completely wrecks the wallet.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.06 10:05:00 - [44] Edited by: Gamesguy on 06/08/2008 10:06:03 Originally by: Axhind Edited by: Axhind on 06/08/2008 09:44:54 Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: El'Niaga No what they are doing is fair. This is a risk vs reward game. There is no risk in hi sec suiciding because the person gets more back in insurance than he paid for his ship and fittings. Thus they eliminate the insurance for concord deaths and they reintroduce risk vs reward. You can still gank that hauler in hi sec if you want, just better be sure he's carrying enough to make it worth your while. Makes you have to be selective in targets which is good. Since concord does not respond in low sec and 0.0 it will not affects ganking there :). Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk. If suicide ganking is too risk free, the solution is to increase the risk, not decrease the reward. Tradable killrights would be a good start. Alternatively, simply nerf NPC corp wardec protection and these changes can stay. Newbies would be kicked out of noob corp after say 6 months or so. Oh cry me a river. Most of those NPC L4 runners are 0.0 alts anyway. And considering how nasty 0.0 judging by your post, you guys seem to be doing just fine. A lot of NPC L4 runners are 0.0 alts precisely because its so easy to make isk doing this! Why in the hell are 0.0 people running missions in highsec? This should NEVER happen in a properly balanced risk vs reward equation. Eve's risk vs reward is screwed up, thats why you have legions of people running missions in highsec to pay for their 0.0 pvp. We seem to be doing well? That might have something to do with our organization, pvp skills, etc? What skills do a L4 mission runner need? 3 months worth of training in a raven and knowing how to lock and f1-f6? There are step by step instructions on how to run every empire mission in the game. We fight for our right to own 0.0 space. When does the L4 mission runner fight for his right to run the mission? I don't see "The Bantam Menace" on the sov map, where do you live in 0.0 again?
LittleTerror Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2008.08.06 10:08:00 - [45] No insurance means less isk which means ship and mod prices falling massively which will put us back to square one after about 6 months, making the change completely pointless in other words its never going to happen. Stop making these stupid threads.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.08.06 10:27:00 - [46] Remove it for characters over a certain age Personally I couldn't care less about it. My alt spent a couple of weeks in FW I never once bothered to insure his ships. Then again I'm a rich veteran so my world view is a bit skewed -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Nebulous Minmatar Thukker Insurgents	Posted - 2008.08.06 10:28:00 - [47] Originally by: Bellum Eternus It devalues ships. If a ship is destroyed, and it's insured, then the pilot says 'oh well, I only lost 35m on this BS'. The relative value of that ship to the pilot is the replacement cost of the mods plus new insurance, not the cost of the ship. One major problem that this causes is it makes it extremely hard to cripple an opponent financially through war losses. With insurance you're effectively diluting combat accomplishments because killing a 130m ISK BS isn't taking 130m out of the enemies' wallet, but only 33m or so, plus fittings, which are usually T2, and as we all know, T2 mods are cheap as hell now. Another problem with insurance is trying to make a living ransoming people as a pirate. The players go 'oh well, blow me up, I don't care. It's insured.' If this is such a harsh world CCP, why the hand holding? Frankly, I'm all for removing insurance payouts from suicide killers in empire, but CCP should be fair to everyone and remove all insurance from all ships across the board. With respect to new players: allow new players to insure their ships (any sort) for the first three months (90 days) of their account. After that, no insurance. And no, this wouldn't circumvent the no payout rule for Concord deaths. Or, an even more interesting option: design 'noob cruisers' that you can get for free. They would be fairly weak in performance, but noobs could run missions with them and do hauling stuff at a low level, they'd be a little more capable than noob frigs, but you'd only be allowed to get them for free for your first sixty days in Eve. After that you're on your own to make up for your mistakes.
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.06 10:31:00 - [48] Originally by: copasetic sideways Originally by: Sorted put it to the CSM, although you might end up with furry slippers in Ambulation instead.... don't take bloody side swipes at the csm... i fully intend to make all my future isk by station busking with my e-trombone... I'll do as I please. Dont like it war dec me... o wai... thats broken.. least you can busk me to death in this pvp gam... o wai.. Vote against the nano nerf! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=832371
Belmarduk Amarr de Prieure Four Elements	Posted - 2008.08.06 10:32:00 - [49] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in". I normally say get rid of insurance completley - but the quote is not a bad idea. MOAR Isk sinks !! The economy seems to be getting more unstable than it was 2-3 years ago... CCP Please give us casual players a Skill-Queue !
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:01:00 - [50] Originally by: Dzajic Originally by: Gamesguy Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk. Err... wtf? You are either assuming that mission runner does it all day long and that one can not rat in 0.0 safely all day long. Per hour income on mission running will only exceed good 0.0 ratting if person is dualboxing with CNRs or Golems. But "good" 0.0 ratting is not widely available. Level 4 agents are an infinite resource. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

Savage Roar Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:18:00 - [51] Originally by: Gamesguy The level 4 mission runner in NPC corp is completely invulnerable This shows you are completely ignorant. Probing covops + 2 torp ravens adjusted to damage type weakness (scan him for hardeners as he undocks) and you can easily pop him while he¦s getting pounded by all the mission NPCs which will mean his tank won¦t be able to take an extra 1.5k dps... do it in 0.5-6 and concord will never show up in time... then enjoy your gist x-type drops...
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:22:00 - [52] Edited by: Sorted on 06/08/2008 11:26:11 Originally by: Savage Roar Originally by: Gamesguy The level 4 mission runner in NPC corp is completely invulnerable This shows you are completely ignorant. Probing covops + 2 torp ravens adjusted to damage type weakness (scan him for hardeners as he undocks) and you can easily pop him while he¦s getting pounded by all the mission NPCs which will mean his tank won¦t be able to take an extra 1.5k dps... do it in 0.5-6 and concord will never show up in time... then enjoy your gist x-type drops... You are ignorant. Read the new dev blog. (and its usualy 3 or 4 ravens when hitting omi tank XL Gist) This means double the gankers, (less loot per man and more chance of error) AND 60x the cost to the gank squad. As well as a huge sec it (as the runner will have huge concord standing) which makes one bad loot drop or messed up gank a total disaster. Vote against the nano nerf! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=832371
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:22:00 - [53] Originally by: Savage Roar Originally by: Gamesguy The level 4 mission runner in NPC corp is completely invulnerable This shows you are completely ignorant. Probing covops + 2 torp ravens adjusted to damage type weakness (scan him for hardeners as he undocks) and you can easily pop him while he¦s getting pounded by all the mission NPCs which will mean his tank won¦t be able to take an extra 1.5k dps... do it in 0.5-6 and concord will never show up in time... then enjoy your gist x-type drops... Try it after this change goes through and tell me how it turned out for you. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Veldya Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:31:00 - [54] The problem with insurance is that it puts a price cap on minerals, when building a ship, insuring it and self-destructing the ship returns more than the demand for those minerals then insurance creates an artificial base price which is problematic for a player run economy. If people farm the shit out of some minerals they should drop in value, insurance blocks that natural balancing mechanic.
ramzahn Caldari	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:44:00 - [55] Originally by: Sorted I agree with OP. put it to the CSM, although you might end up with furry slippers in Ambulation instead.... Thank you for keeping my diaphragm in training.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:45:00 - [56] The main problem for 0.0 vs Highsec missions is that 0.0 (outside pirate missions) consists of finite resources. That arkonor belt will only spawn up to X amount of ore per week, regardless of whether 5 or 50 people live there. Highsec missions are an infinite resource. If you made them finite, then it would hardly be so much of a problem (not sure how to do that with missions). As for insurance, might be an idea to remove it completely, but as with all things (including the nano-nerf ) I would advocate a gradual reduction. Start with removing platinum insurance, see if that is acceptable in practice and then take the next step. We've had insurance for years and years, it worked reasonably ok (it didn't ruin the game), so we can afford to take a gradual approach and see if less insurance makes the experience better.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:45:00 - [57] Insurance should be a player funded thing through new contract options. If you are a risky bet insurance wise, you might not get any:) Originally by: Lance Fighter This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.
Aphoticus	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:57:00 - [58] I agree with the OP. 90 day insurance capability, but no freebie crusier. Live or Die! I don't even use insurance, if I can not make the losses up with the new ship, wht pay it out.
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:58:00 - [59] Originally by: Celeste Coeval Insurance should be a player funded thing through new contract options. If you are a risky bet insurance wise, you might not get any:) best idea I have heard in a long time,. Vote against the nano nerf! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=832371
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.08.06 12:05:00 - [60] Originally by: Bellum Eternus It devalues ships. If a ship is destroyed, and it's insured, then the pilot says 'oh well, I only lost 35m on this BS'. The relative value of that ship to the pilot is the replacement cost of the mods plus new insurance, not the cost of the ship. One major problem that this causes is it makes it extremely hard to cripple an opponent financially through war losses. With insurance you're effectively diluting combat accomplishments because killing a 130m ISK BS isn't taking 130m out of the enemies' wallet, but only 33m or so, plus fittings, which are usually T2, and as we all know, T2 mods are cheap as hell now. Another problem with insurance is trying to make a living ransoming people as a pirate. The players go 'oh well, blow me up, I don't care. It's insured.' If this is such a harsh world CCP, why the hand holding? Frankly, I'm all for removing insurance payouts from suicide killers in empire, but CCP should be fair to everyone and remove all insurance from all ships across the board. With respect to new players: allow new players to insure their ships (any sort) for the first three months (90 days) of their account. After that, no insurance. And no, this wouldn't circumvent the no payout rule for Concord deaths. Or, an even more interesting option: design 'noob cruisers' that you can get for free. They would be fairly weak in performance, but noobs could run missions with them and do hauling stuff at a low level, they'd be a little more capable than noob frigs, but you'd only be allowed to get them for free for your first sixty days in Eve. After that you're on your own to make up for your mistakes. I'm not in favour of removing insurance completely. However I am in favour of consistency, so I advocate removing insurance for ship loss to NPCs. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

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.