EVE Search - EVE following historical path of Ultima Online

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

EVE following historical path of Ultima Online

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page

Author	Topic
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:16:00 - [91] Edited by: Garreck on 07/08/2008 16:18:47 Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Decreased Concord response time fundamentally reduces high-sec risk regardless of whether high-sec gankers decide to quit high-sec ganking or continue doing so. It's risk-reduction by way of game mechanic. I disagree. The equation of how much damage you need to do before Concord gets you is still static...even if now you'll need more firepower to kill faster because Concord's gonna kill you faster. That is not a decrease in risk for the afk guy...it's just an increase in risk ("investment" really) by the gank squad. The afk guy with his billion isk mods is still just as dead if someone comes to the table with the means to do it. The only thing that changes is the means to do it...hence only an increase in risk for the gankers, and only a decrease in risk for the gankee if the gankers just take their ball and go home because "it's too hard." So the hard-core-ness of Eve is left entirely in the players' hands.
Jita Jolene	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:19:00 - [92] uhh, lets see.... Reduces hauler risk in high sec, no check Creates risk to suicide ganker, check Ehh, McFly, this is what you call game balance. What you are doing is whining and blaming it on one half of the situation. You laughably asked for someone to post calculations before accepting their points, let us see yours. Psst, equations need both sides to qualify as such. Whine on!
Valan The Fated	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:20:00 - [93] Originally by: Ruze First, the suicide balance was overdue. It just took out the unending profit of the matter, and people were using disposable alts way too frequently. There was no profit from a player they only made profit from afk macros and idiots. I was attacked by a Brutix and a couple of destroyers in a hauler. All 3 died. I would've looted the cans but I couldn't stop laughing. All CCP has done is protect the macro trade. Nano ships were pretty good at infiltrating 0.0 space and getting the macroers in belts before they could leg it. (never flown one btw). POS warfare has been adjusted so it takes a huge blob to take out an unmanned tower. Half the time you have to tkae a jammer down as well so they get prior notice to protect promethium towers. Its fairly obvious who spends their isk in game and who doesn't. 1 region and a stack load of titans, stack laod of regions 2 titans. All done to protect the macro isk making trade. Thats why they don't ban them. This makes perfect commercial sense because the player base has changed from the hardcore mature audience to the instant win brigade who like to buy isk. If the macros can't live there will be no isk supply. Ironically enough there is a lot of the old guard cashing in on the newbies and selling the isk because they have the infrastructure to do it. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig
The Fugly	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:20:00 - [94] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Originally by: Andreus Ixiris IF YOU DON'T DISAGREE WITH EVERY NERF THAT CCP HAVE EVER MADE EVEN THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE HAD ULTIMATELY BENEFICIAL EFFECTS YOU'RE NOT A TRUE FAN. I spank you because I love you? Ins't that what the so called "God" does to the bad people? He sends them to hell, yet he still loooooooves them
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:23:00 - [95] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 07/08/2008 16:31:44 Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 07/08/2008 16:28:02 Originally by: Garreck Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Decreased Concord response time fundamentally reduces high-sec risk regardless of whether high-sec gankers decide to quit high-sec ganking or continue doing so. It's risk-reduction by way of game mechanic. I disagree. The equation of how much damage you need to do before Concord gets you is still static...even if now you'll need more firepower to kill faster because Concord's gonna kill you faster. That is not a decrease in risk for the afk guy...it's just an increase in risk ("investment" really) by the gank squad. The afk guy with his billion isk mods is still just as dead if someone comes to the table with the means to do it. The only thing that changes is the means to do it...hence only an increase in risk for the gankers, and only a decrease in risk for the gankee if the gankers just take their ball and go home because "it's too hard." If we follow your "logic" (I use the word hesitantly) to its conclusion, if 10 concord remote repping BS's spawned and instalocked the AFK guy, his risk wouldn't be reduced because the gankers "just need to bring more firepower". Cutting the amount of damage someone in high sec can take from any one ship fundamentally reduces their risk across the board. And, you can spare as all your infantile analogies about people taking their ball and going home because it's "too hard". It's math. It's very easy to calculate exactly how much firepower is needed to drop a given ship in a given period of time. If it can't be done by a group, it won't be attempted. Since pilots are a limited resource, reducing the probability that enough of the resource will be present to kill a given ship is a direct reduction to their risk. Edit: It's occurred to me that, perhaps, you do not understand the definition of "risk". Quote: Risk ûnoun 1. exposure to the chance of injury or loss Reducing the amount of damage they can take (by increasing concord response time) instantly reduces their exposure to injury or loss. Here's the part where you say, "Nuh uh, they just need to bring more firepower!" There are a limited number of gankers to go around. Requiring more of them to destroy any one target at a given time means that less are available for destroying other targets. This, in turn, means that the AFK haulers on the whole are less at risk of being destroyed by gankers at any given moment. Thus, their exposure to loss has been reduced. Q.E.D.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:24:00 - [96] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 07/08/2008 16:27:25 Originally by: Jita Jolene uhh, lets see.... Reduces hauler risk in high sec, no check How do you figure it doesn't? If they were only removing insurance payouts, you would be correct. Perhaps you did not read the entire blog. Quote: Ehh, McFly, this is what you call game balance. Except you're pretending that it doesn't decrease hauler risk, which it very clearly does, so there is no balance. Quote: You laughably asked for someone to post calculations before accepting their points, let us see yours. I'm not the one making assertions that this "restores risk/reward". You are. All I've done is asked you to demonstrate that, and your response is...what? "No, you first!"
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:34:00 - [97] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey If we follow your "logic" (I use the word hesitantly) to its conclusion, if 10 concord remote repping BS's spawned and instalocked the AFK guy, his risk wouldn't be reduced because the gankers "just need to bring more firepower". When the situation changes from "High sec ganking just became harder" to "High sec ganking just became impossible," then I will see a problem (and your point here will hold water.) Until then...it's simply a matter of how much the gankers want to gank. If it's still possible and still potentially profitable and people give up on it...it's not because Eve isn't hardcore enough. It's because they're not hardcore enough. Originally by: SurrenderMonkey If it can't be done by a group, it won't be attempted. So have we established whether or not it can't be done by a group? Or if it will be profitable? The complaints are completely invalid (and more than a little hypocritical) until high sec protection reaches a point of making ganking impossible. An increase in risk for the ganker does not directly imply a decrease for the gankee. As has been covered so many times, gankers used to risk nothing in the act of ganking. Now they'll have to risk something. If that's too much for them...then why are they begging for a more hardcore Eve?
Highwind Cid	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:38:00 - [98] Originally by: Gealbhan Originally by: Arpiter Ultime Online started hardcore. Eventually it got popular and people started crying about being killed and ganked and scammed. So they made a pretty little world called Trammel where everyone could be safe and frolick and play without fear of death. Now EVE is going down the same path this anti suicide ganker stuff is the first step. Did eve hire koster for advice on how to run a MMO? bad ccp Couldn't have said it better myself. I left UO when it split in two and 3/4 of the population went to Trammel, the PvP side as in Felucca, died. The community was broken, player towns and events ceased to be. UO has been in decline ever since they split it, it used to have 250,000 subscribers, now it can barely sc**** up 70k. PvPers need a game to congregate in, Eve-o was it but they're going to repeat UO's mistake and die off too. CCP are pandering to the quick buck of the WoW blow-ins whining that EvE is too tough etc etc. They'll all leave when something new comes out and their legacy of whine and nerfs will leave this game a shattered heap of its former self. That day will come! So what your saying is the PvP people need unchallenging easy targets to decimate? It's kind of ironic how the PvP players on the PvP only server fell off the face of their earth. I will make the assumption that they went extinct do to the fact they no longer had a target that could retaliate and said blah, effort, quit. I think people are over dramatizing the new sec changes. In fact doesn't suicide ganking go against the wonderful EvE code about risk and reward. In fact I think the sec patch will increase the effectivness of risk vs reward. Hey, at least the NPC's force you to bring a tank of some kind. Suicide ganking is having a silver platter full of cookies wrapped in gold foil(chocolate chip!) handed over. Yet these are the same people that criticize mission runners as the money making with no risk problem. Do I run missions? Ya. Do I run PvP? Ya. I had to say that just to set my point of view in a neutral state. Not only that this form of reward with no risk abuses alt accounts/accounts in general. Hey, sounds a bit like our buddies that use macro's to make money. Abuse accounts. Check No risk. Check Reward. Check
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:40:00 - [99] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 07/08/2008 16:41:28 Originally by: Garreck So have we established whether or not it can't be done by a group? Or if it will be profitable? The complaints are completely invalid (and more than a little hypocritical) until high sec protection reaches a point of making ganking impossible. I meant "by a given group." Any given group can pretty easily establish whether or not they can break a target. They know concord response time, they know their DPS. You seem to think there is some infinite quantity of suicide gankers available. If there are a group of 3 people who suicide gank, and tomorrow the bare minimum they could do it with is 5 people, their targets risk is reduced because they're less likely to encounter enough people to do so. This is not rocket science and it's a little bit depressing that you have such trouble grasping it.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:50:00 - [100] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey If there are a group of 3 people who suicide gank, and tomorrow the bare minimum they could do it with is 5 people, their targets risk is reduced because they're less likely to encounter enough people to do so. This is not rocket science and it's a little bit depressing that you have such trouble grasping it. So I suppose each new player that joins Eve and elects to not become a pirate is an equal nerfing of piracy? I mean...it's more targets to go around, so less likelihood of any particular individual coming across a limited number of pirates... Nah, I figure it's like any corporation in Eve. If you find yourself in a long-term pvp situation that requires more numbers, you try to recruit new members or new allies. No reason this shouldn't apply to pirates...and it's weird to classify such a concept as some sort of hard-coded raising/lowering of risk or some kind of nerf.

SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:57:00 - [101] Quote: So I suppose each new player that joins Eve and elects to not become a pirate is an equal nerfing of piracy? I mean...it's more targets to go around, so less likelihood of any particular individual coming across a limited number of pirates... New players != changes in game mechanics. Don't be obtuse. Additionally, it has less to do with the number of pirates Vs. the number of targets and more to do with the number of pirates Vs. the amount of ground that can be covered. You could have made a stronger attempt if you had gone about increases in systems or gates. Still weak, just, y'know...not as.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:16:00 - [102] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Don't be obtuse. I think your whole argument is fairly obtuse. You're hung up on a pretty rediculous detail. In the grand scheme, any afk-er, no matter how many or few high sec gankers are around, is risking his ship and his cargo/mods. That's not changing. People who profit from high sec ganking will still be able to do so, and people dumb enough to afk-haul or whatever will still get their hopes and dreams crushed by those gankers. The main change is the up-front cost for the gankers, and that is causing a lot of issues for the gankers. I was merely highlighting the comedy in the cries of "make Eve hardcore" when, in fact, the high sec piracy career just got more hardcore, whereas afk hauling and high sec carebearing is just as mundane (and idiotic, in the case of afk hauling) as it ever was.
Dunk Dinkle Caldari Moose and Squirrel	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:19:00 - [103] [street cred] I played UO from the beginning, and saw the changes over the years first hand. I switched to Siege Perilous when it was offered as an alternative rule set. I played as an anti-PK. [/street cred] The compairison between UO and Eve in dealing with griefing is not apples to apples. With UO, non-consensual PvP was completely removed from 'Trammel' the safe area. Risk from other players was completely eliminated. We UO PvPers were the ones that came up with the term 'carebears' to describe the players that chose Trammel and avoided PvP. With the proposed Eve changes, risk is not be removed. The penalties to the aggressor appear to be dramatically increased. But if someone wants to suicide gank another pilot, it appears they still can. I'm no Eve expert, but the situation is not the same as UO. With UO, a completely safe environment was created. It's doesn't appear to be the case with Eve.
Slanty McGarglefist	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:20:00 - [104] Originally by: The Fugly Originally by: Danton Marcellus Originally by: Andreus Ixiris IF YOU DON'T DISAGREE WITH EVERY NERF THAT CCP HAVE EVER MADE EVEN THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE HAD ULTIMATELY BENEFICIAL EFFECTS YOU'RE NOT A TRUE FAN. I spank you because I love you? Ins't that what the so called "God" does to the bad people? He sends them to hell, yet he still loooooooves them Oh George Carlin how I miss ye __________________________________________________ Originally by: CCP Wrangler No Doh!
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:22:00 - [105] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Quote: So I suppose each new player that joins Eve and elects to not become a pirate is an equal nerfing of piracy? I mean...it's more targets to go around, so less likelihood of any particular individual coming across a limited number of pirates... New players != changes in game mechanics. Don't be obtuse. Additionally, it has less to do with the number of pirates Vs. the number of targets and more to do with the number of pirates Vs. the amount of ground that can be covered. You could have made a stronger attempt if you had gone about increases in systems or gates. Still weak, just, y'know...not as. You are reaching a bit now. You know as well as I do that as long as it is still profitable to suicide gank, they will come. Stating that there won't be enough players willing to dabble in this (in my opinion perfectly acceptable) style of game play is more than a little ludicrous. So is arguing they "won't be able to cover enough ground"... what ground? Are we keeping boundaries and score now? Please. Yes the number of occurances will likely go down. Hello, that is the reason for the adjustment to be made in the first place... that is the goal. But as long as it merely requires some thought, risk, and dedication to that type of play the main result we will see is more of a focus on very high value targets. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. And apparently neither does the majority of the EVE community, both PVP oriented and Carebear oriented alike.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:29:00 - [106] Edited by: Avon on 07/08/2008 17:29:15 I wish I could find the post where CCP stated they would not compromise Eve's harsh, niche, PvP nature to appease carebears just to become a mainstream also-ran. I know I read it years back, but I just can't locate it. I wish they could find it too. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:30:00 - [107] Originally by: Garreck Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Don't be obtuse. I think your whole argument is fairly obtuse. You're hung up on a pretty rediculous detail. In the grand scheme, any afk-er, no matter how many or few high sec gankers are around, is risking his ship and his cargo/mods. You act like the fact that they're still "risking" somehow completely negates the fact that their risk is reduced, while their rewards remain static. Meanwhile, they have the gall to cry about the risk/reward of the gankers being out of whack. Quote: I was merely highlighting the comedy in the cries of "make Eve hardcore" when, in fact, the high sec piracy career just got more hardcore, No, cutting the number of viable targets does not make it "more hardcore", not matter how much you insist it does.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:35:00 - [108] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 07/08/2008 17:35:51 Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Quote: So I suppose each new player that joins Eve and elects to not become a pirate is an equal nerfing of piracy? I mean...it's more targets to go around, so less likelihood of any particular individual coming across a limited number of pirates... New players != changes in game mechanics. Don't be obtuse. Additionally, it has less to do with the number of pirates Vs. the number of targets and more to do with the number of pirates Vs. the amount of ground that can be covered. You could have made a stronger attempt if you had gone about increases in systems or gates. Still weak, just, y'know...not as. You are reaching a bit now. You know as well as I do that as long as it is still profitable to suicide gank, they will come. Stating that there won't be enough players willing to dabble in this (in my opinion perfectly acceptable) style of game play is more than a little ludicrous. So is arguing they "won't be able to cover enough ground"... what ground? Are we keeping boundaries and score now? Please. Yes the number of occurances will likely go down. Hello, that is the reason for the adjustment to be made in the first place... that is the goal. But as long as it merely requires some thought, risk, and dedication to that type of play the main result we will see is more of a focus on very high value targets. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. And apparently neither does the majority of the EVE community, both PVP oriented and Carebear oriented alike. Listen, I know reading is hard, but I pretty clearly didn't say that. What I said was, the probability that any given player will encounter a suicide gank is directly reduced, thus their risk is directly reduced. This is accompanied by the fact that the reward is remaining static. I am making this statement not as an overarching argument against the change, (if you care to read back and follow along with the rest of the class), but against the masturbatory, "omg, risk/reward balance blah blah rabble rabble rabble" nonsense that people frequently spout off about on here. You have just admitted that the risk will decrease. See it? It's right here: Quote: Yes the number of occurances will likely go down. And it's apparent that the rewards those players, whose risk has decreased, will earn remains static. This isn't about the change, it's about the masturbatory "omg risk/reward balance!" arguments people make being complete and utter bullshit because they selectively apply the concept.
Arloeswr Gallente PHOENIX DYNAMICS	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:36:00 - [109] I haven't read this whole thread but I would really hope that the developers resist the temptation to follow in UO's footsteps. Splitting the world was the worst thing that they could have done. EvE is a great game because it leaves it open to conflict. People need conflict and obstacles to overcome to feel a sense of achievement and accomplishment. What UO did when it split the worlds was destroy that for the most part. Sure you could get a house and accumulate wealth, but there is no challenge in that. The real challenge was moving from city to city without getting PK'd. Just like moving from System to system in EVE is a challenge. . EVE is probably one of the best MMOs out right now, yes a big learning curve but once you get into it, it is great.
Esu Nahalas The Night Corporation RONA Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:44:00 - [110] Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 07/08/2008 17:29:15 I wish I could find the post where CCP stated they would not compromise Eve's harsh, niche, PvP nature to appease carebears just to become a mainstream also-ran. I know I read it years back, but I just can't locate it. I wish they could find it too. I wish you could find it also. Because I'm interested in the intellectual dynamic that concludes for that reason, CCP is limited in removing/adding risk to the game.

Esu Nahalas The Night Corporation RONA Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:49:00 - [111] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey No, cutting the number of viable targets does not make it "more hardcore", not matter how much you insist it does. What's "hardcore" about low-risk suicide ganking? And don't give me this noble BS about how you are culling the herd. The vast majority of suicide gankers don't give a damn about the herd in the first place.
Ishquar Teh'Sainte Tri Optimum Ev0ke	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:51:00 - [112] Originally by: Ruze First, the suicide balance was overdue. It just took out the unending profit of the matter, and people were using disposable alts way too frequently. did the suicide gankers use some sort of gamemechanic to force other players to put expensive stuff in untanked haulers? tbh - not the suicide gankers made suicide ganks that common. STUPID PEOPLE WITH MORE ISK THAN BRAINS, DID. on the alt thing - well, suicide ganking isn't the only thing that is affected by alts. imho it would be a better solution to solve the "alt-problem" at the core. ;) ___________________ -Skellibjalla- Life is a garden of perceptions. Pick your fruit.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:56:00 - [113] Originally by: Esu Nahalas Originally by: SurrenderMonkey No, cutting the number of viable targets does not make it "more hardcore", not matter how much you insist it does. What's "hardcore" about low-risk suicide ganking? And don't give me this noble BS about how you are culling the herd. The vast majority of suicide gankers don't give a damn about the herd in the first place. I wasn't the one going on about "hardcoreness" in the first place, so you're asking the wrong person. My issues here are two-fold: 1. The bunk "risk/reward" arguments that are inconsistently applied to justify anything. 2. With regard to this change, I'm opposed to two aspects... 2a. The rather heavy-handedness of recent changes. Insurance payouts alone here would have been enough. CCP used to tweak rather surgically, but lately they're swinging a sledge hammer at anything that moves. They're getting sloppy. 2b. The homogenization of gameplay. I'm not really sure how anyone who has ever played this game could reach the conclusion that there is a "suicide ganking" problem. Every now and then someone gets suicide ganked. I've never been suicide ganked, no one I know has ever been suicide ganked. I've never even SEEN a suicide gank. I know they exist, though, and I like that - the possibility keeps things lively. They're slowly diminishing and/or removing such things entirely, though. These little outliers are what make games like this fun.
Drunk Driver Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:58:00 - [114] Originally by: Arpiter Ultime Online started hardcore. Eventually it got popular and people started crying about being killed and ganked and scammed. So they made a pretty little world called Trammel where everyone could be safe and frolick and play without fear of death. Now EVE is going down the same path this anti suicide ganker stuff is the first step. Did eve hire koster for advice on how to run a MMO? bad ccp 0.0 is quite unsafe. Go there if you're looking for action.
Spectre80 Caldari The Knights Templar Pure.	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:14:00 - [115] i support all changes CCP is planning at the moment. many broken things will be adjusted now to be what they should have been. and to the people who cant cope with it.. well you can just leave. nobody forces you to stay playing.
Malcanis We are Legend eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:41:00 - [116] Originally by: Spectre80 i and to the people who cant cope with it.. well you can just leave. nobody forces you to stay playing. Oh hey, I guess I missed you saying that in all the dozens and dozens of tearful whinethreads where rich players made desperate pleas to be allowed to safely AKF. Got link? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
DeckardIRL Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:44:00 - [117] Suicide Ganking has not been nerfed... the consequences are now just more severe... stop WHINING... I have seen and been the victim of suicide gankers... its a fair tactic... just because it will not be as profitable... stop whining... another n00b who wants to kill empire n00bs... get to low sec where all the fun is now... Deck Whiskey For CAOD at its best
Joey Meow MURAKAMI INDUSTRIES	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:45:00 - [118] Originally by: Nyphur We can't all be cowboys, someone needs to play the injuns.
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:46:00 - [119] Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 07/08/2008 17:29:15 I wish I could find the post where CCP stated they would not compromise Eve's harsh, niche, PvP nature to appease carebears just to become a mainstream also-ran. I know I read it years back, but I just can't locate it. I wish they could find it too. One of the few times Avon and I agree. If CCP want people to move out to low/null-sec space, and stop the high-sec overcrowding. Then this is a very odd way of going about it. The only sane balance I can see to this suicide ganking nerf, is to auto-kick pilots out of the NPC starter corporations after x-hours of gameplay. At least then, pilots can be wardecced rather than suicide ganked. What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass!
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:46:00 - [120] Originally by: DeckardIRL Suicide Ganking has not been nerfed... the consequences are now just more severe... stop WHINING... I have seen and been the victim of suicide gankers... its a fair tactic... just because it will not be as profitable... stop whining... another n00b who wants to kill empire n00bs... get to low sec where all the fun is now... Deck This would be true if they had just stripped insurance payouts. But that's not the only thing they did. Thus, it's not true, and you can't very well have a valid point based on an assertion that's entirely false.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: 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.