EVE Search - I don't see what's so OP about Falcons

All Channels

Ships and Modules

I don't see what's so OP about Falcons

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Caldari Citizen4714	Posted - 2009.02.25 16:57:00 - [241] Originally by: Hobbledehoy So my brother's failrox finally arrived, we fleet up and he warps to me at 100km (his optimal) and starts "pounding" on the jaguar. Here's where the jaguar dude laughs and the falcon permajams both of us. So now while i'm the only one tackled, i'm still clearly not escaping like this. To describe the positioning, we are linearly arranged with the gate now 50km off, the falcon 140km in the direction of the gate, and my ferox partner 100km on the other side from me directly away from the gate. The falcon is easily jamming both of us 95% of the time with the jaguar now taking only occasional volleys and never dipping below 80% shield. Now depressed by the ferox's effectiveness, I start hoping that another one of my friends in a vagabond would get back from afk and log in because he mentioned needing to update skill training after downtime. However, While now relegated to increasingly certain death by falcon gayness, we revise our plan again and have the ferox approach closer and hope that his ECM drones will get a lucky jam off allowing my escape. I then aligned to the sun and multiple planets and start spamming warp and luckily this was successful. Then the jaguar pilot offers me a 1v1 with no falcon and i accept and align back..... JUST KIDDING.... haha Really he did, but we just called him a noob and said "keep trying" and left. Clearly this story demonstrates that falcons are balanced and fair and instead it's ECM drones that need to be nerfed. You call in support against a jag and a falcon in the form of a sniper, but he didn't bring a fracking ECCM? Fail. And why the hell did he start sniping the jag? He should have been shooting at the falcon. If he'd scared it off, or gotten lucky and killed it you'd rip the jag apart fast and be on your merry way. But no, he failed to bring ECCM to a known falcony fight, and then failed to shoot at the falcon. I went 1v2 against a brutix and a falcon in my domi, and since I knew the situation of the fight was able to get away with equipping dual ECCMs. I was able to lock the brutix long enough to kill it despite being the sole target of a falcon. I point this out to illustrate that falcons can be countered and that you failed utterly to do so. Your story contributes absolutely nothing to the argument that falcons are overpowered. Basically, in a 2v2 of a falcon + something vs. a ship with battleship or better sensor strength with 1 ECCM and some other ship is pretty even odds. To me that's not overpowered, even though falcon is the current FotM. IMO the Pilgrim and the gallente recons need boosting to put them on a level with today's falcon.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.25 17:14:00 - [242] Originally by: daisy dook Edited by: daisy dook on 25/02/2009 15:55:32 Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: lecrotta "WWWAAAA I JUST WANNA FIT GANK/TANK AND A BIT OF TACKLE!!!!!!"....is not a valid reason for a nerf. That is not the argument most people are putting forth. Just what is the arguement you are putting forth? It appears to be "if you have less than 3 gang mates then a Falcon is game over" I could be wrong. Your proof that ECCM is effective seems to be that ECCM has great results in reducing 2 BS's from being perma jammed past 40 seconds. Woop-pe-de-dooo. That is still to say that a falcon can remove 2 battle ships from the fight the vast majority of the time even when they are fitted with ECCM. If not both, then one or the other. Of course that whole example seems to be more about Bayesian probability and less about the state of Falcons because the sample case is fairly unrealistic. However BS gangs are not the most common things in EvE in my experience. Most of the time I see many Inty/AF/HAC/Recon gangs. And fighting those type of gangs you are even more effective (with the exception of other recons), and the counter is even more detrimental to the fit of that ship since they have less options available in the first place. All other counters to other forms of EWAR provide some benefit to the ship, when it is not protecting said ship from that type of EWAR. That is not the case with ECCM. All other forms of EWAR have strengths and weaknesses versus different ships that have different roles or different systems onboard. The only weakness that ECM has is ships that are missing a mid slot are slightly harder to jam. On top of that, Falcons operate at a range where they are relatively safe, especially compared to the other recons. That is not equity. That is my argument for why something needs to happen to the present form of ECM. A better counter has to be implemented or the whole system scrapped and rethought. 1/0, Off/On, black/white style mechanics are boring in any MMORPG. Multi-shades of grey is where good game mechanics are born. Peoples fits should not revolve around defending against any one ship, system, wepaon or EWAR. What if they made drones do 20 times more damage. Then smart bombs on every ship would be compulsory. You guys would say that is fine, just fit smart bombs. When really, it is a true indication that drones are OP.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.25 17:32:00 - [243] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Your proof that ECCM is effective seems to be that ECCM has great results in reducing 2 BS's from being perma jammed past 40 seconds. 6 x 50% jammers VS 2 bs with a single eccm fitted each reduces the chance to jam them to 20% for the first 2 cycles and less than 1% after that... You really do like reinterpreting the figures to suit you intent don't you???.... Did you ever consider that you NEED to do that cos you have no basis for a argument in the first place...
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.25 17:33:00 - [244] Originally by: Beverly Sparks stuff Another direction. Sorry, but I figure this would be your next move judging by the rest of this thread. So I will stick it in for you.
Mesothelae Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.02.25 17:38:00 - [245]
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.25 17:41:00 - [246] That one line is the only problem you have with my post? ECM is going to get nerfed, we all know it. The only reason I am even posting in this thread is to make the day go by. In any case, something just came up at work here, so I gotta run.... Enjoy your falcons while you still can. muahahahahhaa
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.25 17:51:00 - [247] Edited by: lecrotta on 25/02/2009 17:51:31 Originally by: Beverly Sparks Your proof that ECCM is effective seems to be that ECCM has great results in reducing 2 BS's from being perma jammed past 40 seconds. 6 x 50% jammers VS 2 bs with a single eccm fitted each reduces the chance to jam them to 20% for the first 2 cycles and less than 1% after that... You really do like reinterpreting the figures to suit you intent don't you???.... Did you ever consider that you NEED to do that cos you have no basis for a argument in the first place... Originally by: Beverly Sparks That one line is the only problem you have with my post? Their was no need to read any further when the initial comments are either out right lies or manipulated/altered facts.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.25 17:56:00 - [248] Edited by: chrisss0r on 25/02/2009 17:57:01 Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: daisy dook Edited by: daisy dook on 25/02/2009 15:55:32 Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: lecrotta "WWWAAAA I JUST WANNA FIT GANK/TANK AND A BIT OF TACKLE!!!!!!"....is not a valid reason for a nerf. That is not the argument most people are putting forth. Just what is the arguement you are putting forth? It appears to be "if you have less than 3 gang mates then a Falcon is game over" I could be wrong. Your proof that ECCM is effective seems to be that ECCM has great results in reducing 2 BS's from being perma jammed past 40 seconds. Woop-pe-de-dooo. That is still to say that a falcon can remove 2 battle ships from the fight the vast majority of the time even when they are fitted with ECCM. If not both, then one or the other. Of course that whole example seems to be more about Bayesian probability and less about the state of Falcons because the sample case is fairly unrealistic. Could you give a reason why you think the case is that unrealistic? hey lecrotta answermy evemail, need to add you to my buddylist and hunt you down :P
Cohkka Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2009.02.25 18:15:00 - [249] Originally by: lecrotta And yet a willingness to fit ECCM within the gang makeup solves the issue..... That's not even half the truth. The Falcons effectivity is heavily depending on the size of the enemy gang and their shipstypes. So in fact it solves the problem down to a certain amount of BS (or equally jammable ships). You're still left with the case: Falcon is way too effective against smaller targets and small gang sizes. Have the worst case scenario and fulfill both parameters and you end up in a useless gang when facing a Falcon. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5...
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.25 18:21:00 - [250] Originally by: Cohkka Originally by: lecrotta And yet a willingness to fit ECCM within the gang makeup solves the issue..... That's not even half the truth. The Falcons effectivity is heavily depending on the size of the enemy gang and their shipstypes. So in fact it solves the problem down to a certain amount of BS (or equally jammable ships). You're still left with the case: Falcon is way too effective against smaller targets and small gang sizes. Have the worst case scenario and fulfill both parameters and you end up in a useless gang when facing a Falcon. Smaller targets have the mobility to deal with falcons in their own way.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.25 18:23:00 - [251] sig radius bonus for eccm and off race jam chance gone ffs !
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.25 19:33:00 - [252] Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 25/02/2009 19:34:25 Originally by: chrisss0r Could you give a reason why you think the case is that unrealistic? hey lecrotta answermy evemail, need to add you to my buddylist and hunt you down :P Because I doubt too many small gang falcon pilots are going to get 3 chances at 50% each on 2 racially random battleships.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.25 19:35:00 - [253] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 25/02/2009 19:34:25 Originally by: chrisss0r Could you give a reason why you think the case is that unrealistic? hey lecrotta answermy evemail, need to add you to my buddylist and hunt you down :P Because I doubt too many small gang falcon pilots are going to get 3 chances at 50% each on 2 racially random battleships. so to your theory my numbes are way too high?
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.25 20:08:00 - [254] Originally by: chrisss0r so to your theory my numbes are way too high? Yes and no. There are a lot more variables then just 3 jammers for each of 2 BS's. Everytime you jam one BS on the first attempt, that opens up more jammers for the other one. I didn't see where your model took that into account. Anyway, a sig radius bonus for ECCM is a decent enough idea. And would help to bring ECCM in line with the other forms of counter-EWar, as long as the in game effects were enough to be noticeable. But I still like the Target painter idea (painted ships can be targeted by ships that are jammed). But perhaps both things together, would be a decent enough solution. I would also maybe like to see sensor strength normalized a bit. (ie Decrease BS and increase Frigate sensor strengths.) I am not sure what the best thing to do is, tbh. That's why I will trust in the Devs to make it right. After all, they are getting paid to think about it.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.25 20:11:00 - [255] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: chrisss0r so to your theory my numbes are way too high? Yes and no. There are a lot more variables then just 3 jammers for each of 2 BS's. Everytime you jam one BS on the first attempt, that opens up more jammers for the other one. I didn't see where your model took that into account.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.25 20:47:00 - [256] Originally by: Beverly Sparks That's why I will trust in the Devs to make it right. After all, they are getting paid to think about it. Str8 from the devs that brought us NANO BS, dual MWDing ravens, multi heat sink....ect ect...
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.02.25 22:43:00 - [257] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: chrisss0r so to your theory my numbes are way too high? Yes and no. There are a lot more variables then just 3 jammers for each of 2 BS's. Everytime you jam one BS on the first attempt, that opens up more jammers for the other one. I didn't see where your model took that into account. Anyway, a sig radius bonus for ECCM is a decent enough idea. And would help to bring ECCM in line with the other forms of counter-EWar, as long as the in game effects were enough to be noticeable. But I still like the Target painter idea (painted ships can be targeted by ships that are jammed). But perhaps both things together, would be a decent enough solution. I would also maybe like to see sensor strength normalized a bit. (ie Decrease BS and increase Frigate sensor strengths.) I am not sure what the best thing to do is, tbh. That's why I will trust in the Devs to make it right. After all, they are getting paid to think about it. So Bev, yes you think her numbers are too high; I propose a typical falcon build to be one each racial plus on other so at best you would get 1-2 jammers per ship at 50%. The thread then goes to prove the effectiveness of ECCM agains the 3 jammer with 50% jam chance. Is your argurment that ECM is too effective against smaller hulls (mitigated by numbers, lock speed and racial sensor type); ECM is too effective again very small gangs (mitigated by having mates or GTFO plan) or that destroying a Falcon is just too difficult (as is any sniper w book marks)? A straight answer would be nice.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.25 23:24:00 - [258] I don't think we can expect a insightful answer from someone who said "chance of jamming 2 bs for 1 cycle = chance of jamming 1 bs for 2 cycles"... It's funny that he then claims i did not factor in what the very thread is about.... It's just tedius how i end up arguing against the falcon whiners every time although i myself think the Falcon is overpowered ( needs removal of offrace jamchance and eccm needs a positive sideeffect, maybe sigrad reduction) but the whines and "arguments" of the falcon whiners are so dumb and fact neglecting that i cannot help it :(
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.25 23:32:00 - [259] Edited by: lecrotta on 25/02/2009 23:32:41 Originally by: chrisss0r I don't think we can expect a insightful answer from someone who said "chance of jamming 2 bs for 1 cycle = chance of jamming 1 bs for 2 cycles"... He is looking to fudge figures out of the numbers he wants from you that is why he asks for specific numbers, its so he can play with them any apply them wrongly to get answers that suit his emo fueled position on the subject. Originally by: chrisss0r It's just tedius how i end up arguing against the falcon whiners every time although i myself think the Falcon is overpowered . Actually that is why you are one of the more respected posters on this forum cos for you THE TRUTH > WANT, while ppl like Beverly sparks are only interested in fudging facts to get the nerf they want.
GabrIeI Night	Posted - 2009.02.26 11:18:00 - [260] This is soo funny,,,, Oh no's they have a falcon,,,, Oh no's im jammed,,,, Im just gonna sit here and die now,,,, The way some people splatter crap on here about certain ships is amazing,
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.02.26 12:21:00 - [261] The difference in jamming capability between the current Falcon and pre-boost Rook - when plenty of people were happily telling us that ECM had been "nerfed into uselessness" - is a single lowslot. So, is the problem ECM or the covops cloak?
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.26 13:39:00 - [262] Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 26/02/2009 13:41:54 Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 26/02/2009 13:40:41 Originally by: chrisss0r I don't think we can expect a insightful answer from someone who said "chance of jamming 2 bs for 1 cycle = chance of jamming 1 bs for 2 cycles"... It's funny that he then claims i did not factor in what the very thread is about.... Don't you see how those 2 things fit together? If you are going to quote me, then quote me, don't paraphrase what you think I said. Because if you don't cross over modules from one BS to the other, I think you will find that pretty much everything I have said is true. And yea, it was my fault, as it would appear that it is not my math that is the problem, it is my reading. I totally missed the line where you said that any early hit would make the rest of the jammers available for the second battleship. In any case, the Falcon Fanboys are pretty funny, and I think it is funny that even though I was totally off base, I did not realize that until now, which is because all of their points are filled with so little content it is impossible to gain anything out of a discussion with them. They are simply too busy lashing out in angst against anyone that might take away their alt falcon, and then not allow them to gank any small gang that decided not to chase the FOTM, or build their gang directly with Falcons in mind.
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.02.26 14:16:00 - [263] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 26/02/2009 13:41:54 Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 26/02/2009 13:40:41 Originally by: chrisss0r I don't think we can expect a insightful answer from someone who said "chance of jamming 2 bs for 1 cycle = chance of jamming 1 bs for 2 cycles"... It's funny that he then claims i did not factor in what the very thread is about.... Don't you see how those 2 things fit together? If you are going to quote me, then quote me, don't paraphrase what you think I said. Because if you don't cross over modules from one BS to the other, I think you will find that pretty much everything I have said is true. And yea, it was my fault, as it would appear that it is not my math that is the problem, it is my reading. I totally missed the line where you said that any early hit would make the rest of the jammers available for the second battleship. In any case, the Falcon Fanboys are pretty funny, and I think it is funny that even though I was totally off base, I did not realize that until now, which is because all of their points are filled with so little content it is impossible to gain anything out of a discussion with them. They are simply too busy lashing out in angst against anyone that might take away their alt falcon, and then not allow them to gank any small gang that decided not to chase the FOTM, or build their gang directly with Falcons in mind. Oh, I love a bit of superiority in the afternoon. I still don't understant what point you are trying to put across. I would appreciate it if you could lower yourself to articulate it in a single sentence for we of small brain.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.26 14:59:00 - [264] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 26/02/2009 13:41:54 Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 26/02/2009 13:40:41 Originally by: chrisss0r I don't think we can expect a insightful answer from someone who said "chance of jamming 2 bs for 1 cycle = chance of jamming 1 bs for 2 cycles"... It's funny that he then claims i did not factor in what the very thread is about.... Don't you see how those 2 things fit together? If you are going to quote me, then quote me, don't paraphrase what you think I said. Because if you don't cross over modules from one BS to the other, I think you will find that pretty much everything I have said is true. And yea, it was my fault, as it would appear that it is not my math that is the problem, it is my reading. I totally missed the line where you said that any early hit would make the rest of the jammers available for the second battleship. In any case, the Falcon Fanboys are pretty funny, and I think it is funny that even though I was totally off base, I did not realize that until now, which is because all of their points are filled with so little content it is impossible to gain anything out of a discussion with them. They are simply too busy lashing out in angst against anyone that might take away their alt falcon, and then not allow them to gank any small gang that decided not to chase the FOTM, or build their gang directly with Falcons in mind. So your point is you were only talking bull**** because u did not understand what i said? nothing new here.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.26 15:05:00 - [265] Originally by: daisy dook Oh, I love a bit of superiority in the afternoon. I still don't understant what point you are trying to put across. I would appreciate it if you could lower yourself to articulate it in a single sentence for we of small brain. ECM blows! How's that. I don't see how that is superiority. I actually admitted that I have been deluded through most of this thread, based on my lack of reading skills. If I had read further into that other thread, I would have not been so misguided, as most of my assumptions were explained in the first 2-3 pages. My fault. However the atttitude of a few (not you by the way) got my dander up with their "STFU" attitudes. Moderation by anyone on a forum by anyone aside from a moderator is futile. If those other 2 really want to have a discussion, they should lose the personal attacks throughout it, and just stick to the points of their argument. Otherwise, I will stoop to their level, whether I am right or wrong. At that point, they have already lost my respect. I am not on these forums to degrade people or to make myself feel good. I am here to gain perspective on the game, and I am doing that. If you are trying to defend all statements made by the falcon fanboys, I would say that you are on a loser there. A longer version of my opinion is this, which is quoted from earlier in the thread and has been edited to remove things that I now know to be false. Originally by: Beverly Sparks Your proof that ECCM is effective seems to be that ECCM has great results in reducing 2 BS's from being perma jammed past 40 seconds. Woop-pe-de-dooo. That is still to say that a falcon can remove 2 battle ships from the fight the majority of the time even when they are fitted with ECCM. If not both, then one or the other. However BS gangs are not the most common things in EvE in my experience. Most of the time I see many Inty/AF/HAC/Recon gangs. And fighting those type of gangs Falcon's are even more effective (with the exception of other recons), and the counter is even more detrimental to the fit of that ship since they have less options available in the first place. All other counters to other forms of EWAR provide some benefit to the ship, when it is not protecting said ship from that type of EWAR. That is not the case with ECCM. All other forms of EWAR have strengths and weaknesses versus different ships that have different roles or different systems onboard. The only weakness that ECM has is ships that are missing a mid slot are slightly harder to jam. On top of that, Falcons operate at a range where they are relatively safe, especially compared to the other recons. That is not equity. That is my argument for why something needs to happen to the present form of ECM. A better counter has to be implemented or the whole system scrapped and rethought. 1/0, Off/On, black/white style mechanics are boring in any MMORPG. Multi-shades of grey is where good game mechanics are born. Peoples fits should not revolve around defending against any one ship, system, weapon or EWAR. What if they made drones do 20 times more damage. Then smart bombs on every ship would be compulsory. Some people would say that is fine, just fit smart bombs. When really, it is a true indication that drones would be OP. Quote:
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.02.26 15:19:00 - [266] Okay, ECM blows. A good start, I can and will agree that it is not fun to be jammed (pvp or pve) nor is it fun to sit at 100km doing nothing more than jam (the best fun in this situation is trying to jam ppl pointing my gang mates so they can escape). Unfortunately CCP will have to invent a replacement mechanic to improve this situation. Are there any situations that you think that ECM as a mechanic is balanced (including it's extreme range)?
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.26 15:19:00 - [267] Originally by: chrisss0r So your point is you were only talking bull** because u did not understand what i said? nothing new here. No, I was talking bull** because I overlooked something, and didn't read enough of the other thread, mainly because I was more interested in inciting the falcon fanboys, and less interested in getting to the bare bones of the mechanics of the probability of ECM. But that is because of how rude they are. After my first post in this thread, where I said that webs are not 100% effective, I was called a troll. The rest kinda went from there, as I don't like to let something like that go uncontested.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.26 15:43:00 - [268] Originally by: daisy dook Okay, ECM blows. A good start, I can and will agree that it is not fun to be jammed (pvp or pve) nor is it fun to sit at 100km doing nothing more than jam (the best fun in this situation is trying to jam ppl pointing my gang mates so they can escape). Unfortunately CCP will have to invent a replacement mechanic to improve this situation. Are there any situations that you think that ECM as a mechanic is balanced (including it's extreme range)? I don't have a good answer for that. As stated, on/off mechanics are never a good idea. For ECCM in it's present form, I do think some bonus needs to be added. Sig radius would be a decent one. I also like the idea of being able to target ships that have a target painter on them, even when you are under the affects of ECM. Perhaps then make ECM auto hit and replace the extra EWAR bonus on the Falcon to a Shield resistance bonus, to help it's survivability since that seems to be a large concern of the present proponents of Falcon's. Other ideas... Scrap ECM entirely and go back to the drawing board. I have noticed that a mechanic that is missing from Eve, and that is in most other MMO's is slowing, or rather increasing peoples duration. Perhaps you could apply an EWAR type that would do just that. It could be called remote spyware inductor. Or perhaps you could temporarily offline semi-random modules on a ship. Sort of an EMP pulse type thing where some of the targets system would be knocked out. I like this because it produces varied effect for the pilot of the affected ship, forcing him to think quickly and adjust his tactics to compensate for what he has just lost. That for me is interesting. Could be a couple of weapons, maybe his cap booster, his repper all these things would cause him to adapt to his new ship fit. (I realize this is a black/white mechanic, but it is a partial black/white mechanic, which makes it grey)
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.02.26 17:24:00 - [269] All good ideas, a secondary effect for the ECCM module would be a favourite of mine. If people actually fitted ECCM then the whole fallacy that is perma-jam would be exposed for what it is. I think the whole arguement between 'fanbois' and 'whiners' comes down to the 'whiners' are concerned about what happens to their individual ship and the 'fanbois' are looking at the gang level. Unfotunately there seems to be little bridging the divide.
sophisticatedlimabean Gallente Delinquent Habits	Posted - 2009.02.27 09:04:00 - [270] Originally by: Beverly Sparks mainly because I was more interested in inciting the falcon fanboys, and less interested in getting to the bare bones of the mechanics of the probability of ECM. But that is because of how rude they are. I was called a troll..... Yea what is the world coming to when you cannot deliberately troll without getting it pointed out............... ECM is fine ECCM works great although it does deserve a secondary effect like the other systems, i like the sig radius idea as it fits nice with the fact that ecm is caldari and they tend to be missile ship's and missiles are effected most by sig radius (almost like it having the same effect as a TD with a tracking script but for missiles)... My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: 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.