EVE Search - ECM Ships - Looking at better defined roles

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

ECM Ships - Looking at better defined roles

» 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 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 38 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Lilly Tigress	Posted - 2009.03.25 06:47:00 - [421] Originally by: Holden Thorpe Edited by: Holden Thorpe on 25/03/2009 06:22:10 http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/823/brawlawlor.jpg Says it all, really. you owe me a keyboard, mine is full of coffee the day is already saved
Saaya Illirie Caldari Core Element Blackguard Coalition	Posted - 2009.03.25 06:48:00 - [422] I like these changes. The Falcon becomes like the Pilgrim, you know. Generally useless for everything besides it's stated ewar purpose. The Curse is the ship capable of dealing damage with it's high slots, much like the Rook, and both remain able to do so from longer ranges. I'd like to see Falcon tank buffed accordingly, and everyone might seem upset but given the fact that Pilgrims are still decently respected ships it's just a reactionary phase. Too often you hear intel report "they have too much ewar, don't engage", you never hear "they have too much nos" or "too much damping! don't engage! too much webs!" Maybe this will bring ECM down from being the battle maker to the battle decider. I also very much support the idea of adding differentiation between the ships; for too long it has seemed like the only difference between the Rook and Falcon was covops cloak and scan time bonuses. Now they'll have unique purposes. Suffer not the insufferable to live.
FistFul O'Dumbass	Posted - 2009.03.25 06:52:00 - [423] Originally by: Lord WarATron Leave ECM as it is, but remove that 20 second Jam cycle. All problems with ECm trace back to the long cycle rather than the actual act of lock breaking. i dunno... i think the long cycle is factored in well. Meaning, I think it would be too powerful if u can just insta-switch your ECMS. Maybe im wrong? Maybe a skill to shorten the cycle time?
Anabella Rella Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.03.25 06:53:00 - [424] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Extra reason I'm loving this change: the Goons seem to hate it. That proves it's good for the game. Hmm, think I have to take exception to this Alex. They may be Goons, but when they're right, they're right. These wholesale changes to ECM would effectively make Caldari ships (with the possible exception of the Rokh) useless in fleets. I fly Blackbirds. My only defense is RANGE. Since my mids are used for ECM mods I have no room for shields. My offensive capabilities are next to nil. If the range is taken away my survival window is less than a minute. Period. When that happens what's the point in having a Blackbird? You live long enough to get in one jam chance and then pop? Obviously the same goes for the other Caldari ECM ships. I find it especially ludicrous to expect a Scorpion to operate at close range. A slow, lumbering BS with no defense and no offense being forced to slug it out up close and personal with its heavy hitting counterparts? Wow. That's like making Jackie Chan fight Mike Tyson while strapped to a wheelchair, blindfolded. Might be mildly amusing for a few seconds, but after that it'd just be painful to watch. Just sorry now that I wasted the time training to use ECM and all the supporting skills. And to all the Falcon bashers out there; don't get too smug just yet; today it's ECM getting nerfed, tomorrow it may be your kid getting spanked. What you want is irrelevant. What you've chosen is at hand.
Anton Marx Caldari Warhamsters Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.03.25 06:54:00 - [425] Guys, guys... imagine this: A key 0.0 chokepoint/jumpbridge/sov4/yougettheidea system. Super-epic 200 vs 200 sniper battle. Tension on comms. Screaming FCs. Overflooded gang chat. Spams of fleet invitation in alliance chat. 20 fps with brackets on when zoomed out all the way. As lazers melt through the hull of a golden-plated apocalypse and dozens of blue explosions fill up the dark abyss of space A group of brave falcon pilots uncloaks at 50km to turn the battle in favour of the defenders and then there is silence... YES, ALL THE PILOTS ON BOTH SIDES STOPPED SHOOTING EACH OTHER FOR A MOMENT OF GOOD HEALTHY LAUGH! HAHAHAHAHAH. HAHAHAHAHAH. HAHAHAHAHAH. The selfless apocalypse pilot now entering structure knew that he'd be a richer man within mere seconds. In a last attempt to bring glory to his cause, he focuses 2 out of the 4 falcons with 3 tychoons on one and 4 on the other... ...they both died before him. RIP falcons. DESTROYED Against ALL Authorities ?????! (c) Ivan Wise
LordVodka Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:07:00 - [426] Edited by: LordVodka on 25/03/2009 07:07:26 The worst 200 man man fleet ever if it takes them that long to kill a zealot ^
Mallikanth	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:10:00 - [427] I don't fly Falcons but I believe I understand them and this is just a terrible idea CCP. Detailed argument is best left to people who understand the small details, like in this blog which argues in detail and with figures against it. Please no, CCP. Don't do this.
FistFul O'Dumbass	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:13:00 - [428] Originally by: Mallikanth I don't fly Falcons but I believe I understand them and this is just a terrible idea CCP. Detailed argument is best left to people who understand the small details, like in this blog which argues in detail and with figures against it. Please no, CCP. Don't do this. HEAR HEAR!
Thorian Baalnorn	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:16:00 - [429] Originally by: OgreMerk Edited by: OgreMerk on 25/03/2009 05:20:21 These changes don't really seem like a nerf; just a slight re-adjustment. The problem will still be there. Eve is turning into a game of who has the better jamming. As far as I knew there shouldn't be any one thing that is mandatory, the ECM module / jamming ship is though. It doesn't matter if your fighting 1v1, small gang, or big fleet. 90% of the time it just comes down to jamming strength. This also makes small scale PVP loose its appeal. As gangs add falcons and falcon killers to counter the enemy. The fleets just get bigger and bigger. In my opinion, ECM should have the same ranges as webbers, neuts, and disruptors. A falcon is just as fragile as any other recon, so they can be right there next to us. Another problem I see is that currently, a falcon can permanently jam. The only way this should happen is when there's sensor dampening in conjunction with the jamming. Its gonna be a tricky thing to nerf the ECM, without just completely removing it. No other module in game has the ability to render any target completely useless. I guess some possible changes could be: Only 1 jamming module per ship. Jamming type changed with scripts. Shorten the range to match other ewar. Shorten the actual time a target is jammed, but leave the module cycle time the same. Lower strength and range of ECM modules; add strength/range scripts like other EWAR Mods. I'm sure I'll think of some other crazy ideas later you said a falcon is just as fragile as any other recon this is untrue. have you ever seen someone that used a falcon to tackle? Lets look at the other recons compared to a falcon falcon= 4/7/3 layout all bonuses are to ECM( giving a missle bonus is just stupid falcons are not DPS ships and your not going to kill anything with 2 launchers) rook= 5/7/3 with 5 launcher HP. bonuses to kin damage. lost the covert cloak This ship can better defend itself at close range. has slightly better resist and slightly more shield than its covert brother... this is your dps/ecm recon combo. still squishy curse=5/6/4 with 4 launchers. great neut/nos bonuses. cant fit a decent tank and can immobile ships quickly. droneboat+insane neut/nos bonuses+ decently tankable= iwin pilgrim=4/5/5 w/ gun turrets. loses a high and mid but can fit a covert cloak. has a bit better tank. not as good to immobilizing a target but still not bad at tackling. arazu=4/6/4 w/ 3 turrets. this ship screams tackle. bonus to disruptor range 6 mids allow plenty for speed/tackling gear. lows can get an ok tank. has a small dronebay for extra DPS/ewar Lachesis=no one flies these. ( i think ive only seen 4 the entire year ive played eve) after look at it this looks like the gallente version of what they want to turn a falcon into except its gets 1 more launcher. so you want to turn a falcon into a ship thats never used? huginn-6/6/3 great bonus to webby. but you use your mid slots up with your tackling. could be speed tanked. Split weapons not a plus you could use the other 3 highs as utility slots has a small drone bay. rapier=4/6/4 little better tank plus covert. All other races recons can be used as in your face ships. the rook can be used to deal some dps and some jam but to do ecm it would epically fail as a tank. the falcon would either have to fail as a ecm boat or fail as a tank. either way... tis a fail.
LordMordred Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:17:00 - [430] So... You plan to finally fix caldari ships for pvp then? Like maybe some highslot warp scrams or something? How about a revamp of the entire missile system... you know... since it's required for a Caldari pilot to bring an ECM boat to the fight to this day and age. The larger the gang, the less useful a missile ship becomes. Missiles no longer have a PvP role in this game. There is a turret platform that can do any role they can fill better. So... how about you look at Caldari ships as a whole. And other than the Eagle(in it's class), there is a turret platform that can out do any Caldari turret platform. What role do we have in PvP again? One disgruntled old player turned to **ed if you do this with out fixing the other crap first. Not saying this isn't a good idea... but seriously... fix your game before taking what many pilots consider their **ty role that's been left to them away from them. As it's all we have left. -----

Ash Bringer	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:26:00 - [431] Ok if u wanna make falcon close range brawler. A.K.A new pilgrim; Give him drone bay(50m3) and 3 turrets or 3 launchers. Unlike pilgrim falcons can not shut down tank of targets. Means they will need at least same dps (or more) of force recons. (about 250-300dps)
Sig Sour	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:28:00 - [432] How this will effect the way I play Eve and you will not see on the test server: - It will be even more difficult to resupply from high sec. - It will not be worth putting 150 mil isk at such a high risk to oversee low sec mining operations. - I will have to log out when extremely outnumbered instead of trying to break though enemy lines. - The fleets I fly in love to engage when the enemy fleet has up to 4X our numbers, will have to pass up on a lot of PVP when we are so heavily outnumbered. Cause and Effect A remote repair battleship (or logistics) gang with ECCM fit would requires a Flacon or Pilgram to brake it, both of which would not last long enough to do the job they were built to do. With these stats on the Rook, jamming Capital ships would be near impossible, about as worth while as target painting them. It would also make battleships, logistics and other recons with ECCM fit near impossible to jam. Bringing a ship that is already called primary in every fight, right into the middle of the fight will make it so nobody wastes their money on it. ECM is commonly used in convoys thorough low sec. I have seen it and have used it. Fragile ECM ships are really effective at breaking up low sec gate camps. It is not a pirate tool because they can not survive under gate gun fire. This currently makes transition into low sec a little softer, making ECM less effective will make it a more harsh transition. I think it is already hard enough to get a lot of people go into low sec, why do you want to make it more difficult on them? My suggestion to keep it simple - Give ECCM a base sensor strength boost instead of a percentage. This would improve the chances of being able to keep a lock greatly for those willing to risk the slot for it accordingly. It would do a lot for frigs where the slots are extremely valuable, quite a bit for cruisers, decent with battle cruisers, ok with battleships and next to nothing to capitals. See you on the test server.
GiantSquid	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:33:00 - [433] please more this patch on to the fast track ^^, if there is too much complaining its ok .... screams dont sound so lound in the belly of an animal with much fur.
Gail Sohmbadi Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:34:00 - [434] Just wanted to thank CCP for helping me make the decision to crosstrain out of Caldari completely. I finally get to the point that I can fly Caldari Cruisers, and I find out that my missile skills are worthless in PvP. no problem, I'll fly blackbirds in fleet. I start training Battleships, because one day, I can at least fly a Scorpion, and while I know I will die quickly in every engagement, it's still a battleship. Now you render the Scorpion useless in fleet fights, so I guess it's back to blackbirds in fleets. At least I can afford to fly T2 rigged blackbirds in fleet now, at least until you come back to nerf my ratting ravens.
galphi Gallente Unitary Senate Unitary Enterprises	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:38:00 - [435] The Rook changes would apear to be an improvement - could be useful as a solo killship now with drones for extra dps. I like that Falcons won't be out at 150km solo permajamming a capital ship now And the Scorpion will be an incredible ship up close, very big improvement there. Can uh, the model get it's second arm welded back on now? So it can hold all this extra win?
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:43:00 - [436] Originally by: Anabella Rella They may be Goons, but when they're right, they're right. True. But also, when they're wrong, they're wrong. As a Falcon pilot myself, IMO these changes are long overdue. Quote: These wholesale changes to ECM would effectively make Caldari ships (with the possible exception of the Rokh) useless in fleets. I fly Blackbirds. My only defense is RANGE. Since my mids are used for ECM mods I have no room for shields. My offensive capabilities are next to nil. If the range is taken away my survival window is less than a minute. Period. It seems to me that the BB range bonus is staying as is? At L4 skills, that means 68km optimal + 75km falloff, and since fighting at optimal + half falloff means just about 10% in efficiency, you can still comfortably fight from 105km (70km for multispecs), more if you fit SDAs / range rigs / have L5 skills. I don't think this is a major problem for BB. And, well, if you don't fit 2*SDA, then you can use a 1600mm plate to give you some buffer, and nothing prevents you using shield modules, either - it's just that nowadays it doesn't make sense. -- Gradient forum
Hyneid Fehlhaishyo	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:44:00 - [437] Edited by: Hyneid Fehlhaishyo on 25/03/2009 07:45:20 Originally by: Saaya Illirie I like these changes. The Falcon becomes like the Pilgrim, you know. A ship that is completely eclipsed by other models that no one flys? Quote: Generally useless for everything besides it's stated ewar purpose. Right. Like they are now. [Quote] The Curse is the ship capable of dealing damage with it's high slots, much like the Rook, and both remain able to do so from longer ranges. I'd like to see Falcon tank buffed accordingly, and everyone might seem upset but given the fact that Pilgrims are still decently respected ships it's just a reactionary phase. No, they aren't. Pilgrims are turkeys. [Quote] Too often you hear intel report "they have too much ewar, don't engage", you never hear "they have too much nos" or "too much damping! don't engage! too much webs!" Maybe this will bring ECM down from being the battle maker to the battle decider. You don't hear that because CCP has nerfed those modules to where they are nearly useless. Why would anyone be afraid of them? Now you are supporting that be done to yet another module? Why don't we all just warp on grid, lock eachother, and throw snowballs at each other because the stupid or unprepared can't counter a simple game mechanic. Thats where endless nerfing heads. [Quote] I also very much support the idea of adding differentiation between the ships; for too long it has seemed like the only difference between the Rook and Falcon was covops cloak and scan time bonuses. Now they'll have unique purposes. Now, on THIS, I completely agree.
Samiloth Justinian Evolution Band of Brothers Reloaded	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:45:00 - [438] Originally by: Anton Marx Edited by: Anton Marx on 25/03/2009 07:02:54 Guys, guys... imagine this: Super-epic 200 vs 200 sniper battle. ... As lazers melt through the hull of a golden-plated zealotand dozens of blue explosions fill up the dark abyss of space A group of brave falcon pilots uncloaks at 50km to turn the battle in favour of the defenders and then there is silence... And everyone knows they are a group of CCP devs' characters, for the rest of Eve have already abandoned the ship because it is useless.
DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:48:00 - [439] I agree with the changes. Falcon should be the one with lower distance attack and the rook with the one high distance attack. The Falcon has a the big advantage of warp cloaked while the rook doesn't have that advantage. Like in the line with Pilgrim/Curse. If the roles are changed what will happen is that the rook will REALLY disappear from scene. Don't even remember when was the last time I saw one anyway... Falcon AND Rooks will still have is role granted on small gang PVP while the Scorpion will be boosted as main EW ship on fleet Battles. ________________ God is my Wingman
Hesperius	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:56:00 - [440] Originally by: Saaya Illirie ... Too often you hear intel report "they have too much ewar, don't engage", you never hear "they have too much nos" or "too much damping! don't engage! too much webs!" Maybe this will bring ECM down from being the battle maker to the battle decider. The problem you are facing is that NOBODY in 9-4 uses ECCM or FOF. The tools are there, none of you use them.

Butzewutze	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:58:00 - [441] Muhahaha, delicous... i am enjoying the whines. Adapt or die ******s. Thats what u said to people who were against nosnerf, against nanonerf, against dampernerf... now taste your own medicine.
Mirei Jun Right to Rule FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2009.03.25 08:02:00 - [442] I am really excited to see how these changes fair out. I think the ideas are good. This is one of the areas of game mechanics that have needed ajustments for a long time. I hope you continue working to find that balance between adjustment of implemented ideas and the addition of new ones.
UDmitry	Posted - 2009.03.25 08:05:00 - [443] If it will be done, the caldary will be true PVE race :), with no pvp ships
Sir Corsi Infinite Improbability Inc	Posted - 2009.03.25 08:06:00 - [444] whine or not whine... falcon is like a paper to tank something und you want it to change this ship as a close range ecm? as we all know, shield tanks need their med-slots to tank... so low slots are useless. so my suggestion: do what you want with the ecm but then you have to strength the caldari ecm ships in their tanking ability like the curse as a decent tank! just my feedback.
Sanfrey Statolomy Gallente E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.03.25 08:08:00 - [445] Currently, fleet formation goes something like this. "Bring a Falcon, if you can't, then fly something else". "Oh, can I bring an Arazu?" .."What for?" .. "Yeah point taken. Ok I'll bring a Falcon, how many do we have?" .. "Seven".. "Ok make that eight." Falcons are FOTM and I think everyone who knows Eve and CCP has been just watching for a "The Falcon Nerf is Coming" post. No excuses to be surprised here. The Nanonerf did a good job of breaking up the Rapier/Ishtar monotony, and this will help a little too. I'd also like to see some improvements to ships that today are impractical. There are quite a few ships that aren't flown because the role they perform can be performed much better by another ship, thus, they are always the second choice and thus never flown.. think Lachesis. Mixed weapons, no worthwhile tank, And these days putting one or two damps on someone achieves nothing. The Deimos, once awe inspiring, still ringing from the absolute smashing it got with the nerf bat 18 months ago. The Keres, which has only one purpose, to look pretty, and is outperformed by an interceptor for tackling by about 1000%. The Arazu, which has 10 possible roles and does all of them barely acceptably. And those are just the Gallente ships I can think of off hand. Sure, tech 3 is going to add a stack of variety but I'd love to see even more of a mix of ships on the battlefield.
Turma Tapa	Posted - 2009.03.25 08:08:00 - [446] Good job ccp. I really like this change. No more out of sentry gun ecm spam surprise falcon squad. Low sec pvp is suffering too much this "Who bring more falcons in battle win". Scorpion new bonus also look interesting.
SixSloths	Posted - 2009.03.25 08:12:00 - [447] Sick ideas to be honest, caldari recons are very vulnerable to everything but have only one real defense (btw 200km range is not enough for full safety) and i don't think that it can be changed somehow, because everyone primaries them even now. Rook needs boost to be able to do something, falcon is fine now (if you don't know how to counter it - it is your troubles and not falcon's :) ). Don't change falcons in any way and leave rooks for semi-close combat with 25m3 drone bay and 5 launchers, plus some tanking abilities. The scorpion changes are nice though.
Absalom Marathon The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.03.25 08:14:00 - [448] This is really intresting Would be fun if our Caldari brothers gets something else than falcon to fly. For 0.0 I don't see things being v imbalanced atm but here in lowsec the falcon really needs a nerf. Doin this iow defining the roles, is a really intresting idea. I'd love to see more scorps ingame. They are extremely rare in the current lowsec scene.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.03.25 08:17:00 - [449] Originally by: Anabella Rella Edited by: Anabella Rella on 25/03/2009 07:04:55 Originally by: Alex Harumichi Extra reason I'm loving this change: the Goons seem to hate it. That proves it's good for the game. Hmm, think I have to take exception to this Alex. They may be Goons, but when they're right, they're right. These wholesale changes to ECM would effectively make Caldari ships (with the possible exception of the Rokh) useless in fleets. Nonsense. Forcing (some) ECM ships to get in closer just puts then vaguely in the same ballpark as the rest. Guess what? Other races have had to deal with limited range on ewar since forever. "Falcons don't have tank" because people don't fit tank on their Falcons. I'm forced to fit tank on my Lachesis and Arazu, same goes for out Rapier/Huginn/Curse pilots. Those ships don't have any more actual tanking ability than the Falcon does. Why should the Caldari ECM boats be the only ones being able to play in "safe mode"? Sure, if you give Gallente 200+km range damps, Minmatar 200+km ranged webs, and Amarr 200+km range tracking disruptors, then we can talk. Before that: welcome to the club the rest of us are in. Tank or die. The Flavor of the Month Express has left the station.
CobaltSixty Caldari Dark Knights of Deneb	Posted - 2009.03.25 08:18:00 - [450] For your consideration. Range - Swapping the optimal and falloff would be a quick fix to get ECM boats in closer, but maybe a little heavy-handed. Currently, the base racial jammer optimal and falloff is 45 and 22 respectively. An optimal of 22 and falloff of 45 sounds ridiculous. Perhaps something like 30-45km starting optimal-falloff would be acceptable? Signal Distortion Amps - To preface my suggestion here, the problem you're trying to solve is that ECM boats presently have no incentive to get in close. Gang leaders are happy to have them sit at extreme ranges and most pilots don't mind because they don't often get blown up at range. Make it a choice and thus incur some benefit to getting in closer. How do you do that? Scripts! Upping the base strengths of the modules will only make them more reasonable for non-specialized ships which was what we tried to get away from a few years back by slashing base module strength and giving strong bonuses to the ships that are supposed to be using the modules. Allow SDAs to be scripted to their current strength bonus (and with the range mechanics changed, I don't see this as unreasonable) OR, set for greater range. Alternatively scripts could get applied to the ECM modules themselves but I think that would open up quite the unpleasant can of worms. Falcon - Alright, if we're going to make it more Pilgrim-like, it should be getting the Rook's drone-bay and - while we're trying to make it a "brawler" - the third missile slot its always wanted/deserved. The reason the Falcon often has a cloak, a probe launcher, a cyno gen and a remote rep up top is because it's not a reasonable damage platform right now. It should still ultimately put out less DPS than all other force recons, but if it's going in close, give it some bite. Summary Falcon proposal -Total of 3 launcher slots. PG/CPU might need tweaking. (Turrets too maybe - just thinking out loud.) -The proposed 25m/3 dronebay and bandwidth from the Rook. -ECM Strength 25% per level as proposed. -As planned, get rid of the optimal bonus. Replace with something related to damage? (5% Kinetic or RoF?) -Don't bother with an agility bonus. Even post-changes, Falcons don't need to be nimble. As a functional suggestion, moving the ECM strength to be modified by the Caldari cruiser level on the Falcon would give it a natural boost over the Rook as most people only run with Recon Ships IV. So your typical Falcon would fly with a 125% bonus while the Rook would be 80% or 100% if you want to put the training in. Naturally, the new damage bonus (if accepted) would be tied to your recon ships skill instead. If you're looking for precedence, the Kitsune derives its jammer strength from its hull skill. Rook - Keep the range as you were planning, missile velocity and all. Just keep the jamming strength within 5% of whatever you decide for the Falcon. If scriptable SDAs grab you (and come into effect,) it'll either be weaker at less-than-current, but-still-long ranges (Caldari's specialty, remember?) or closer, able to deal damage and have new Scorpion-grade ECM effectiveness whilst being as vulnerable as any long-range HAC (by distance.) Summary Rook proposal -ECM strength 5% less per level than Falcon, whatever it ends up as. -ECM optimal still in place. -You (CCP Chronotis) mentioned the Rook getting a missile velocity bonus - would that take the place of the damage bonus or the cruiser-modified capacitor use bonus? At the moment though, you haven't mentioned removing it so the Rook would have 5 bonuses. -No need for a silly dronebay on a ranged ship. Scorpion - I love it, bang on. Looks like it'll actually be worthy of undocking again. Griffin/Kitsune/Blackbird are fine as is regardless of the set of changes you implement. Just don't let the Rook's ECM strength bonus slip to be equal to the Blackbird's. Thank you for your time.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 38 :: 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.