EVE Search - Stealth Bombers

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Stealth Bombers

» 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 .. 15 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Phidell Chaos Reborn	Posted - 2009.03.28 03:14:00 - [361] No matter what you do. This will always be a fail ship. This will pretty much be a danger to what, solo BS w/o drones. lol. RR BS will tank the damage, pop sentries or actually have some support, and all the SB's will go pop, that easily. Drones will kill the frigates. Not so easily w/ mediums but easily enough, can't really tank SB's.
Andrea Skye Caldari The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2009.03.28 03:58:00 - [362] sounds nice! But one thing, bombers are made of tissue as it is. Couple of drones and they die in literally seconds than theres the fact that bs's usualy dont travel alone, and bombers are easily taken out by interceptors and the like. Then theres the cost of bombers, thier very expensive for such a fragile ship, and having to get within 20km, AND be made of tissue, will hardly be worth it? Id say give them a range bonus on topedoes, or some kind of tanking ability.
Imhothar Xarodit Minmatar Wolverine Solutions Dead Mans Hand	Posted - 2009.03.28 04:08:00 - [363] I have to add this to the cause: Right now I think the Stealth Bomber class of ships is not really a stealth bomber, it is a cloakable missile launcher. First, what makes a stealth bomber a stealth bomber is the ability to go in undetected and perform a surprise attack. But as soon as you warp on the grid everyone knows you are there, and knows you are there until they see you warp away (or you go offgrid but that is tedious). There is absolutely no stealth present (unless you are there first). Second, I think there is a module that should have been coupled with stealth bombers from day one: Passive Targeting Systems. Stealth bombers should be able to use the Passive Targeting mods while cloaked and trigger their launchers while cloaked, automatically decloaking the bomber. So the moment you see the bomber you have already missiles going your way. This is a real surprise attack. The module types you could activate while cloaked should of course be either limited to launchers only or include specific other modules as well, like ship/cargo scanners which would not decloakg the ship (could probably be extended to all covops/recons, or limited to covops only as intel gathering tool). Seriously, what is the point of them right now? They don't seem to have a real purpose. Then what I think is the biggest flaw of bombs: Unguided weaponry is soooo ancient compared to EVE technology! Look at real area-of-effect bombs: Smart bombs In reality this is the name of (laser) guided bombs. Why not combine the laser guided aspect with the incorrect naming of smart-bombs: In order to be able to use a bomb properly, YOU need a target painter active on the bomb's target (or some other bomber specific module). Possible explanation: because bombs carry such a heavy payload there is no more room for sensors and ship-linked tracking machinery without making them so big'n'slow you could ride them, so they are locked on your target painter's specific laser frequency. Bombs are slow. You need to get in close range (in contrast to real-live bombs) as a balancing act. Once the bomb is launched you can fly out of range but must keep your target painter active on the victim. This means you cannot warp away if you want your bomb to detonate. Plus you cannot cloak as that would make your painter to go offline and the bomb would either go inactive or explode after its flight time expires. Or keep painter online but then people can physically see where you are. With these requirements and proper balance, bombs could be made more deadly as the Bomber pilot is exposing himself to higher danger: he needs to move in close and stay on-grid and uncloaked until the bomb detonates. Cluster bombs: Launched not at targets but rather at locations, cluster bombs split in smaller "bombs" and deliver blows over a large area. Compared to the usual bombs these would be used for harrassing smaller targets (as our current bombs are more effective against large targets). They would be launched in some direction and after a set time they split up in smaller cluster rockets hammering random targets (friend and foe alike) in their vicinity prioritized by size. So you launch one cluster bomb, knowing the speed and flight time you can calculate the distance it breaks up into cluster rockets. The rockets have a limited range where they search for targets. It is semi-random what target they chose but they start with lowest sig radius, wether they ignore drones or not is up for discussion. Problem from a developer's view: Not having all rockets smash the same target but have them spread and not making it a bigger lag bomb. These are my ideas. They are nothing but ideas and would of course need lots of testing to ensure balance and versatility. They also allows more character specialization through skills. Haven't made my mind up on the torps change yet.
Bette Davis	Posted - 2009.03.28 04:18:00 - [364] Edited by: Bette Davis on 28/03/2009 04:18:37 Originally by: Imhothar Xarodit I have to add this to the cause: Second, I think there is a module that should have been coupled with stealth bombers from day one: Passive Targeting Systems. Stealth bombers should be able to use the Passive Targeting mods while cloaked and trigger their launchers while cloaked, automatically decloaking the bomber. So the moment you see the bomber you have already missiles going your way. This is a real surprise attack. The module types you could activate while cloaked should of course be either limited to launchers only or include specific other modules as well, like ship/cargo scanners which would not decloakg the ship (could probably be extended to all covops/recons, or limited to covops only as intel gathering tool). Nice Idea, I support that maybe with the tweak to not be able to cloak for some time after shooting. Otherwise Bombers doing a rotation (the one decloaked disrupts the target, then the next takes over) would be become very powerfull. But nice idea.
Kassasis Dakkstromri Caldari Fallen Angel's	Posted - 2009.03.28 05:27:00 - [365] I think you can do this ONLY if you allow Cruises to still be fit just like you can do Rails or Blasters ... Heavy or Heavy Assault Maybe: Make a specialize launcher that can use cruise or Torp charge groups Be fair... SB's have needed some love for a long time - but if you take away SB range ALOT of pilots will simply give them up.
place1 Amarr Orion Ore Industries	Posted - 2009.03.28 05:27:00 - [366] Edited by: place1 on 28/03/2009 05:27:48 I would have to agree with many other post in this thread the Cruise missile SB should not be removed in favor of a Torp SB instead there should be both. Cruise Missile Stealth Bomber Frig hull Cov op Cloak Long range Glass Cannon Able to fit 3 Cruises + 1 Bomb launcher Torp Stealth Bomber (Heavy Stealth Bomber) Destroyer Hull Cov Op Cloak Short range Glass Cannon (but not as Glass as the Frig version) Able to fit 4 Torp Launcher + 2 Bomb Launcher To me this would allow for some very interesting Battles. The Heavy bomber with Bomb Launcher is going to pack a nice damage hit agents any ship in range but it would be slower moving than a Frig and easier to target and hit as it has a larger sig radius. Also this ship requires you to get in very close to do any type of damage greatly increasing the risk of the ship. Edit. Spelling
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.03.28 05:31:00 - [367] Originally by: place1 Edited by: place1 on 28/03/2009 05:27:48 I would have to agree with many other post in this thread the Cruise missile SB should not be removed in favor of a Torp SB instead there should be both. Cruise Missile Stealth Bomber Frig hull Cov op Cloak Long range Glass Cannon Able to fit 3 Cruises + 1 Bomb launcher Torp Stealth Bomber (Heavy Stealth Bomber) Destroyer Hull Cov Op Cloak Short range Glass Cannon (but not as Glass as the Frig version) Able to fit 4 Torp Launcher + 2 Bomb Launcher To me this would allow for some very interesting Battles. The Heavy bomber with Bomb Launcher is going to pack a nice damage hit agents any ship in range but it would be slower moving than a Frig and easier to target and hit as it has a larger sig radius. Also this ship requires you to get in very close to do any type of damage greatly increasing the risk of the ship. Edit. Spelling I could support his sort of idea. A heavy stealth bomber based off the destroyer hull for the torp and leave the one we got alone (but fix bombs). Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.03.28 05:47:00 - [368] Edited by: Tonto Auri on 28/03/2009 05:50:33 WE HAVE ENOUGH STEALTH IN GAME! CO frigate, stealth bomber, CO recon, CO transport, stealth battleship. REPEAT: E-N-O-U-G-H!!!! Shall I paint it in red for those who can't read white on black? Just fix cruise bonus and fix bombs so they'll be Bomber-only torps. -17-18% Exp radius bonus will put them where they were, and alternative with 3x bomb launchers, if done right, leave an option of anti-BS/capital bombing. Actually, I came up with idea of bomb laucher that would work on itself. -- Thanks CCP for cu
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.03.28 06:45:00 - [369] See, Bomb Launcher. Duration: 20 sec, bomb deployment V reduce it to 15 sec. No reactivation delay - what a stupid parameter??? Capacity - 1 bomb. Yes, only one bomb can be launched at a time, meaning that you'll be reloading your "gun" for another 10 sec. Here comes why: Active resistance bonus: 20% all Shield resistances, 27.5% all Armor resistances, 40% all Structure resistances. Active launcher working as tanking module, redicing possibility of accidental suicide and damage caused by friendly fire. Being able to fit 3 bomb launchers at a time is a tricky opportunity. You could choose to chain your bombs to have reduced but full-time defence, but remember that boms are AoE weapon, and more bombs flying in space means more bombs could be destroyed before they reach the target. On another hand, you could have surprising amount of EHP but for short amount of time, followed by, literally, defenceless period. -- Thanks CCP for cu
Vall Kor Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom	Posted - 2009.03.28 07:10:00 - [370] Can we get some more dev input on this? I think it's pretty clear that the players are very much against this change and I'd like to see what they have to say "By way of deception, thou shalt do war"
Immersive Immersive Technology Solutions	Posted - 2009.03.28 07:37:00 - [371] Originally by: Tonto Auri (Emorage) Please don't do that. You have some good ideas, but please consider that others' opinions also have value (even if miniscule). Try to keep your enthusiasm contained. I think the consensus for Stealth Bomber pilots is to retain the tactical flexibility of Cruise Missiles, while enhancing the stealth envelope with a Covert Ops cloak. Improving the Bomb mechanic sounds like a good idea, but I've never flown with them. Tweaking bonuses to Cruise Missiles to revert the ship to its original role prior to the QR missile nerf also seems to have popular support. I'd still like to see the speed boost on cloaked bombers retained, as this adds to the psycological-warfare aspect of the ship. At the moment, the current max speed boost is approximately +75% of non-cloaked speed (using named cloaks). If it's possible to only apply the bonus to non-covops cloaks, that would be fine. --- New to the API? GrabRaw XML It's coming...
place1 Amarr Orion Ore Industries	Posted - 2009.03.28 07:52:00 - [372] Originally by: Immersive I think the consensus for Stealth Bomber pilots is to retain the tactical flexibility of Cruise Missiles, while enhancing the stealth envelope with a Covert Ops cloak. Improving the Bomb mechanic sounds like a good idea, but I've never flown with them. Tweaking bonuses to Cruise Missiles to revert the ship to its original role prior to the QR missile nerf also seems to have popular support. I'd still like to see the speed boost on cloaked bombers retained, as this adds to the psycological-warfare aspect of the ship. At the moment, the current max speed boost is approximately +75% of non-cloaked speed (using named cloaks). If it's possible to only apply the bonus to non-covops cloaks, that would be fine. I like your Idea there I didn't think of that allow SB to use both cloaks but to only receive the speed boost if you are not using the Cov Op Cloak would give you a choice of just what kind of mind game do you want to play with the target. Do you let him know your there and wonder what you are going to do, or do you come in totally silent and just show up as your locking and firing on him. Not sure if that is possible without do much change in game code but if this is possible that would be very cool to have.
SniperWo1f Omega Enterprises Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.03.28 08:15:00 - [373] i think the missile changes are a waste of time just drop the cost on the bombs "In Rust We Trust"
Cali Serrano Baptism oF Fire Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.03.28 08:38:00 - [374] Edited by: Cali Serrano on 28/03/2009 08:42:35 Considering you're trying to make them more useful overall, a total rework of weapons, bonuses, and more importantly skills and tactics is a bit drastic. You'd probably be better off just making a new ship. What you should be doing is trying to find the adjustment that makes them more useful or better fulfill their CURRENT role. As an anti-BS ship torpedoes would be great, in low sec. This is where you primarily find smaller BS heavy gangs, mainly because they are needed to tank the gate guns. Here torp SB's won't be of great use becaues they can't initiate hostilities due to gate guns. However if the hostiles are aggressed already or outlaws the SB's would be great. Massive fleets are the other prime BS hunting ground and these types of fleets generally have a modest support crew that would eat a close ranger bomber group alive. If they catch the enemy fleet on a gate, I could see the bombers (say 5-10) getting right up next to the BS's once or twice maybe as many as 4 times if the fc/ fleet reacts badly and if the fleet doesn't just jump the gate. After that the inties/ fast hacs will probably have figured out what they need to be doing and the bombers will be in trouble. They will have ideally gotten a BS a run, but that's only 4 out of 30+. While that is a good percentage of the total BS's, the more BS's there are the less likely the bombers are to get away (mainly because there were probably be more support). In a situation where you have that many BS's gathered and that many SB's it'd actually almost be as good if not better to use CURRENT bombs if they weren't so expensive or difficult to coordinate, but the coordination is a player issue not yours. The velocity bonus while cloaked is great, the only way to come in on a gate camp or enemy fleet gathering right now is long range or off grid (really long range). A velocity bonus would make this CURRENT tactic more viable and less time consuming (as is there's a good chance they'll leave if the grid is to big). Move the bomb launcher to a utility slot, making it have insane fitting except for on the SB's without using a launcher hard point. This means the bomber won't have to sacrifice its primary DPS/ alpha for a secondary attack (bombs aren't even second as is). This would increase bomb use simply by having more of them on ships. Couple it with a further reduction in bomb price (I'd say down to at least under 5 mill) and their use might just sky rocket. Just these minor changes would cause the bombers to become more useful overall ... which, as you said, is your intent. It would also accomplish making small groups more dangerous to BS's (increased bomb use) WITHOUT detrimenting those who aren't missile users who trained cruises specificly for SB's, WITHOUT causing major changes in bonuses, and WITHOUT forcing major changes in current tactics (actually would force the development of new ones in the effective deployment of multiple bombs). I personally don't think you need to up the missiles to pre-QR levels. Let them stay as is and let the players figure out how to make them work for what they want (it's suppose to be our sandbox). The covert ops cloak would be sexy and I wouldn't complain if you gave it to SB's, but it's probably to much. As for bomb deployment, another method would be nice, I've bombed with the current one with no problem but that was solo, maybe something along the lines of selecting a trajectory to follow once it leaves your ship; X Degrees from 0 ( 0 straight ahead, 180 behind ), Y Degrees from 0 (+90 straight up, -90 straight down). Could base it on tactical overlay or relative to the ship itself, whichever is easier. That's it but I'd just like to make a general comment, when you're doing these balancing games, try and do them by changing as LITTLE as possible. Sweepingly drastic changes are more likely to create a WTFBBQPWND mobile or the "LOL you're flying that ship?" which, I believe (hope), you are trying to avoid.
3x1T Caldari Eye of God	Posted - 2009.03.28 09:00:00 - [375] Edited by: 3x1T on 28/03/2009 09:06:17 1) make the bomber able to do both cruise missiles and torpedo's (still have to dock up to change the modules or take a carrier with you) 2) a 20% dmg bonus to cruise missiles and torpedo's per skill level from the specialization skills 3) give the bomber the cloaked speed bonus you where talking about 4) give the bomber a separate bomb launcher slot 5) a 10% range bonus to torpedo's per skill level from torpedo specialization for instance 6) give the bomber a bit more more defence or give it 2+ warp points. 7) remove the racial bonus. 8) keep the other bonuses it already had why give a bonus for the specialization skills, well that way it finally makes sense to train the skills to lvl 5 you get multiple bonuses: 1 Rate of fire bonus from the skill it self towards T2 launchers 2 the damage bonus 3 the range bonus
Ancy Denaries Caldari Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.03.28 09:20:00 - [376] Honestly, with changing their main weapon to a short range torp system, I really think they should be allowed to use a Cov Ops cloak. (Dunno if it's been mentioned already). They deal zomg damage to large targets, but those large targets should be able to dispose of them EASILY even if they got caught unawares. This would also ensure that Stealth Bombers would indeed be stealthy and could enter, deploy their payload, and have a chance of escape in combat. Instead of warping in as shining targets and be expected. ----- Why doesn't anyone ever read the forums before posting? EVE is a game of adaptation and planning. Adapt or die.
yani dumyat Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.	Posted - 2009.03.28 11:01:00 - [377] Originally by: CCP Chronotis ....seeing if we can make them more useful overall. The main way we are looking at changing the stealth bombers is switching them to fit siege launchers and use torpedoes focusing on a anti-battleship role. Assumption: You do not intend to use both cruise and torp. Currently the reason i'd fly a manticore is its flexibility. With a mwd, ECCM and missile velocity rigs you can scare falcons, provide support DPS and scout which is a range of abilities no other ship can match (jack of all trades master of none but still a damn sight cheaper than a cerb). Even a junk fit hound can do 2 of these roles for pennies. Removing cruise fails in your stated aim of making them more useful because it removes my entire reason for flying them not to mention makes them obsolete in FW. Please do not do this. To get pilots into stealth bombers there needs to be a reason for someone to get out of there BS and into a bomber but i fail to see how anything other than lock breaker / cap drain bombs, with more survivability for the bomber pilot and cheaper ammo, could do this for fleet fights. Good ideas raised in this thread: -> Cov ops launcher that can take cruise / bombs / torps -> Reduction in sig radius -> Increase in velocity (esp cloaked velocity) -> Various good ideas for bombs (fire and forget plus cost reduction would make them usable) If i could add the ability to cloak while being targeted but not once you are locked then my wish list would be complete. This idea would allow fast lockers to prevent you from cloaking but allow you to hit slow lockers in bursts while they were gaining lock. Bad ideas in this thread: -> Cov-Ops cloak. This would inevitably mean a targeting delay after decloaking, no thanks. -> Heavy bomber. Speed, maneuverability and low sig are your friends so be nice to them.
Pokerizer White Nova Industries AAA Citizens	Posted - 2009.03.28 13:21:00 - [378] Ok at 13 pages of replies and correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen a single dev responce. Which is strange considering that they have responded multiple times on the ECM nurf and T3 threads. So why no feedback to this...? My thought is... A. Ccp is ignoring comment and will do what they want regaurdless of player feedback(sad but has been done before) Or B. They are taking in all suggestions and are trying to find a suitable alternative before responding to the ****ed off masses.(Well we all can hope right)
Kyoko Sakoda Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.03.28 17:17:00 - [379] Originally by: Pokerizer Ok at 13 pages of replies and correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen a single dev responce. CCP is not under obligation to give us a response. They'll mull over options like they always do and make a decision. They can communicate when they want to. ___ Latest video: War Has Come (720p)
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.03.28 17:51:00 - [380] Originally by: Pokerizer Ok at 13 pages of replies and correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen a single dev responce. Which is strange considering that they have responded multiple times on the ECM nurf and T3 threads. So why no feedback to this...? My thought is... Not many Devs fly SB's? Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh.
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.03.28 18:05:00 - [381] Originally by: RedSplat Not many Devs fly SB's? That could be effective zero, if you reading through OP with calculator on hand. And they want to let us do the same. -- Thanks CCP for cu
Ironnight Caldari x13 X13 Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.28 18:52:00 - [382] Torpedoes, slow to get to target, short range and they do crap damage on smaller ships, so this would limited bombers even more and give them less chance to get away from a engagement. imho They're like 'oh **** son, its a trap Doomsday
Thenoran Caldari Tranquility Industries	Posted - 2009.03.28 21:46:00 - [383] Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Pokerizer Ok at 13 pages of replies and correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen a single dev responce. Which is strange considering that they have responded multiple times on the ECM nurf and T3 threads. So why no feedback to this...? My thought is... Not many Devs fly SB's? Why fly a Stealth Bomber when you can fly a Polaris ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
Mjoelnir Thorwulf Royal East Eve Trading Company	Posted - 2009.03.28 22:02:00 - [384] I won't repeat all the valid reasons already so many times repeated in this thread why I also BEG AND PLEA, please don't switch to torpedoes. Or if you won't get this month's salary without doing so, please retain cruise missile capability. SUGGESTION Add special ability to stealth bombers that all their locks on enemies are as if they would be using passive targeters. If they are not allowed to be stealth in way of using covert ops cloaks, allow them to be stealth in their firing solution, until payloads are hitting shields/hull. (admittably this minor feature would be of little or no use to lot of scenarios where SB's is flown - atleast this won't make it overpowered) My signature exceeds the maxium allowed coolness factor. -- Mjoelnir Thorwulf
Mjoelnir Thorwulf Royal East Eve Trading Company	Posted - 2009.03.28 22:06:00 - [385] Originally by: Haramir Haleths SB worked fine until Missile Nerf. Bring back the Missile for SB inline. IMO Torpedoes doesnt make sense. I'll be dead before my torpedos hit the BS. Why should i engage a BS with a paper thin tank. BS pilot will laugh at us And where are we expected to see these mystical solo battleships without even more deadly escorts? Worries the hell out of me how useless this ship will become if the role is nerfed to big targets alone... My signature exceeds the maxium allowed coolness factor. -- Mjoelnir Thorwulf
YuuLike FryLice Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.28 22:14:00 - [386] Great, so you uncloak 16km from your target, knock their shields down to 2/3, and then get blown up. What a wonderful buff; I'm glad you guys are on the job.
Amberle Vale	Posted - 2009.03.28 23:05:00 - [387] Originally by: YuuLike FryLice Great, so you uncloak 16km from your target, knock their shields down to 2/3, and then get blown up. What a wonderful buff; I'm glad you guys are on the job. And this is what will happen, every time. Instead of rewriting what a stealth bomber is and what it's supposed to do, why not just give it a 500% bonus to explosion velocity and preserve its original role.
Kleb Siella	Posted - 2009.03.28 23:17:00 - [388] Originally by: Marlenus You might want to brighten up torpedoes visually, or make them leave an exhaust trail. I haven't finished reading but had to post as the idea of trails being left does funny stuff to my man-parts.
Gastronaut	Posted - 2009.03.28 23:23:00 - [389] This whole thing smells funny... Bombers already had short range explosions delivered via bombs (as crappy as they may be), so attempt to cut off the ability to use any range by moving from cruises to torpedoes does indeed seem like deliberate revenge against this ship class. Increased cloaked speed is like telling you "I will chop off your arms but I will give you rollerskates so you can go around faster trying to bite your enemies" (whom are wielding baseball bats and crowbars) Great, huh? Why do I have the creeping suspicion we will see these abominations in SiSi despite 13 pages of consistent rejections of this change
Vall Kor Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom	Posted - 2009.03.29 02:51:00 - [390] Originally by: Gastronaut This whole thing smells funny... Bombers already had short range explosions delivered via bombs (as crappy as they may be), so attempt to cut off the ability to use any range by moving from cruises to torpedoes does indeed seem like deliberate revenge against this ship class. Increased cloaked speed is like telling you "I will chop off your arms but I will give you rollerskates so you can go around faster trying to bite your enemies" (whom are wielding baseball bats and crowbars) Great, huh? Why do I have the creeping suspicion we will see these abominations in SiSi despite 13 pages of consistent rejections of this change If the dev decide to go through with this dumb change, even though those of us who enjoy the SB are totally against this change why even bother having a discussion about. Hopefully they'll listen and not go ahead with these dumb as.s changes. "By way of deception, thou shalt do war"

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 .. 15 :: 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.