EVE Search - Stealth Bombers II - A new focused role

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Stealth Bombers II - A new focused role

» 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 40 50 .. 57 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 34 post(s)
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.03.31 14:51:00 - [211] Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 14:51:57 Originally by: Chinchek lets say CCP implements this change, SB's will need a warp in point, move towards target, align, decloak around 5km, lock, fire torps, wait till hit, warp off... wait till you can recloak, warp back in the battlefield (hope there isnt a bubble and your warp in point is still alive), move towards target, algin... and repeat. (and hope on your second try there isnt a scrammer waiting for you)....... Big waste of time, my cruise/range SB will be a lot more useful... ...or you can take some actual risk and just stay below battleship guns, spamming torps. If you're part of a gang (and you should be), it's not a given that the battleship will have time to kill you. Or the ability; you'll be immune to pretty much all battleship weapons except small/med drones.
Vall Kor Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom	Posted - 2009.03.31 14:55:00 - [212] Edited by: Vall Kor on 31/03/2009 14:58:03 Edited by: Vall Kor on 31/03/2009 14:56:12 So a question for the devs, how many of these new SBs to you see if taking to drop a tanked out BS? 5, 10, 15, 20, 100???? How big is this new SB fleet going to have to be to accomplish the same thing a single BS can do? Edit: if the answer is more than 5 or 10 it's a waste. An just remove the damn ship from the game.
retro mike	Posted - 2009.03.31 14:59:00 - [213] Originally by: Marlenus in a context where CCP appears to be generally trying to reduce encounter ranges (my guess is because of the speed changes from QR). I always engaged my targets a maximum of 40k away. Quote: I liked the old "anti-frigate from across the grid" role for the SB. With tactics like this No wonder you dont mind its demise. Quote: They have been reducing various alpha-strike and quick-damage platforms for as long as I've been playing. Such as? Quote: The SB needs some sort of higher DPS regime than it currently has. Why, because you cant pilot the existing setup?
J Pattison	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:02:00 - [214] Utterly ridiculous. The customer is always right does not apply at CCP. Leave the Bomber alone! Thank you and Good Day.
Chinchek 4 wing Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:10:00 - [215] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 14:51:57 Originally by: Chinchek lets say CCP implements this change, SB's will need a warp in point, move towards target, align, decloak around 5km, lock, fire torps, wait till hit, warp off... wait till you can recloak, warp back in the battlefield (hope there isnt a bubble and your warp in point is still alive), move towards target, algin... and repeat. (and hope on your second try there isnt a scrammer waiting for you)....... Big waste of time, my cruise/range SB will be a lot more useful... ...or you can take some actual risk and just stay below battleship guns, spamming torps. If you're part of a gang (and you should be), it's not a given that the battleship will have time to kill you. Or the ability; you'll be immune to pretty much all battleship weapons except small/med drones. keep in mind that BS fleets contain small ships.... you will not be invisible on the battlefield, people will call you out
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:18:00 - [216] Originally by: Chinchek keep in mind that BS fleets contain small ships.... you will not be invisible on the battlefield, people will call you out Sure. But a bomber is still a frigate, after all, comparable to an AF or whatever. If the enemy fleet has anti-frigate ability (this includes frigates of their own), then sure, you need to warp out fast if you're made a target. And due to your fairly high dps and weak tank, you'll very probably be made a target. So yeah, in that sort of situation you'll need to warp in and out constantly. But that's not the only situation. In a more hectic battle, I can easily see a bomber or two getting ignored in favor of more critical targets. And honestly... it's still "just" a frigate. I think it's quite ok that it's vulnerable as a drawback to having (for a frigate) immense dps. I see it as a specialist tool, mostly. Should be pretty powerful when flown in a group by people who know what they are doing, not so hot when flown badly or solo. Hard to say at this point, of course. Needs testing in practice.
Adaera	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:18:00 - [217] Wow, this is shaping up into some good changes ___________________ I for one welcome our new bee overlords
Chinchek 4 wing Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:25:00 - [218] @Alex Harumichi i agree with you on the larger scale fleet scenario, but i think once a change in implemented, other players would keep it in mind and as soon as they see something decloak in the battlefield, it will draw there attention. we will have to see (but i hope not!)
Sebastien LaForge Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:25:00 - [219] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Originally by: Chinchek Should be pretty powerful when flown in a group by people who know what they are doing That's a moot argument since pretty much any other ship flown in a group will do better against a battleship.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:26:00 - [220] Originally by: Chinchek @Alex Harumichi i agree with you on the larger scale fleet scenario, but i think once a change in implemented, other players would keep it in mind and as soon as they see something decloak in the battlefield, it will draw there attention. we will have to see (but i hope not!) True. Not really sure how this will play out. It sounds interesting and I have some evil ideas of my own, but we'll see.

Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:29:00 - [221] Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 15:29:18 Originally by: Sebastien LaForge Originally by: Alex Harumichi Should be pretty powerful when flown in a group by people who know what they are doing That's a moot argument since pretty much any other ship flown in a group will do better against a battleship. Really? With the projected bonuses, it seems to me that these things will be capable of doing a hell of a lot more dps to a battleship than any other frigate. And there are lots of benefits of flying frigates, especially ones with covops cloaks (the critical point here!). Sure, the same amount of bigger ships will kill a battleship faster. But you can't always get those bigger ships into the right position at the right time.
Nagatok PROGENITOR CORPORATION	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:29:00 - [222] Edited by: Nagatok on 31/03/2009 15:29:27 chronotis look...i dont know where you guys got this drive to so called "buff" this ship but i want a question answering...can a single SB with the bonuses as you have them on paper with torps....actually break the tank of a BS? if not then its a waste a total waste and nothing but a waste if a ship is supposed to be in an anti role it is supposed to be able to solo that ship its that simple....now before people start complaining about what i said....a simple frigate soloing a BS wud be stupid usually and in any game i have played before a ANTI class is usually 1 class below what it hunts....for example an anti capital ship would be Battleship size an anti BS would be BC or Cruiser...an anti cruiser/frigate would be a frigate size please take this into account the Stealth bomber was fine before the changes to the missiles and we know full well they aint coming back to what they once were however you are sitting on 15+ pages of people saying torpedo's are a bad idea...that was what it was like originally....now that people know your not willing to budge on the torpedo issue focus on all the other arguments about how to make the torpedo idea work and we'll start getting somewhere....the issue you are facing now is that if you make a stupid change to this ship class now it might aswell be deleted from the game as no-one will fly it if they cannot make it work.
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:30:00 - [223] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Originally by: Chinchek keep in mind that BS fleets contain small ships.... you will not be invisible on the battlefield, people will call you out Sure. But a bomber is still a frigate, after all, comparable to an AF or whatever. If the enemy fleet has anti-frigate ability (this includes frigates of their own), then sure, you need to warp out fast if you're made a target. And due to your fairly high dps and weak tank, you'll very probably be made a target. So yeah, in that sort of situation you'll need to warp in and out constantly. But that's not the only situation. In a more hectic battle, I can easily see a bomber or two getting ignored in favor of more critical targets. And honestly... it's still "just" a frigate. I think it's quite ok that it's vulnerable as a drawback to having (for a frigate) immense dps. I see it as a specialist tool, mostly. Should be pretty powerful when flown in a group by people who know what they are doing, not so hot when flown badly or solo. Hard to say at this point, of course. Needs testing in practice. If the enemy fleet has an interceptor, assault frigate, destroyer or interdictor you'd be better off not engaging at all. Chances are at least 1 or 2 of them will have instalock and the moment they see you they will lock you and likely scram/disrupt/web. Which means your dead. Even if they don't you'll see battleships carrying light drones that orbit them to agress you the moment you do uncloak and launch. At best you'll get 2 volleys off, I can command drones well past 50km without mods on any ship. Keep in mind with these changes you will have no ability to significantly damage anything less than battlecruiser size. You have no tank. So then it becomes a matter of whether or not you chose to engage. 1. Wait til they are in the mission and follow them in (using a prober buddy in a covert ops). Then while they are taking maximum damage float in and launch torpedos hoping they don't notice you in the confusion. 2. Same thing for ratters. 3. Fleet Battles, small gang you might be okay but any major fleet you'll be dead before you do any significant damage. Even say you had 3k damage. The average 2DD tanked Battleship would take more than 30 Stealth Bombers to alpha. And if you have to use that many you might as well bring more battleships and cruisers. 4. Hang around gates hoping that some poor injured guy tries to flee through the gate giving you enough time to uncloak, fire and hit him. (Not likely incidentally unless he's afk). What is more likely is they'll be used as a poor man's falcon rather than the intended anti battleship platform CCP envisions. Now someone suggested lowering their sig radius more and that could be a possible solution, if you approximately halved it from its current amount. 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
Alastairon	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:32:00 - [224] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 15:25:15 Honestly, when I fly a frigate in pvp (as part of a gang) I always sort of expect to lose it -- I just hope I lose it after it has done good things for the fleet as a whole. The things are fragile, after all. I don't see bombers being a special case, here, in that regard. The problem is that frigs, when fitted, aren't 40-50m tools. Bombers are. What about making a cruiser-sized equivalent to a ballistic sub that is an anti-bs role instead of a frigate-sized ship? Covert-ops version of the Cerberus?
Sebastien LaForge Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:35:00 - [225] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 15:29:18 Originally by: Sebastien LaForge Originally by: Alex Harumichi Should be pretty powerful when flown in a group by people who know what they are doing That's a moot argument since pretty much any other ship flown in a group will do better against a battleship. Really? With the projected bonuses, it seems to me that these things will be capable of doing a hell of a lot more dps to a battleship than any other frigate. And there are lots of benefits of flying frigates, especially ones with covops cloaks (the critical point here!). Sure, the same amount of bigger ships will kill a battleship faster. But you can't always get those bigger ships into the right position at the right time. To Battleships? Maybe not. But anything smaller assault frigs would fair better. Also, how often will people willingly get together in a stealth bomber group and go out in an attempt to find solo battleships? Not only can a gang of ships even a class higher do a better job, but they aren't limited to such a niche role and can thus take on a myriad of targets at the same time, or when opportunities arise. Stealth be damned, they can already see you in local so they know you're there and thus will either gtfo or find someone to watch their back. God knows that if I were in a battleship and 5-10 WT jumped in I'd make sure not to be anywhere available to them! The proposed changed create a very small niche for stealth bombers coupled with the fact that you then have to get a gang of them to really even worry a battleship pilot.
Hairy Pants Caldari The Incorporated Slavs White Noise.	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:36:00 - [226] Originally by: CCP Chronotis ...(skipped) 1. Bombers will be able to fit covert ops cloak However they will have a 30 second cloak reactivation delay. This means they can warp in cloaked and better surprise their targets in a true ambush. However once they are committed to the fight, they will not be able to recloak quickly as a drawback so choosing the right time to strike is essential. 2. Bombers will be able to fit and use siege launchers and fire torpedoes. This allows them to inflict a high amount of alpha damage on larger targets and be serious threat to them. In gangs with other ships and available strategies will add significant damage to the fleet. They will no longer be able to fit cruise launchers as a result. 3. Bombers will gain bonuses to torpedoes Each racial bomber will gain a damage bonus to their racial damage torpedoes (EM = amarr, Explosive = minmatar, Kinetic = caldari, thermal = gallente) and a torpedo explosion velocity bonus so they can better hit large targets which are moving in addition to a torpedo velocity bonus increasing the range and speed of the attack. 4. They will still use bombs Nothing is changing on this front for now. ...(skipped) 1. Covert ops cloak is great, but where's the cloaked speed? I prefer faster position change than faster missiles. 2. Torps? OK, we'll train for 'em. Some day I'll not be shocked with citadel torps on some kind of small ships... 3. Is it really good to give explosion velocity bonus? Maybe -10% explosion radius per level will be good? 4. Not bad. As for me, cloaked velocity will be useful for bomb launchers too (and, possible, more useful for bomb launch than for torpedo run).
Malena Panic Gallente Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:43:00 - [227] Really exciting proposal! I love the way that the SB is being redesigned to fill a niche role. I can already see some interesting synergies with existing ship classes. ...
Monetary Bias	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:46:00 - [228] The new traits look pretty cool, but I stay on the stance that they should be applied to a different ship. Pick another frigate and call it a heavy bomber (or do what numerous other people have suggested on the same topic). If anything, the cruise SB needs more benefits, not a redesign. Test the torp SB all you want, but implement it in an new ship.
Chinchek 4 wing Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:46:00 - [229] Originally by: Malena Panic Really exciting proposal! I love the way that the SB is being redesigned to fill a niche role. I can already see some interesting synergies with existing ship classes. SB's do not need redesigning... just some tweaking for the better.
Vall Kor Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:47:00 - [230] Edited by: Vall Kor on 31/03/2009 15:51:12 Originally by: Nagatok Edited by: Nagatok on 31/03/2009 15:29:27 chronotis look...i dont know where you guys got this drive to so called "buff" this ship but i want a question answering...can a single SB with the bonuses as you have them on paper with torps....actually break the tank of a BS? if not then its a waste a total waste and nothing but a waste if a ship is supposed to be in an anti role it is supposed to be able to solo that ship its that simple....now before people start complaining about what i said....a simple frigate soloing a BS wud be stupid usually and in any game i have played before a ANTI class is usually 1 class below what it hunts....for example an anti capital ship would be Battleship size an anti BS would be BC or Cruiser...an anti cruiser/frigate would be a frigate size please take this into account the Stealth bomber was fine before the changes to the missiles and we know full well they aint coming back to what they once were however you are sitting on 15+ pages of people saying torpedo's are a bad idea...that was what it was like originally....now that people know your not willing to budge on the torpedo issue focus on all the other arguments about how to make the torpedo idea work and we'll start getting somewhere....the issue you are facing now is that if you make a stupid change to this ship class now it might aswell be deleted from the game as no-one will fly it if they cannot make it work. *Exactly if they are the 'anti-battleship' then the new SB must have enough DPS to SOLO engage a BS and have a chance* at winning the engagement,** otherwise the new SB is NOT the 'anti-battleship' and if you do add enough DPS for this liitle ship to pop a battleship good god can you imagine the tears? You can not just change a role and stick a title on it with actually giving the ship the tools to complete the mission, it is now an anti-battle, ok fine, we need the dps to engage a battleship so we'll need what about 800-1000DPS? Ok devs get on it.

Cosmar Gallente The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:49:00 - [231] My question is why not make Stealth Bombers work with Bombs as their main fleet weapon (make them more affordable !), rather then put in Torps instead of Cruises and make them some kind of gimmicky suicidal close range thing. Still i welcome the Covert Cloak, i bet most people will just use stealth bombers as scouts and such.
Malena Panic Gallente Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:54:00 - [232] Originally by: Vall Kor if a ship is supposed to be in an anti role it is supposed to be able to solo that ship its that simple... It's not that simple. Many ship classes exist to provide support roles in a well-organized gang. This proposal positions the Stealth Bomber as a damage support ship, offering unmatched stealthy damage with significant drawbacks. If every ship were designed around its ability to solo a prey class, we wouldn't have Logistics ships, Covert Ops, dictors, or Fleet Command ships, just to name a few. ...
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:55:00 - [233] Originally by: Sebastien LaForge The proposed changed create a very small niche for stealth bombers coupled with the fact that you then have to get a gang of them to really even worry a battleship pilot. As they are currently a Stealth Bomber (SBs) can manage 3/4 the damage output of a Raven (when max skilled). Add in damage and explosion buffs proposed it gets even closer. So two SBs are a good deal more powerful damage-wise than a single Raven (using torps). Hardly a need for a major gang. If there is one thing EVE has shown time-and-again is that players pile in to whatever is the safest ship to fly. Anything that will see them "get away" they do, en masse. Loaded with warp core stabs, dual-MWD ships, nano ships and so on. CCP has had to nerf them all and when they do players seek the next "safe" thing. So, SBs can use CovOps. You can see it now. Warp a few in under cloak, get close, de-cloak, shoot, warp out moments later after missiles hit (since cloak will not re-activate). Rinse and repeat. These are near-Ravens with CovOps cloaks on frigate hulls (so small, slow-to-lock sigs and nimble to get out fast). They will be very hard to near impossible to catch, particularly since they can absolutely choose their own terms of how and when to engage (thus avoiding any situation remotely unfavorable to them). I predict these will be very popular. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus Vanguard.	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:57:00 - [234] Originally by: Vall Kor *Exactly if they are the 'anti-battleship' then the new SB must have enough DPS to SOLO engage a BS and have a chance* at winning the engagement,** ... ok fine, we need the dps to engage a battleship so we'll need what about 800-1000DPS? Ok devs get on it. Look, you're not going to get a frigate that can solo a BS and deal that amount of DPS. That's just daft. The SB (under current proposals) will assist a gang or fleet in delivering damage to a target - it can never be a solo pwnmobile vs battleships. C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Vall Kor Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom	Posted - 2009.03.31 16:05:00 - [235] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Vall Kor *Exactly if they are the 'anti-battleship' then the new SB must have enough DPS to SOLO engage a BS and have a chance* at winning the engagement,** ... ok fine, we need the dps to engage a battleship so we'll need what about 800-1000DPS? Ok devs get on it. Look, you're not going to get a frigate that can solo a BS and deal that amount of DPS. That's just daft. The SB (under current proposals) will assist a gang or fleet in delivering damage to a target - it can never be a solo pwnmobile vs battleships. C. I know that, but when you add a tag that say "this ship is anti-battleship" what does that mean? It mean it can KILL A BS? or it can be a free kill for a BS? That's why i'd rather have a choice in play stlye, cruise missiles or gimped out torps.
Chinchek 4 wing Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.03.31 16:07:00 - [236] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Vall Kor *Exactly if they are the 'anti-battleship' then the new SB must have enough DPS to SOLO engage a BS and have a chance* at winning the engagement,** ... ok fine, we need the dps to engage a battleship so we'll need what about 800-1000DPS? Ok devs get on it. Look, you're not going to get a frigate that can solo a BS and deal that amount of DPS. That's just daft. The SB (under current proposals) will assist a gang or fleet in delivering damage to a target - it can never be a solo pwnmobile vs battleships. C. ok so why bring a Torp SB to a field anyway? To eliminate the hassle of warping in and out to try to take down a battleship with your paper mache , just fly a battleship... battleship will be more useful since you don't have to engage at close distance and having to warp in and out... /me bangs head
Nagatok PROGENITOR CORPORATION	Posted - 2009.03.31 16:11:00 - [237] Edited by: Nagatok on 31/03/2009 16:13:16 i am going to assume that all these people who are trying to say "lets accept these changes" are idiots/morons who either do not fly or do not regularly fly said ship....that being the case keep your noses out? A ship that is ANTI something should be able to solo that ship this is the 2nd time i'm going to say this as some moron obviously thought he could argue that fact. Stealthbombers WILL NOT WORK IN FLEET BATTLES....if you think they will they your an idiot...i dont know about others but in any fleet battle i engage into i have a dedicated group set on hunting down small ships....this little group...lets say 5 ships for arguments sake...can destroy 1 SB every salvo WITH EASE which on small ships is every 5 seconds?...therefore this is NOT a fleet Ship stop saying it is. Fleets of stealthbombers with cloaking IS NOT POSSIBLE either unless you are less than 5 ships...the chances of you running into each other and decloaking each other is higher than you may think especially when your closing in to shorter distances...my guess is more than a few SB's would decloak each other before getting into position. hence it will not work. The Stealthbomber was supposed to be used as a solo ship against small ships that wont cost alot to replace...this is why there has never been a public outcry to nerf the stealthbomber despite CCP doing it anyway. Bombs....make em cheaper nuff said really...until they are cheaper people wont use em tbh. CCP do us all a favour and drop the idea and just buff the damage on the SB's in some way.
Astra Solare	Posted - 2009.03.31 16:13:00 - [238] Originally by: CCP Chronotis However we still believe this new direction and role is far better than the role they currently have in spite of the success some of you have had with these. Could you could provide some facts that supports your belief? Originally by: CCP Chronotis The role really made no sense overall that we would have a bomber using large missiles in an anti-frigate role. Since you mentioned that - could you please please please fix broken missles? ;) Originally by: CCP Chronotis ...is a role that has much more utility and purpose as part of gangs that the potential the bomber has now. Did gangs ever requested stealth bomber? Did stealth bomber pilots want to fly in groups? (if 'yes' then could you tell is that part majority of SB pilots) Or maybe most SB pilots want to fly solo...? Originally by: CCP Chronotis Focusing the ship class as anti-large ship maybe people just dont see what you see so could you please fill missing parts in next scenario so that all could see how new stealth bombers should be used. step 1. CCP Chronotis are flying alone in system xxxx (security level - 0.0) on his new shiny Stealth Bomber. step 2. ... here goes description as you blow up whatever ship (preferably battleship since you insisting on that role) step x-1. step x. CCP Chronotis (in his SB) loots wreck step x+1. CCP Chronotis (in his SB) warps away singing "another one bites dust". Originally by: CCP Chronotis (even from the player using all his alts to voice his concerns repeatedly!) That might be just yours propaganda... or you are willing to give some proof?
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.03.31 16:14:00 - [239] Originally by: Ilija Veliki stealth bombers r frigate sized ship, and their role is to be anti-frigate sized ship... their secondary role should be anti-anysize ship....... and now u want to make it anti bs? why don't u put like citadel torpedo's and make it anti-capital ship, since it will be more useless then this idea .... ...... Actually, their designed role was NEVER to be anti-frigate... except possibly in your own head. ===== Yeah, VC is back, and we have a bone to pick with you.
Atraxerxes Caldari 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit	Posted - 2009.03.31 16:16:00 - [240] One more chance for me to troll this thread with a Vote of no confidence on the part of a CCP redesign on the SB. Just leave it alone. It's bad enough you already nerfed missiles to the point that all the caldari pilots are now training up for Gal or Minny ships. Fix the lag in FW fix the graphic glitches in Apocrypha do something except wasting the time I've already spent training for the SB. You've got what...? 8 pages here and 16 pages before of CUSTOMERS, mostly saying NO! Give it up, please. AX "Green isn't a good color for us. I think we'll paint this region BLUE."



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 57 :: 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.