EVE Search - Balancing - ECM Drones

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Balancing - ECM Drones - Discussion thread

» 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 .. 21 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2009.04.26 19:23:00 - [301] Originally by: CCP Nozh Ok, I'm sitting at home reading over this thread. Brainstorming about new ECM mechanics, help me out: Instead of the current mechanic where a successful ECM cycle breaks your lock for the given time of the ECM module. Your lock breaks, but you automatically start locking your target again. The duration would rely on your ability to target back your enemy, ECCM modules would essentially be sensor boosters. Could even add a fun twist to sensor dampening... The class values would of course have to be tweaked a bit... At first glance this looks bad... -ECM would not really do anything. Except take away lock for a sec. And now with shorter range on ECM I can only see this ending very bad. And your comment on damps.... Seems you think about using the scan resolution script to slow down locktime after lockbreak. It would be better using lockrange damps first, since it has better range (yes, you must be out of lockrange). And a higher chance of working every time, no matter how good the scan strength is... On top of that it has a set activation time. And it`s not chancebased in optimal...
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.26 19:28:00 - [302] Originally by: Sonreir I haven't read through the last ten pages, so this may have been mentioned already... To balance ECM drones, just remove them from the game. The simplest solution is usually the best. They can be replaced with ECM burst drones which have a targetted (rather than normal area effect of ECM burst) chance to break locks. They cycle every 20 seconds and maintain their current strength. This means they'll still be useful, but not overpowered. Smaller ships will be less affected because of their faster lock times, so ECM drones are a less "get out of jail free card" when being persued by a dedicated tackler. 1. How are they a "get out of jail free card" when you leave them behind and the "dedicated tackler" can still warp after you and tackle you again this time with you having no drones left?. 2. If the lock is broken a ship wanting to run will be aligned and spamming his warp button. 3. Small ships SHOULD be more effected by them not less. 4. All your idea will do is gimp them for any use in actual combat and do nothing to stop ppl who wanna run away.
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.26 19:38:00 - [303] ECM is supposed to be powerful, as for ECM drones, I kinda agree on some changes. How about 10 second jam from the drones instead of 20? Change that and leave them as is imo. But do not change overall ECM to just be a lock breaker. That would more or less make about half of the caldari ships unused. For only drones, that I can somewhat understand. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2009.04.26 21:08:00 - [304] I've never heard anyone mention ECM drones as a problem untill I noticed the 2 threads in this sub forum. In all my combats they've never been a problem either so....
Vrabac Zawa's Fan Club	Posted - 2009.04.26 23:57:00 - [305] ECM drones become a pain in small fights and duels. You people having mad fun doing 300 vs 300 fihgts in Delve should appreciate this and stop saying ECM drones are fine. That said, few suggestions were really nice, such as making all ewar drones influenced by skills and make ecm drones as effective as they are now with related skills at lvl5. Or making them similar to ecm burst, that is dropping lock but not keeping target jammed. IMO changing entire ECM mechanic would be an overkill at the moment, with the recent ECM ship changes and all. Still simply reducing the strength by certain amount that would need to be well thought of for ballancing issues might be the simplest and best solution. Also, boosting the other ewar drones would be nice, TDing and Damping ones in particular.
Arkhan Bayne	Posted - 2009.04.27 00:29:00 - [306] Originally by: Marlenus Originally by: CCP Nozh Smartbombs are able to counter them quite well, however this tactic only works while piloting larger ships that can field large smartbombs. At the risk of being seen to derail the thread, does this maybe point to a problem with smartbombs, especially small ones? In all my time in EVE, I've never seen anybody use small smartbombs for anything, because of their short range. I wonder whether instead of "small = shorter range and less damage", it should be "small = less damage" and all the smartbombs should do the damage they do at the range larges currently get? On the question at hand, it seems to me that heavy ECM drones replace a fairly high-damage heavy combat drone, which means they ought to be fairly effective. I'd focus any tweaks on improving the ease with which they can be countered. Maybe give them a larger sig radius, considering that they are out there spewing a ton of electronic noise? My thoughts exactly. I think the problem is not with the ECM drones, but with the ways they can be dealt with. Longer ranges on SBs, sounds logical, i mean, i've never seen anything other than a large one being used for this very reason. Larger sig radius on the drones themselves makes perfect sense, if their small sig is the main reason they are not effective to take out, then this seems the best way to resolve the issue
Necronus Amarr Monks of War United Legion	Posted - 2009.04.27 05:13:00 - [307] I agree that heavy drones do not need to be nerfed. They are rarely used because the drawback is huge damage loss from 5 heavy drones. Small and medium drones need to be nerfed they jamm almost similarly as heavy ones but sacrificing damage is not vital for getting such jamming capabilities.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.27 05:26:00 - [308] If smartbombs are going to be a valid defense tactic vs. ECM drones then the distance lockout for smartbombs around stations and gates needs to be removed. Or just change it so that smartbombs no longer hit stations or gates. Not being able to defend yourself vs. ECM drones because you're too close to a station is lame. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Bilaz Minmatar Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.04.27 06:48:00 - [309] Originally by: CCP Nozh Ok, I'm sitting at home reading over this thread. Brainstorming about new ECM mechanics, help me out: Instead of the current mechanic where a successful ECM cycle breaks your lock for the given time of the ECM module. Your lock breaks, but you automatically start locking your target again. The duration would rely on your ability to target back your enemy, ECCM modules would essentially be sensor boosters. Could even add a fun twist to sensor dampening... The class values would of course have to be tweaked a bit... if sb = eccm, then ecm = sensor damper. sure, go ahead make scripted version of sensor damper break lock depending on scan resolution and non scripted make scan res and\or targ range - less.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.27 08:44:00 - [310] Edited by: Murina on 27/04/2009 08:44:21 Originally by: Bellum Eternus If smartbombs are going to be a valid defense tactic vs. ECM drones then the distance lockout for smartbombs around stations and gates needs to be removed. Or just change it so that smartbombs no longer hit stations or gates. Not being able to defend yourself vs. ECM drones because you're too close to a station is lame. Yea i mean being jammed and unable to aggro must be a pain if it gets you killed, and being near a station/gate so you cannot use a smart bomb to defend yourself means you just die cos its not like you could just dock your ship/jump....hey wait..?..
Oku Kee'lus Fear Inc	Posted - 2009.04.27 10:09:00 - [311] Originally by: Bellum Eternus If smartbombs are going to be a valid defense tactic vs. ECM drones then the distance lockout for smartbombs around stations and gates needs to be removed. Or just change it so that smartbombs no longer hit stations or gates. Not being able to defend yourself vs. ECM drones because you're too close to a station is lame. There's a reason for those "zones" to exist. Removing them is not an option. ...maybe introduce a counter, a utility high-slot module; AoE like smartbombs, but with "ECCM" against all types of EWAR-drones, shutting them down on a successfull pulse, which means they stop doing what they do, and can't be scooped for x seconds?
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.27 10:14:00 - [312] Originally by: Oku Kee'lus Originally by: Bellum Eternus If smartbombs are going to be a valid defense tactic vs. ECM drones then the distance lockout for smartbombs around stations and gates needs to be removed. Or just change it so that smartbombs no longer hit stations or gates. Not being able to defend yourself vs. ECM drones because you're too close to a station is lame. There's a reason for those "zones" to exist. Removing them is not an option. ...maybe introduce a counter, a utility high-slot module; AoE like smartbombs, but with "ECCM" against all types of EWAR-drones, shutting them down on a successfull pulse, which means they stop doing what they do, and can't be scooped for x seconds? Or a mid and low slot module that resista their effects?, we could come up with a cool name fot it. It a module the "Counters" Electronic Counter Measures... IVE GOT IT!!!!...how about E, C, C, M......
Oku Kee'lus Fear Inc	Posted - 2009.04.27 10:19:00 - [313] Originally by: Murina Originally by: Oku Kee'lus Originally by: Bellum Eternus If smartbombs are going to be a valid defense tactic vs. ECM drones then the distance lockout for smartbombs around stations and gates needs to be removed. Or just change it so that smartbombs no longer hit stations or gates. Not being able to defend yourself vs. ECM drones because you're too close to a station is lame. There's a reason for those "zones" to exist. Removing them is not an option. ...maybe introduce a counter, a utility high-slot module; AoE like smartbombs, but with "ECCM" against all types of EWAR-drones, shutting them down on a successfull pulse, which means they stop doing what they do, and can't be scooped for x seconds? Or a mid and low slot module that resista their effects?, we could come up with a cool name fot it. It a module the "Counters" Electronic Counter Measures... IVE GOT IT!!!!...how about E, C, C, M...... Obviously I know about ECCM, hence my "ECCM" hint in my post. This is about drones however, not abot changing the module-based types of EW, which the change to the current ECCM module, from EC-counter measure into an EW-counter measure module, would be. I'd be all for ECCM-modules countering all EW, especially after the ECM-ship nerfs, but we all know ECCM is "useless" right, right?
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.27 10:31:00 - [314] Edited by: Murina on 27/04/2009 10:32:22 Originally by: Oku Kee'lus I'd be all for ECCM-modules countering all EW, especially after the ECM-ship nerfs, but we all know ECCM is "useless" right, right? Its not USEless it is USEDless because the ppl whining about ECM only wanna fit gank/tank and maybe a bit of tackle and hate using slots for anything else...."easier to cry than to try" attitude FTL. You could try and make ECCM give a % chance to stop TD's, TP's and DAMPS from taking effect on a ship fitted with it, maybe in the same way it does ECM i suppose. But it would be difficult to implement due to how each system operates.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2009.04.27 10:54:00 - [315] Edited by: TZeer on 27/04/2009 10:55:07 What if we change the lowslot module to give an X amount of extra sensor strenth instead of %? If you balance this right we can make it so the lowslot mododule would be more effective the smaller the scan strength... This way the lowslot module gets a place. Frig ships would be better of using lowslot module cause of the low base strength. ( And it wouldnt cripple their use, still midslot left for tackling MWD etc) Cruisers would be in the middle where you woul have some ships would be better with a midslot ECCM, and some would be better with lowslot ECCM. Depends on their scan strength BS, cause of their high sensor strength would be better of using midslot ECCM. Dunno how it would turn out when it came to stacking penalty and all that but i guess CCP would figure out something.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.27 11:04:00 - [316] Quote: Its not USEless it is USEDless because the ppl whining about ECM only wanna fit gank/tank and maybe a bit of tackle and hate using slots for anything else...."easier to cry than to try" attitude FTL. And here people who have the average fotm runner who ran toward the falcon. This is BS, me and most others i have flown with fit eccm on basicly every BC and larger (on smaller ships it is just not realistic), it helps, but then still you can often watch to being jammed. Even with dual ECCM you got jammed enough. --------------------------------------------- Originally by: Neth'Rae Military experts are calling this a troll.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.04.27 11:07:00 - [317] A idea i proposed was for each ECCM unit to give a set ammount OR a % ammount depending on what ever was the greater benifit to the ship. Say 15 str or 100% boost (just a example). A ship with a base sig str of below 15 would get the 15 str boost as it would benifit the most from that, while any ship with a base sig str of above 15 would get the 100% boost as the gain would be greater. A frig with 10 sig: 10 sig + 15 = 25. vs 10 sig + 100% = 20. But a BS with 25 base sig 25 sig = 15 = 40. vs 25 sig = 100% = 50.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.27 11:22:00 - [318] Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 27/04/2009 08:44:21 Originally by: Bellum Eternus If smartbombs are going to be a valid defense tactic vs. ECM drones then the distance lockout for smartbombs around stations and gates needs to be removed. Or just change it so that smartbombs no longer hit stations or gates. Not being able to defend yourself vs. ECM drones because you're too close to a station is lame. Yea i mean being jammed and unable to aggro must be a pain if it gets you killed, and being near a station/gate so you cannot use a smart bomb to defend yourself means you just die cos its not like you could just dock your ship/jump....hey wait..?.. You know that there are TONS of stations in 0.0 where you cannot dock? And those are the very places where the fiercest fights happen?
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.27 11:25:00 - [319] Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 27/04/2009 10:32:22 Originally by: Oku Kee'lus I'd be all for ECCM-modules countering all EW, especially after the ECM-ship nerfs, but we all know ECCM is "useless" right, right? Its not USEless it is USEDless because the ppl whining about ECM only wanna fit gank/tank and maybe a bit of tackle and hate using slots for anything else...."easier to cry than to try" attitude FTL. You could try and make ECCM give a % chance to stop TD's, TP's and DAMPS from taking effect on a ship fitted with it, maybe in the same way it does ECM i suppose. But it would be difficult to implement due to how each system operates. SHUT UP! I had a tempest with 3 ECCM overloaded jammed for 4 cycles in a row by 1 single falcon! Simply SHUT UP with speeches clearly from someone that is completely biased and does nto want to see the truth.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.27 11:59:00 - [320] Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: Its not USEless it is USEDless because the ppl whining about ECM only wanna fit gank/tank and maybe a bit of tackle and hate using slots for anything else...."easier to cry than to try" attitude FTL. And here people who have the average fotm runner who ran toward the falcon. This is BS, me and most others i have flown with fit eccm on basicly every BC and larger (on smaller ships it is just not realistic), it helps, but then still you can often watch to being jammed. Even with dual ECCM you got jammed enough. You can still get damped if you fit a sensor booster and still get your tracking or range disrupted with comps/enhancers fitted. Fitting ECCM is not a I-WIN vs a ECM using gang any more than the other modules are against gangs using the other systems, its no differance to fitting tanking modules and expecting them to make you immune to dmg. PPL tend to fit to be as offensivly effective as possible as far as damage and ewar is concerned, but they tend to only really focus on DMG as far as defense is concerned. This is because the effects of a lot of the ewar systems reduce or remove the incoming dps of the opposing ships/gangs and so are in actual fact offensive modules that aid the gangs/ships tanking/defense. Even now with the reduction in the falcons range that forces it to work in the 60-100km range myself and others are more interested in fitting DAMPS on either arazu's that have a 90-100% to get activations on a falcon in the 60-100km range with just 2 damps reducing the falcons lock range to under 40km. Or even fitting DAMPS on non bonused ships that have a 70-90%+ to get a activation with only 3 needed to drop the falcons lock range to 40km. This idea being preferable to using ECCM as it is a offensive module with not only a gaurenteed or high probability of success but also one that has applications in a lot of other combat scenario's against ships that do not have the falcons massive base lock range.....I know this is not a new idea and damps got nerfed not so long ago but now with more and more ships operating in mid range along with the falcon damps will become more popular again.
Sonreir Gallente Band of Builders Inc. Libera Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.27 12:00:00 - [321] Edited by: Sonreir on 27/04/2009 12:00:51 Originally by: Murina 1. How are they a "get out of jail free card" when you leave them behind and the "dedicated tackler" can still warp after you and tackle you again this time with you having no drones left?. 2. If the lock is broken a ship wanting to run will be aligned and spamming his warp button. 3. Small ships SHOULD be more effected by them not less. 4. All your idea will do is gimp them for any use in actual combat and do nothing to stop ppl who wanna run away. 1.) Because of align times relative to lock times. If a target isn't aligned (which is more often the case than not when hunting low-sec mission runners and low-sec/null-sec ratters) then it's possible for small ships to lose their lock and regain it before the target can escape. 2.) Not always. You are over-generalising the point and missing it completely. 3.) I disagree. EVE has been about using the right tools for the job. Recent missile changes and drone tracking changes only go to reinforce this point. By changing drones to ECMB instead of ECM, smaller ships (whose specific role is to tackle) are less affected and allow them to do their job better. The trade-off here is that smaller ships are more likely to have their lock broken, but it becomes less of a deal if/when that happens. 4.) Can you support this statement? I believe that last ten pages of comments only support the idea that ECM drones need to be balanced, so expecting them not to be "gimped" is a bit unrealistic.
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2009.04.27 12:08:00 - [322] Originally by: Seishi Maru SHUT UP! I had a tempest with 3 ECCM overloaded jammed for 4 cycles in a row by 1 single falcon! Simply SHUT UP with speeches clearly from someone that is completely biased and does nto want to see the truth. No you "shut up". ECM is chance-based. Hence, results on both ends of the spectrum will always happen. You might have had 3 ECCM modules, but the Falcon could have had 3 SDA and say, 5 correct racials. Which would result in an even 50/50 chance. In which case 4 results of anything in a row would not be uncommon at all. Both ways. If you can't fathom the mechanics of a chance-based system, based on numbers, keep your "OMG BECAUSE OF FALCON" to yourself please. We got all the numbers at our disposal and all know the exact chance of every setup vs. every setup. ECCM works.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.27 12:25:00 - [323] Originally by: Seishi Maru You know that there are TONS of stations in 0.0 where you cannot dock? And those are the very places where the fiercest fights happen? Actually most fights tend to happen at gates in 0.0, then POS, then stations. But you are right IF you are fighting in somebody elses system, outside their station you are at the disadvantage of not being able to dock....suck it up and plan/prepare for it cos home turf advantage gives a lot of bonuses. Ships fighting at their own POS being able to dip in and out of a POS bubble to remove locks ect are all things aggressors have to deal with when fighting on other ppls terf. Originally by: Seishi Maru SHUT UP! I had a tempest with 3 ECCM overloaded jammed for 4 cycles in a row by 1 single falcon! Simply SHUT UP with speeches clearly from someone that is completely biased and does nto want to see the truth. Id say that: 1. You are totally lying. 2. Even if you did do it you must have been on a alt or have won the fight as i cannot find a loss mail of ANY tempest under your name on any killboard BC, mcorp's or the black dawn gang's (and very few kills/losses at all tbh). 3. Why did your gang not melt the falcon now its reduced in range?. 4. It is you who are biased and screaming at people to "SHUT UP" because you have no argument against their totally valid and unarguable points is just childish. Go away or grow up.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.27 12:49:00 - [324] Originally by: Sonreir 1.) Because of align times relative to lock times. If a target isn't aligned (which is more often the case than not when hunting low-sec mission runners and low-sec/null-sec ratters) then it's possible for small ships to lose their lock and regain it before the target can escape. Why on earth would a ship trying to run not be aligned?. But ok lets say its not for the first jam the ECM gets, what about the next or the one after that?..do you honestly expect ppl to believe that a ship wanting to escape will not be aligning and spamming his warp button when he KNOWS that all his ECM does it break lock and not delay relock?... Give me a break... Originally by: Sonreir I believe that last ten pages of comments only support the idea that ECM drones need to be balanced If you choose to read only the posts that support some of the silly ideas for nerfing ECM on the last 10 pages thats your choice but i see plenty of posts saying they are fine, if you do not see them then id suggest glasses or more probably a psychiatrist. Originally by: Sonreir Can you support this statement? A player wanting to just run away from or avoid a solo ganker or tackler will always find ways of doing so, either by watching local and warping out from his belt ect and cloaking/logging or by fitting a stab as most tacklers only have a single point fitted, and yes some may use ECM drones although most do not. On the other hand a player looking for a fight will not be so inclined to be fitted for escape and evasion, he will be fitted with whatever forms of tank/gank that suit his ship and style and if he has ECM drones fitted it is going to be mostly for their offensive ability to reduce the DPS of his target/s allowing him to POSSIBLY be more effective against single targets that could normally be too much for him or even against multiple targets to reduce the ammount of overall DPS he has to constantly tank.
Hellcore Minmatar Ex-Nihilo Fate Weavers	Posted - 2009.04.27 12:56:00 - [325] Originally by: Murina Or you could communicate it to your buddies who should be dealing with the ECM ship anyway...after all this is a team game. Your lack of comprehension of the reading kind makes it difficult for you to understand the difference between game balance and game play issues. Since I was referring to the latter, your response has little relevance to the individual's gameplay experience. Originally by: Murina So you think EVE should be more like WOW (i assume that is what you are refering to), maybe when we die we should respawn in our fully fitted ship as well with no loss, or be able to train a entire races ships and equipment in just a few weeks ect as well?. That is a pretty weak troll, it would be quite obvious to a seasoned player that no such intention was implied. It was a prod at the design team to look at some core game play issues that need fixing before anything based on them would have a hope in hell of being balanced. --
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.27 13:15:00 - [326] Originally by: Hellcore Your lack of comprehension of the reading kind makes it difficult for you to understand the difference between game balance and game play issues. Since I was referring to the latter, your response has little relevance to the individual's gameplay experience. Actually im more than aware of the differance between and the RELATIONSHIP between game balance, game effects and game play, in fact its yours and others need to ignore/disregard (as you clearly point out and i bolded above) one or two of these very related and interwoven aspects to try and give credability to your opinions on the other that is the issue.
Hellcore Minmatar Ex-Nihilo Fate Weavers	Posted - 2009.04.27 13:36:00 - [327] Originally by: Murina Actually im more than aware of the differance between and the RELATIONSHIP between game balance, game effects and game play, in fact its yours and others need to ignore/disregard (as you clearly point out and i bolded above) one or two of these very related and interwoven aspects to try and give credability to your opinions on the other that is the issue. Yet you seem bogged down in rabid quoting, responding to and trolling the minutiae of RELATED issues. Yes, they affect each other, like my morning coffee affects my need to visits the men's room. It doesn't mean that going to those on the 3rd floor instead of the 1st is going to change my choice of grind. We could spend all day in a tOte a tOte about various tweakings of ships, bonuses, modules, PVP scenarios and people's combat prowess. This thread represents the problem well enough, despite the noise level. Fair enough if you think that the small tweaks will make big changes, I do not agree. --
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.27 13:52:00 - [328] Originally by: Pohbis Originally by: Seishi Maru SHUT UP! I had a tempest with 3 ECCM overloaded jammed for 4 cycles in a row by 1 single falcon! Simply SHUT UP with speeches clearly from someone that is completely biased and does nto want to see the truth. No you "shut up". ECM is chance-based. Hence, results on both ends of the spectrum will always happen. You might have had 3 ECCM modules, but the Falcon could have had 3 SDA and say, 5 correct racials. Which would result in an even 50/50 chance. In which case 4 results of anything in a row would not be uncommon at all. Both ways. If you can't fathom the mechanics of a chance-based system, based on numbers, keep your "OMG BECAUSE OF FALCON" to yourself please. We got all the numbers at our disposal and all know the exact chance of every setup vs. every setup. ECCM works. then show me wich other ewar is not coutnerable with 3 dedicated modules..
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.27 14:01:00 - [329] Originally by: Seishi Maru then show me wich other ewar is not coutnerable with 3 dedicated modules.. It is counterable by 3 dedicated modules, they just do not 100% gaurente a counter they increase the probability of countering it A LOT. Show me another ewar that can fail WITHOUT any dedicated counter modules in its optimal?.
RedSplat RennTech	Posted - 2009.04.27 14:08:00 - [330] ANGRY POST Secretly MirrorGod. Apparently Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: 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.