EVE Search - Terrorism in Eve Online as a tool for forcing game design change

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Terrorism in Eve Online as a tool for forcing game design change

» 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 .. 11 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.21 22:39:00 - [181] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I really don't understand all the hate towards removing insurance. To me it looks like the people against removing insurance are viewing it as a personal attack on them in that I'm trying to take something away from them personally, and that it will be unfair to them in particular. Why is that? Do they depend on insurance that much in order to continue to play Eve? Are they really that bad at the game? Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. Why dont you like my idea?
Selrid Miamarr Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.21 23:14:00 - [182] Player driven insurance is a horrible idea. The reason why NPC insurance exists is because players trying to underwrite insurance would face losses that would make EVE bank's ones look like petty cash. In the real world, insurance only works because payouts are very rare compared to the body of people paying, and even then insurance companies put large deductibles, turn away a lot of potential subscribers, and fiercely contest any claims with the hint of fraud. The only way it could work would be each individual corp footing the bill for ship replacement on a micro level, or players making ship saving accounts like the health saving accounts we have irl. I leave it to you all to debate the feasibility of that, but trying to reproduce NPC insurance simply wont work.
Joe Stalin Unknown-Entity Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.12.21 23:17:00 - [183] Edited by: Joe Stalin on 21/12/2009 23:20:40 Removing insurance will mean less players venture out into low sec and 0.0, which is the complete opposite outcome than what CCP wants out of Dominion. So not going to happen, and its pretty stupid to even suggest it Oh, and in 0.0 even the best and most experienced players get killed in fleet battles. When your fleet gets a bubble dropped on you suddenly, and 30 enemy ships all call you primary, you can't always be blamed for that kind of loss personally. Its hard enough when insurance only covers the cost of your rigs, let alone the ship and modules.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.21 23:50:00 - [184] Originally by: Malcanis Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. I support the removal of insurance for exactly that reason. アニメ漫画です
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 00:43:00 - [185] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malcanis Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. I support the removal of insurance for exactly that reason. This. Malcanis- I respect your opinion and your outlook on the game, but isn't 'a terrible economic blow' the whole point? I completely agree that losing ships in 0.0 combat isn't always a reflection on the individual pilot, and my remark wasn't meant to imply such a thing with respect to 0.0 pilots in general. But that being said, it's not like one group of players won't be getting insurance if it is totally removed. Everyone is on an equal playing field. The point is to make combat hurt. The way to remove an enemy from their space is to cripple their ability to fight and support that fight and then you can force them out. Insurance delays this by reducing your success by half, or almost completely, every time you kill one of their ships. Shouldn't you be rewarded for being good? Shouldn't they suffer 100% of the loss that is posted on the killboard? Not just whatever modules they had fit? With no insurance the smarter and stronger opponent will win in a faster and more decisive fashion than the current massive blob/grind that attrition warfare has become today. Insurance is a crutch that simply isn't needed any more. On top of the other obvious reasons why it should be removed, plenty of 0.0 guys are currently flying around in uninsurable T2 ships and they seem to do just fine. So what will be so drastically different if T1 doesn't have insurance as well? So far I haven't heard one single solid reason to keep insurance in the game. The only remotely reasonable point is to allow new players to have insurance for a while, which I agreed was a valid reason and suggested that each new account be allowed access to insurance for it's first three months of existence. But even then people will use that to exploit insurance fraud. As for the people continuing to stick to the idea that it 'doesn't affect the economy', just look at the overall prices of best in game faction items, whos rarity remains fairly constant given the growing player population. There has been massive inflation in pricing for these items over the years and it will continue to grow. CCP is just ruining the relative value of ships with insurance by basically saying 'it's ok, we'll give most of it back if you lose it'. With mineral prices and the insurance payouts the way they are today, Eve is closer to WoW in space than ever before with virtually no real loss after the payout. Is this what people really want? -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.12.22 00:46:00 - [186] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malcanis Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. I support the removal of insurance for exactly that reason. Same. Considering that BS mineral prices are already hitting the insurance price floor, removal of insurance would result in T1 ships costing less than now. A fully fitted T2 cruiser hull comes at about the same as fully fitted T1 battleship hulls without insurance. Since there are players who can afford to lose T2 cruisers regularly, there would also be those who could afford to lose T1 battleships at the same rate. Obviously there wouldn't be the same kind of RR BS fleets flying around all the time, but that's IMO a good thing. More diversity and price/effectiveness trade-offs would have to be made. With the new changes to 0.0 income there's really no excuse for residents to not have ISK enough to replace battleships. (Assuming the alliance allows them time to rat and stuff between fights ^_^)
Zeredek Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2009.12.22 00:48:00 - [187] Also... What would you going about suicide ganking people do? CCP doesn't really care what people do ingame... _________________ rawr
Wod Gallente Fallen Pandas	Posted - 2009.12.22 00:53:00 - [188] Quote: The point is to make combat hurt. The way to remove an enemy from their space is to cripple their ability to fight and support that fight and then you can force them out. Insurance delays this by reducing your success by half, or almost completely, every time you kill one of their ships. Shouldn't you be rewarded for being good? Shouldn't they suffer 100% of the loss that is posted on the killboard? Not just whatever modules they had fit? Well CCP wants you to play the game for as long as possible hint It's a game... - I like cookies
Destrous Light Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.22 03:35:00 - [189] Originally by: Bellum Eternus With no insurance the smarter and stronger opponent will win in a faster and more decisive fashion than the current massive blob/grind that attrition warfare has become today. Actually, removing insurance would only mean more blobs. who would risk any kind of "equal" engagement where they know they'll take losses, which means who would fly in small fleets when there's a chance they'll hit a blob? All you would do is ensure the bigger and more financially stable alliances have a stronger hold onto their space, and the weaker alliances or the ones that are only out for "good fights" slowly disappear since they can't afford to continue their ways.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 04:46:00 - [190] Originally by: Destrous Light Originally by: Bellum Eternus With no insurance the smarter and stronger opponent will win in a faster and more decisive fashion than the current massive blob/grind that attrition warfare has become today. Actually, removing insurance would only mean more blobs. who would risk any kind of "equal" engagement where they know they'll take losses, which means who would fly in small fleets when there's a chance they'll hit a blob? All you would do is ensure the bigger and more financially stable alliances have a stronger hold onto their space, and the weaker alliances or the ones that are only out for "good fights" slowly disappear since they can't afford to continue their ways. You seem to be missing something. Mostly, a point. Where is it? I never said there would be less blobbing, just a faster victory. As for small fleets- why would they cease to be? Most small fleets are T2 ships anyway, which again, has no insurance. Once again someone posts something completely irrelevant with no real structure behind their argument and no supporting evidence or solid reasoning. In short, you're talking out your ass. Nobody engages the enemy with the idea that they're going to lose. If they do, they're defeated already. And any Alliance who can't afford to absorb a billion ISK in damage (10x BS for instance) doesn't have any business owning space in the first place. Again, I've yet to see anyone make a solid argument for insurance. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Destrous Light Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.22 04:57:00 - [191] Originally by: Bellum Eternus And any Alliance who can't afford to absorb a billion ISK in damage (10x BS for instance) doesn't have any business owning space in the first place. I'm afraid it's you this time that read only a portion of my post and missed the actual point to it. The proof is in your statement quoted above. Your solution would only remove any semblance of ability for non-space holding entities to get into the business further increasing the gap between the "true 0.0 elite" and the new players. if this is your goal than so be it, but make sure you state that.
Kern Hotha Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.12.22 05:08:00 - [192] I hope that CCP eventually sees that insurance devalues an important aspect of this game: meaningful consequences resulting from combat.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 05:19:00 - [193] Originally by: Destrous Light Originally by: Bellum Eternus And any Alliance who can't afford to absorb a billion ISK in damage (10x BS for instance) doesn't have any business owning space in the first place. I'm afraid it's you this time that read only a portion of my post and missed the actual point to it. The proof is in your statement quoted above. Your solution would only remove any semblance of ability for non-space holding entities to get into the business further increasing the gap between the "true 0.0 elite" and the new players. if this is your goal than so be it, but make sure you state that. The bil is the new 100m. If you seriously think that 1b ISK is that much spread across multiple corp/alliance mates, then you have no idea what it takes to actually make a successful venture in 0.0. I'm well versed in the requirements needed to compete in 0.0, both financially and manpower wise. My goal isn't to further increase any 'gap', because there isn't one. The cost of entry to gain a foothold in 0.0 was low four years ago. It isn't anymore. And removing insurance isn't going to exacerbate that either. Again, you're grasping at straws trying to come up with any possible reason to support your argument and you're coming up empty. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Destrous Light Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.22 05:29:00 - [194] Originally by: Bellum Eternus The bil is the new 100m. And there's your problem, you've been amongst the "elite" group for so long that you've forgotten what it's like to actually earn your isk the hard way. Lesson is it all adds up, running missions/mining all day is not fun (anyone who says it is clearly has something wrong in their heads, we all know that) and the second you take out insurance you force more of that. Do you even run missions for 2-3 hours a day just so that you can lose that HAC the next day anymore? yes there are fleets of t2 ships being lost every day, the groups that do those events daily do so because they have the manufacturing background and the income to support it. It's not something a newer player has access to, and it's definately not something a newer alliance has access to, meaning if you take away their only strategy for at least trying to put together fleets to compete with those larger alliances. The only thing you're accomplishing is highlighting the massive hole in your logic, nothing more.
Rhaegor Stormborn H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.12.22 05:50:00 - [195] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malcanis Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. I support the removal of insurance for exactly that reason. /signed
Shogun Archer Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.22 06:05:00 - [196] I totally agree with Bellum Eternus on this, and want to follow his exploits. What I have seen so far on the Death of Virtue KB's so far is only a few Hulks. Is there another KB I should follow? I have checked both GriefWatch and Battleclinic.
Junko Togawa Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.22 07:31:00 - [197] Originally by: Kern Hotha I hope that CCP eventually sees that insurance devalues an important aspect of this game: meaningful consequences resulting from combat. I see what you did there, Goon.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 07:39:00 - [198] Originally by: Shogun Archer I totally agree with Bellum Eternus on this, and want to follow his exploits. What I have seen so far on the Death of Virtue KB's so far is only a few Hulks. Is there another KB I should follow? I have checked both GriefWatch and Battleclinic. Haven't had much time to devote to killing anything atm. I'm sure the stats will improve in the future. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Lady Spank Amarr Sekret Kool Klubb	Posted - 2009.12.22 08:01:00 - [199] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Shogun Archer I totally agree with Bellum Eternus on this, and want to follow his exploits. What I have seen so far on the Death of Virtue KB's so far is only a few Hulks. Is there another KB I should follow? I have checked both GriefWatch and Battleclinic. Haven't had much time to devote to killing anything atm. I'm sure the stats will improve in the future. Too busy isk whoring amirite? Remove insurance for people with too much isk, insurance fraud and suicide ganks. Leave the poor plebs alone. ~
Transmit Failure	Posted - 2009.12.22 08:19:00 - [200] Edited by: Transmit Failure on 22/12/2009 08:23:29 So if I'm reading this right, the problem is really self-correcting. As soon as ship prices drop below the insurance payout less insurance cost, people will buy ships by the dozens and blow them up and collect the difference. The increased demand will bid prices of ships up to the point where its no longer profitable to do this. I don't know what the problem is to be honest. Inflation is probably going to happen in Eve unless they actually make minerals a scarce resource. This will never, ever happen. The best they can do is make it harder to mine resources by throwing them in low-sec or getting rid of belts and making miners scan down places to mine that are guarded by big rats or something. I think they were considering that a few years ago. I was sort of excited about it, not sure where that idea went. To me that seems like a much more effective way to combat inflation in eve. Aside from that, I don't really see inflation as a huge problem in Eve atm anyway. The only thing that's growing in Eve is wallets. People have a lot more in their wallets than before, but they aren't spending the same percentage of it like they did three or four years ago.
Herzog Wolfhammer Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.12.22 08:35:00 - [201] A little side note here about insurance for corporations and SOV warfare. It might be more fitting for ships to be ensured not individually but through and insurance bond of the corporation. Thus the corporation pays for fleet insurance. This would make things easy on newer pilots who find the cost of losing ships in 0.0 a bit too much.
Windjammer Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.22 09:09:00 - [202] Dear Mr. Eternus, Wow. You must be really powerful and a great leader. You're actually taking on CCP itself. I'm awed. Seriously. You are going to force CCP to change EVE and they're the ones who have ultimate control over what occurs in EVE. CCP doesn't stand a chance. They'll never think to do something impossible like eliminate insurance payouts for criminal activity (i.e. anything which results in Concord blowing you up) and/or self destructs....or anything else which crosses their minds to cause you to fail. No, they'd never do that. Not when faced with your overwhelming might and numbers. Knock yourself out, Bellum. The important thing is that you have fun doing it. I'm sure EVE will be on its knees inside a month. Nice troll. I can see you put a lot of effort into it and it's generated a lot of posts. Well done. Regards, Windjammer
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.22 10:10:00 - [203] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malcanis Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. I support the removal of insurance for exactly that reason. Well I suppose 0.0 still has economic parity with hi-sec on a few things, and that we might as well remove those anomalies (see what I did thar?) and outright declare that hi-sec is where you make ISK and 0.0 is where you spend it.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.22 10:17:00 - [204] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Destrous Light Originally by: Bellum Eternus And any Alliance who can't afford to absorb a billion ISK in damage (10x BS for instance) doesn't have any business owning space in the first place. I'm afraid it's you this time that read only a portion of my post and missed the actual point to it. The proof is in your statement quoted above. Your solution would only remove any semblance of ability for non-space holding entities to get into the business further increasing the gap between the "true 0.0 elite" and the new players. if this is your goal than so be it, but make sure you state that. The bil is the new 100m. If you seriously think that 1b ISK is that much spread across multiple corp/alliance mates, then you have no idea what it takes to actually make a successful venture in 0.0. I'm well versed in the requirements needed to compete in 0.0, both financially and manpower wise. My goal isn't to further increase any 'gap', because there isn't one. The cost of entry to gain a foothold in 0.0 was low four years ago. It isn't anymore. And removing insurance isn't going to exacerbate that either. Again, you're grasping at straws trying to come up with any possible reason to support your argument and you're coming up empty. That's the biggest load of ignorant bull**** I've ever seen you write. Seriously, shut up about things you dont know about. Maybe the for the carebear alliances who can plex 22/7 & spend 1 hour formed up in a "defence gang" hiding in a POS "100mil is the new 1bill", but for actual fighting corps, 100 mill is still very much the old 100 mill. But perhaps you want to see 0.0 composed of nothing but plexing alliances, I dont know. You tell me? Because I can tell you for sure that for the great majority of the people in my alliance spending a billion ISK is a very serious thing. Do try and remember that not every 0.0 PvPer is the beneficiary of months of sitting on R64s.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 10:39:00 - [205] Originally by: Malcanis That's the biggest load of ignorant bull**** I've ever seen you write. Seriously, shut up about things you dont know about. Maybe the for the carebear alliances who can plex 22/7 & spend 1 hour formed up in a "defence gang" hiding in a POS "100mil is the new 1bill", but for actual fighting corps, 100 mill is still very much the old 100 mill. But perhaps you want to see 0.0 composed of nothing but plexing alliances, I dont know. You tell me? Because I can tell you for sure that for the great majority of the people in my alliance spending a billion ISK is a very serious thing. Do try and remember that not every 0.0 PvPer is the beneficiary of months of sitting on R64s. All the 0.0 peeps that I rub elbows with can replace BS losses two and three deep without worrying about it. And I'm not just talking a few people, but dozens, if not hundreds, across many different alliances of many different scales and differing compositions. T2 ships are the same way. The players I know don't have just one BS and one HAC, they have multiple ships in each class, and usually multiple ships of their main types. And this is just for the individual players. Corp insured and issued ships are provided on top of their personal ships. You make it sound like everyone is running around in rags in T1 fit T1 cruisers most of the time. Has 0.0 really become that poor? Can the PVP alliances not make enough ISK PVPing that they can't afford their losses without resorting to missioning in highsec? I'd seriously like to know, as my current first hand personal experiences seem to be vastly different from yours. I can recall being a complete noob way back in the day in LFC over three years ago and having maybe 5-8m SP and being able to afford multiple BS as well as fit them, even when a full rack of 425mm T2 railguns cost more than the Megathron that they were fit to. And hell, the Megas back then cost more ISK than the platinum insurance payout did. Imagine that. I guess that's partly why I just don't see how todays players have it so hard. ISK is easier than ever to make, modules and ships are cheaper than ever to buy and still people can't seem to afford to PVP? It doesn't add up. In all seriousness, I'd like you to give me your viewpoint on the economics of what you consider the average 0.0 PVPer's bank account, ships available on hand and how they usually generate income for their ships and modules. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.12.22 10:54:00 - [206] i'd like to know what you consider average isk/hour gained and hours/day played. perhaps it would put things into perspective?
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.22 11:02:00 - [207] I have just over a billion ISK across my accounts. I have 3 fitted & rigged BS, largely because my name starts with an M and I dont get primaried a lot. There are a few people in my corp who are far richer than me. They care about making ISK. Most of us dont; I'm considered rather well off, if not "rich" by corp standards. For people who are interested in making ISK, replacing a HAC or an uninsured BS is trivial. For alliances with substantial moongoo incomes, replacing cap losses is trivial. Think about the consequences of wht you are proposing. Is the political map not static enough for you? Remind, me, what dont you like about dynamic insurance at around 85-95% of ship mineral value?
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 11:12:00 - [208] Originally by: Jagga Spikes i'd like to know what you consider average isk/hour gained and hours/day played. perhaps it would put things into perspective? I don't grind ISK like most players and don't play a lot like I think some people do, so I'd have to go off of other people's figures. I've heard 20m ISK/hour bandied about by all the mission runner types and the 0.0 guys arguing back and forth about ratting income balance etc. If that's true, and a dedicated 0.0 guy spends two hours or so five days a week ratting then that's 200m/week and 800m/mo doing some brain dead afkish ratting/missioning. You know, the stuff you can do while watching TV at the same time. Or doing your homework, or real work, or whatever. Do I consider this average? No. I'm just demonstrating how easy it is to make ISK. Personally I generate ISK through piracy, so it's a little harder to judge just how much ISK/hour I generate as it comes in big spikes of ISK and I don't really have a fixed schedule of playtime as I'm mostly AFK and usually show up when people need the help for big scores. Either that or I specifically hunt a player down and ransom them, in which case I'm making quite a bit of ISK per target and generally doesn't require that much time. Example: commit three hours to hunt down and ransom a Kronos, ransom payment is 1.1b ISK, and I did it solo, so I don't have to split it. Presto, my accounts are paid for for the month, with ISK left over. And that's just one of the many ransoms per month that I get. Killboards are nice, but they never demonstrate just how successful pirates really are because there is no official way to record ransoms in the game or any way to verify it. For every battleship or carrier kill you see, there could be multiple ransoms, ejections and so on. Even ratting one hour per day, five days a week nets a player 400m/mo to spend on ships. That's 1 bs loss per week. Surely most players aren't that bad? If I lost a BS per week, I'd seriously reconsider what I was doing as a PVPer and why I was being killed so often. I've lost a lot of ships, a lot of very expensive ships, to very stupid reasons on my part, I'll be the first to admit. But I don't fly what I can't afford to lose in the first place. Maybe people are flying way way beyond their means? -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 11:20:00 - [209] Originally by: Malcanis I have just over a billion ISK across my accounts. I have 3 fitted & rigged BS, largely because my name starts with an M and I dont get primaried a lot. There are a few people in my corp who are far richer than me. They care about making ISK. Most of us dont; I'm considered rather well off, if not "rich" by corp standards. For people who are interested in making ISK, replacing a HAC or an uninsured BS is trivial. For alliances with substantial moongoo incomes, replacing cap losses is trivial. Think about the consequences of wht you are proposing. Is the political map not static enough for you? Remind, me, what dont you like about dynamic insurance at around 85-95% of ship mineral value? Because when I kill someone's ship, I want them to LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT SHIP. Not just what they had fitted on it. Or in the case of a T1 fit BS, actually make money on the LOSS FFS. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 11:26:00 - [210] It still seems to me like the main issue here is that miners have no business sense. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki

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