EVE Search - Potential Insurance Changes and Effects to Miners

All Channels

Science and Industry

Potential Insurance Changes and Effects to Miners

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zedah Zoid Nutz N Boltz	Posted - 2010.03.15 20:02:00 - [31] Originally by: Tau Cabalander Edited by: Tau Cabalander on 15/03/2010 19:47:26 Originally by: SephiXan By voiding insurance on suicide ganking mineral prices will drop in their value. So you as a miner will be hurt, which is what this whole discussion is about. Players are stubbornly wanting voided insurance as they cannot accept their own losses, but they have no idea how it will affect the larger picture. Fact is that thanks to those suicide gankings the market is stable. Only times prices change is when CCP changes the game. Actually, I don't care about my personal ship or ISK losses. CONCORD shouldn't be toothless, even if that affects prices. CONCORD is supposed to be a deterrent, and currently they are not effective at all in that role. I doubt if the daily number of suicide ganks even have any impact on the EVE markets. Right now we have an oversupply of some minerals. I think the price should be allowed to crash on those. I'm against reducing insurance, as that affects more than just suicide ganks. CONCORD is effective as a deterrent otherwise there would be no difference between high-sec and 0.0 with regards to PvP. CONCORD is not a "perfect" deterrent is what you mean. The problem is that the mineral market is essentially an unlimited supply. It's not in reality, but in terms of production it is due to the soft bottom so often discussed before. Now if changes were introduced that made macro mining really more difficult and swung the mineral market to a demand driven market and at the same time they completely removed insurance for battlecruiser and larger class hulls, it might get interesting. Note that I did not say it would get better, but certainly it would get interesting. I'm chewing around yet another couple of ideas on mining that I might post in the Jita Park forum if I can work out some details.
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.15 23:53:00 - [32] Originally by: Lors Dornick It must be a technical peanut to calculate the avg current price of a certain ship type (since the server has access to all relevant data) and use that as base for both policy cost and payout of the insurance. The only technical issue would be that each insured ship would have to have it's insured value attached to it. Nope.... They could track the median price of minerals per day for the last 90 days (insurance term). On the day you buy the insurance, they multiply the median mineral prices by the ideal amount required to build the ship to get the cost of the ship. Insurance prices and payout are some sliding % of the ship cost. When you lose the ship they do the same math making the payout based on what the ship's ideal cost was on the date the insruance was purchased.
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.16 00:00:00 - [33] Originally by: Vins Chicago We could get around that by using average cost of the mineral input into each ship, but then I'd just sell sell myself the minerals at hugely inflated prices (the alt game, again) and wind up at the same spot. Which is why they should use median. 1 billion trit sold in a day, then use the price of the 500 millionth unit (okay, technically, the average of the 500 millionth and 500 million first odds are those will be in the same order and at the same price). To "move the needle", the minerals fraud orders would have to be more than 50% of the total minerals moved in a day/week/month... whatever their sample period is.
Vilgan i'Lakin	Posted - 2010.03.16 00:18:00 - [34] ice mining products moved to planets ore value reduced Either a: CCP hates miners and wants them all to die in a fire or b: something new is coming that will benefit miners (maybe a dynamic way to mine moon goo) so that non macros won't care. I'd lean towards b personally, but whatevah. be interested to see what % of veld/scordite miners are actually at the keyboard and not macro'ing.
Herr Wilkus	Posted - 2010.03.16 01:00:00 - [35] I think Cosmoray is completely missing the point when he links this insurance change to suicide ganking. My guess is it has more to do with artifically propping up the mineral prices. I explained how the Eve economy works to a buddy to a buddy who expressed interest in learning the game = "People gather resources through mining and missioning, then sell those minerals to people who make spaceships. Then other people buy those spaceships, and self destruct them for the insurance payment, which earns them a profit - at the same time, removing all those surplus minerals from the game - so people can continue to mine and gather more minerals, and so on." First thing that came out of his mouth? "That sounds stupid." As others have pointed out, ganking will not be affected by this change (nor should it - nerfing ganking only makes the overproduction problem worse by encouraging more people to gather resources.) As a ganker - I am completely cool with the changes. Cheaper battleships will result as mineral prices find the new floor. As a T1 manufacturer - when patch time approaches, its would be time to clear out inventory and reduce stockpiles of minerals to avoid losses when prices fall to their new equilibrium. Not yet a 'natural' mineral price, but at least closer to what their values should be. PVP pilots should be happy - cheaper ships all around.
Umega	Posted - 2010.03.16 01:58:00 - [36] Originally by: Herr Wilkus I think Cosmoray is completely missing the point when he links this insurance change to suicide ganking. My guess is it has more to do with artifically propping up the mineral prices. I explained how the Eve economy works to a buddy to a buddy who expressed interest in learning the game = "People gather resources through mining and missioning, then sell those minerals to people who make spaceships. Then other people buy those spaceships, and self destruct them for the insurance payment, which earns them a profit - at the same time, removing all those surplus minerals from the game - so people can continue to mine and gather more minerals, and so on." First thing that came out of his mouth? "That sounds stupid." As others have pointed out, ganking will not be affected by this change (nor should it - nerfing ganking only makes the overproduction problem worse by encouraging more people to gather resources.) As a ganker - I am completely cool with the changes. Cheaper battleships will result as mineral prices find the new floor. As a T1 manufacturer - when patch time approaches, its would be time to clear out inventory and reduce stockpiles of minerals to avoid losses when prices fall to their new equilibrium. Not yet a 'natural' mineral price, but at least closer to what their values should be. PVP pilots should be happy - cheaper ships all around. Cheaper huh.. quite a relative term. So you think CCP would do this for the sole purpose of just dropping the mineral market with no other plans in mind? You think that would be it.. just that. To create cheaper ships.. Huh. If you want to think so, go right ahead. I personally believe it is a set up for a more broad range 'attack' upon the entire market.. to tackle mainly how isk ultimately flows in and out of the game. I'm beginning to think it is a set up to signficantly knock down mainly rat bounties and mission rewards. Long story short.. what seems cheap in today's terms, may not be cheap tomorrow. The value of the isk will always level out if CCP is wise. Cause if they handle it poorly.. they will lose a lot of alt subscriptions from every fascet of the Industrial market player base. The sheep always follow the isk.. if the discrepancy is increased even more so than it is now between Indy professions and L4.. what would happen.
Herr Wilkus	Posted - 2010.03.16 13:56:00 - [37] When I said cheaper I was just commenting on the effect of this change. Why would CCP do it? Lets try - making 'the mineral market more accurately reflect market forces.' The Eve economy is one of the selling points of the game - as game has evolved artificial NPC price supports on commodities have been removed. Trit prices got too high? NPC shuttles were the answer. That crutch was removed. This one needs to go as well, even if incrementally. If that means mineral prices crash - so be it. Supply will adjust as more people find the returns unrewarding and do other things. If we need more demand to support all these miners, find some other way to encourage it - something that doesn't wreck your 'suspension of disbelief' like industrial-scale battleship construction and self-destruction. Miners will earn less until demand picks up again - and many will probably have to find some other means of support to afford T2 items. (T1 items will be fantastically cheap however.) Anyone with large stockpiles of T1 ships and minerals will lose as the 'basket' shrinks to the appropriate size. Gankers won't be affected until mineral prices rise above the 'insurance floor' - but Hulk/MR gankers increase mineral demand and reduce supply, therefore are beneficial to the economy. If anything, ganking should be further encouraged by CCP. PVPers will enjoy cheaper ships - but as minerals will likely continue to sit on the 'new' insurance floor, the price of losing ships in combat won't really be affected. T2 goods would likely become more difficult to acquire if you are relying on T1 minerals for your income - as T2 ships and mod costs are far less affected by T1 mins prices. I don't see a problem with that, either. Makes T2 a more difficult goal to attain, and more crushing to lose - even if the price doesn't change that much.
Redshirt I	Posted - 2010.03.16 14:23:00 - [38] Sounds like insurance fraud is a game mechanic which people found an exploit for. Regardless of its impact (I am a miner) it should be fixed and the market and game will adjust accordingly. Eveything else is speculation and we won't know the real impact until the insurance exploit has been "adjusted". Personally I hope that mineral prices drop enough to force the Isk sellers (Who I really don't care about anyways) to move on to something else.
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.16 15:32:00 - [39] Originally by: Umega Cause if they handle it poorly.. they will lose a lot of alt subscriptions from every fascet of the Industrial market player base. The sheep always follow the isk.. if the discrepancy is increased even more so than it is now between Indy professions and L4.. what would happen. You answer the question before you ask it. Unless, of course, their intention is to make ISK making "concurrent job" limited rather than "hours doing mindless mining" limited. Things like concurrent lab jobs, concurrent manufacturing jobs, and concurrent R&D agents all limit profit on the basis of how many toons you have active. I can log in once a day, fire off some more jobs, and log back out. Oh, wait... not really because I also have to spend HOURS and HOURS doing the mind numbing job of mining minerals, mining ice and walking through long lists of buy and sell orders trying to ensure I have the highest buy price and lowest sell price. How boring! And I have a life, so can't be on 24 hours a day watching my orders. Wow, I could make so much more money if I could macro these things, couldn't I? But I don't as I do not want an account banned.
Emporer Norton	Posted - 2010.03.16 16:35:00 - [40] Anyone ever think that just maybe going to use actual region min prices and since everything on test server is seeded that is why theres a discrepency
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.16 17:38:00 - [41] Originally by: Emporer Norton Anyone ever think that just maybe going to use actual region min prices and since everything on test server is seeded that is why theres a discrepency I thought that right away. Is this a one time drop of 30%, or a change to make insurance be 30% of current mineral price? Since current ship prices are pretty much the same as current mineral prices, we can't know until CCP comments or we get some data.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.16 18:54:00 - [42] Originally by: LHA Tarawa Originally by: Emporer Norton Anyone ever think that just maybe going to use actual region min prices and since everything on test server is seeded that is why theres a discrepency I thought that right away. Is this a one time drop of 30%, or a change to make insurance be 30% of current mineral price? Since current ship prices are pretty much the same as current mineral prices, we can't know until CCP comments or we get some data. I sincerely doubt they'll do any sort of floating insurance price scheme. That would be hilariously prone to abuse. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.16 20:55:00 - [43] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey I sincerely doubt they'll do any sort of floating insurance price scheme. That would be hilariously prone to abuse. I'd love to hear how you think my above proposed scheme could be abused. Only by hammering can an idea be hardened.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.16 21:02:00 - [44] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 16/03/2010 21:02:30 Originally by: LHA Tarawa Originally by: SurrenderMonkey I sincerely doubt they'll do any sort of floating insurance price scheme. That would be hilariously prone to abuse. I'd love to hear how you think my above proposed scheme could be abused. Only by hammering can an idea be hardened. Market prices are capable of being manipulated, which means the insurance price would be capable of being manipulated. So easily, in fact, that you would probably see honest-to-god cooperation from Eve Online players for a change. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.16 21:12:00 - [45] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Market prices are capable of being manipulated, which means the insurance price would be capable of being manipulated. So easily, in fact, that you would probably see honest-to-god cooperation from Eve Online players for a change. My proposal was to use medain price of all mineral transactions. Do you honestly believe that enough people would cooperate to cause more than 50% of all minerals traded in a day to trade at an extremely elevated price? Okay... then let's make it a week. When you buy insurance it is based on the median price of minerals traded the week before. When you lose the ship, payout is based on the median price of all transactions the week before the insurance was purchased. Again, you honestly believe that enough fraudulant market transactions could be generated to account for more than 50% of all minerals transactions in a given week? What would the transaction fees be on that sort of transaction volume? AND, if the needle could be moved by that volume of fraud orders.. well, then atleast everyone could benefit. That said, I doubt CCP would do it without already having in place some other ISK/stuff balancing mechanism and since I've heard ZIP about any other mechanism, I doubt this is actually going to happen anytime soon. Pure intellectual exercise at this point.
Herr Wilkus	Posted - 2010.03.16 21:29:00 - [46] @Tarawa and Monkey I'm just not clear if Surrender Monkey doesn't want a 'floating' insurance scheme because he sincerely thinks it can't be done - or because he just likes insurance fraud. I just want a system where at NO point is it ever profitable to self-destruct a ship for ISK. As in: Player X has 100M ISK, insures and selfdestruct a few Ravens, ends up with 110M. Losing ships should always make your wallet go backwards - perhaps you get 80% back....perhaps you get 50% back....but you should always end up poorer after losing a ship, insurance or no. A dynamic system would allow mineral prices to find their floor, based on 'actual' demand - not the inflated, propped up, industrial fraud values.....
Block Ukx Forge Laboratories	Posted - 2010.03.17 00:39:00 - [47] Originally by: LHA Tarawa Do you honestly believe that enough people would cooperate to cause more than 50% of all minerals traded in a day to trade at an extremely elevated price? That is certainly the goal of the Mineral Reserve. You are welcome to join and invest today! BTW, it is not insurance fraud, it's called Insurance Exchange Rate (IER). I think it is very clear that the proposed change will definetly cause mineral prices to drop. Changing the insurance scheme IS NOT going to fix the main issue which is mineral extreme supply. Perhaps it is time roids go on strike! The easiest way for CCP to reduced supply is to lower re-spawn rate and loot drops. BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.17 01:20:00 - [48] Quote: I'm just not clear if Surrender Monkey doesn't want a 'floating' insurance scheme because he sincerely thinks it can't be done - or because he just likes insurance fraud. I sincerely think that the proposed floating insurance scheme would result in epic insurance fraud. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Herr Wilkus	Posted - 2010.03.17 08:36:00 - [49] I guess the way I look at it, is that if it CAN be done in a dynamic (ie, adjusts at DT) way - it SHOULD be done. If its not possible, the static insurance rates should just be continually adjusted downward until we hit bottom, whatever that might be.
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.17 09:22:00 - [50] Originally by: Block Ukx Originally by: LHA Tarawa Do you honestly believe that enough people would cooperate to cause more than 50% of all minerals traded in a day to trade at an extremely elevated price? That is certainly the goal of the Mineral Reserve. You are welcome to join and invest today! BTW, it is not insurance fraud, it's called Insurance Exchange Rate (IER). I think it is very clear that the proposed change will definetly cause mineral prices to drop. Changing the insurance scheme IS NOT going to fix the main issue which is mineral extreme supply. Perhaps it is time roids go on strike! The easiest way for CCP to reduced supply is to lower re-spawn rate and loot drops. In my opinion it's far easier to just nuke mineral price until it drops to the point where enough people stop mining and go do something else so that demand meets the supply. As opposed to using pretty clever voodoo when creating artifical scarity so that this does not create bigger problems than it is supposed to fix. Like for example having nothing to mine when you log in 4 hours after DT. Traders will get always their isk. If the minerals hit the new price floor then insurance .. khm .. Exchange Rate will be still done etc etc. Miners will be screwed perhaps - depends. EVE economy is pretty complex beast. On one side we have isk and another side materials. For example it is entirely possible that when miners start switching to missions en masse it will rise mineral prices above the new 'floor' as mineral supply decreases and mineral consumption (in the form of ammo) increases. Plus ofc the added isk from mission bounties and rewards, but I have got feeling that missionrunning is actually isk sink thanx to LP store. Or at least pretty close to neutral in isk fountain/sink terms. I am a bit sceptical tho if the ~30 % cut in mineral basket price is enough to actually stop enough miners.
Karadan Kaarwen	Posted - 2010.03.17 09:38:00 - [51] All of this makes for incredibly interesting reading. Unfortunately, my brain is in no way hard-wired to understand the intricacies of market fluctuations and inflation. I'll just take your word for it.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2010.03.17 10:34:00 - [52] Originally by: SephiXan Originally by: Tau Cabalander Originally by: cosmoray Is that what you miners want?? Less suicide ganking at any price As a miner, no, that's not what I want. I want CONCORD kills to be 0 insurance paid-out. Consequences. I would prefer insurance payouts encourage PvP, so either raising the payout or lowering the insurance cost sounds good to me. I've not done any analysis as to what this would do to the markets. I also would like more EHP on the Hulk, and a bigger drone bay and a drone damage bonus, but that is another matter. By voiding insurance on suicide ganking mineral prices will drop in their value. So you as a miner will be hurt, which is what this whole discussion is about. Players are stubbornly wanting voided insurance as they cannot accept their own losses, but they have no idea how it will affect the larger picture. Fact is that thanks to those suicide gankings the market is stable. Only times prices change is when CCP changes the game. I really don't think that there are enough suicide ganks going on right now (hell even during hulkageddon) to really affect the mineral market as a whole. and to most people the 3-5million isk throwaway gank cruiser is just that, throwaway.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.03.17 10:51:00 - [53] Quote: In my opinion it's far easier to just nuke mineral price until it drops to the point where enough people stop mining and go do something else so that demand meets the supply. Top sold ship in 2008 and beginning 2009 has been... not a Raven. Not some super-popular other ship. It's been the Hulk. Even in the last QEN Hulk is still in the top 3 (iirc). Due to the stack-ability of mining (i.e. can use several miners at the same time), driving away miners could have an economic impact that CCP is not willing to pay. Furthermore, there is a very, very serious problem unique to EvE. Excluding PvP, every single other EvE activity (covering the 70% of carebear player base) is long, repetitive, boring. Even PvP can be boring, and people actually log in their alts while their main is shooting at a POS or stuck waiting for new fleet orders. Removing ways to play just makes people less motivated. My industry alt spent my first game months doing mining ops and they were actually fun (people joking on ventrilo, moving around, splitting work...). Remove that, and the miner suddenly gets faced with stuff like: afk hauling. Afk industry of 2 buttons per 5 minutes a day. They cannot even mission, as miner stats are totally awful. And that's another afk and solo thing anyway. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Snorre Sturlasson	Posted - 2010.03.17 21:29:00 - [54] Link the insurance payout to an average mineral price basket, instead using this primitive system. I some gets 80% of the actual mineral value for a ship he can't make insurance fraud. But this system don't link the mineral prices to the insurance.
Nahkep Narmelion Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2010.03.18 07:00:00 - [55] Originally by: Snorre Sturlasson Link the insurance payout to an average mineral price basket, instead using this primitive system. I some gets 80% of the actual mineral value for a ship he can't make insurance fraud. But this system don't link the mineral prices to the insurance. No, the average is to easy to manipulate. The median on the other hand will be damned hard to manipulate in that you'd have to essentially move half of the distribution, and you'd have to do it for all the mins used in making a BS. In looking at the Sinq Laison market and if the 4B on the graph means 4 billion transactions....good luck trying to influence the tritanium price. Even for megacyte in Sinq Laison alone looks like there are over 1 million transactions on most days. And even if you do pump up the median price in Sinq you have to worry about people bringing in mins from Everyshore, Verge Vendor, Placid, and so forth. The bottom line is that the market is far, far deeper than any players wallet. And even if you did manage to drive up the price once you start selling the price would tumble....in other words your fabulous wealth would likely exist only on paper. If this does go into effect I imagine that even T2 would eventually feel the effects. People might very well switch over to datacores. If you are a mission runner and have a good faction standing getting in with the research corps wouldn't take much work and getting the right skills would allow you to earn a decent passive income. To the extent that the insurance change would induce more mission runners to do this, the price of datacores would decline meaning cheaper T2 modules. Of course, if mission runners and miners are already doing this, then the impact will be minimal.
Hunk O'Love	Posted - 2010.03.18 07:51:00 - [56] Could someone, please, enlighten me as to what would be the consequences if insurance was removed completely?
My Postman	Posted - 2010.03.18 10:00:00 - [57] Originally by: Hunk O'Love Could someone, please, enlighten me as to what would be the consequences if insurance was removed completely? Peope stop pewpewing each other. Noone needs a new ship anymore. Producers stop producing ships because they can¦t sell them anymore. So they don¦t need mins anymore to build ship. Miners stop mining cause they can¦t sell the mins anymore. Everyone (and his grandmother) is doing missions now, as it¦s the only "income" in the game, beside of ninja-salvaging. Traders dying, producers dying, miners dying, markets collapsing. Emoraging quitting from alliances, traders, producers, miners. Doing missions forever is boring as well, so now emo-rage quitting from missioneers. Only 500 Ninjas left. Start shooting each other, than emo-rage quit. Noone left. Last seen ship was tuxfords. He crashes the server. Noone cares. Eve is dead. Or something else happens, who knows. Hope this helps.
ChrisIsherwood	Posted - 2010.03.18 11:18:00 - [58] Originally by: Hunk O'Love Could someone, please, enlighten me as to what would be the consequences if insurance was removed completely? Assuming no other changes are made The price of minerals will drop. a lot. Whether they end up at 5 or 10 or 15% of current prices, nobody knows. Dramatically lower mineral prices would lower the price of anything built with minerals, e.g. ships. esp T1. There would be an especially turbulent time on either side of the patch. If you strongly suspect that your 120m Rokh is going to be worth < 20 mil by the end of the summer, you would be financially incompetent to not sell/self-destruct it before Tyr goes live, Nor would you buy ships after Tyr comes out until you had better insight on what the final number are. The ISK you get from destroying a ship in April might buy 5-15 ships in September. It would seem that summer combat will only come from the wealthy or stupid; why would you manufacture or buy something that is going to be worth a lot less pretty soon? As mining prices drop, then some miners will leave the game and others will do something else; that's what keeps minerals from going to zero. Presumably it will be the honest people who are more likely to cease mining; i.e. it will increase the % of miners who are b*ts. If the T2 materials don't drop as much, then increasing the cost of T2 ships over T1 will cause s higher % of people to fly T1. "May you live in interesting times." Actually, letting your account go inactive and come back after the Tyr.1 PI fixes are out and the market has settled down might be easiest.
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.18 11:29:00 - [59] Originally by: Hunk O'Love Could someone, please, enlighten me as to what would be the consequences if insurance was removed completely? Nothing too bad. T2 ships would get somewhat more popular. Blobs would get bigger, less solo and small gang stuff. It mostly would hurt new players. And people would do more logoffskis when faced with potential pvp situation. Or T1 ships would drop to so low levels that you could get hull of one for the current platinum insurance cost. Minerals might get so cheap that capitals might drop to the level where everyone and his dog could afford one. Let's say 300 mil carriers and 500 mil dreads or something like that. It would not be end of the world. Some pain - yes - and some shockwaves in the markets and economy until new equilibrium is found.
Twylla Gallente Central Logistics Management Group	Posted - 2010.03.18 11:40:00 - [60] The obvious solution is to 'unhinge' insurance dependence on a fixed value, and periodically (monthly? Every Downtime?) identify its own Mineral Index based off Jita and primary high-sec hubs. It's not like CCP doesn't take these metrics regularly anyway. A simple weighted average of combined purchase and sell orders should suffice, with an expected deviation trim to prevent people from putting up deliberate skew orders or sales. Once insured, the payout is fixed for the duration of the insurance period. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 Twylla DeVarii[-FNX-] APS Director of Operations Headquarters - Atier II

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.