EVE Search - Split up the Big T

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Split up the Big T

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:08:00 - [61] Originally by: Kallieah I'd like to see a well managed set of cute little EVEs, each with a sustainable population that represents a slice of the current population's total numbers. Won't happen. That's the whole problem: you seem to think that you can just divvy the current population up without any consideration of why the current population is what it is and what makes it sustainable. You're also confused about how your solution will "solve" lag. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Avon Caldari Versatech Co. Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:17:00 - [62] Originally by: Kallieah Taedrin and Avon thank you both for actually posing useful or constructive thoughts. I'll try to give you a worthwhile answer. Yeah, thanks for that. However, you may have missed that my post was a work of Socratic irony. Sharding Eve would solve nothing. You would have to invest in additional hardware (unless the shards are going to share things like proxy servers and databases) in order to support shards - and if you are just going to throw hardware at the problem you may as well throw it at the current cluster. The real limit is that a solar system is limited to the absolute performance of a single node, and that would apply if the game was sharded or not. The only "advantage" to a sharded system would be a lower average player count per solar system. Human nature, however, is going to make them come together .. and if you think that won't happen, and that a lower average player count per system is a solution to lag, add more systems. If you want to reduce lag you need to work at the game mechanics, not the server structure. It is far too easy for people to travel long distances in Eve in very little time, be it by trivial time to fly through space, or the ability to use jump clones. The problems in Eve stem from poor game design rather than poor hardware. As I have said many times before, the solution to a lot of Eve's problems would be the adoption of a more regionalised game design (as in Eve regions, not world regions), a larger integration of backstory to the game mechanics, penalties for high population systems, longer travel times, and a whole host of other changes which could make Eve not only perform better but also become a more deeply immersive game experience. Sharding is not going to fix fundamentally flawed design. Signature removed, please only use English on the forums. Zymurgist Okay sweet-cheeks xxx. Avon
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:17:00 - [63] Edited by: Kallieah on 29/04/2010 22:25:39 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Kallieah I'd like to see a well managed set of cute little EVEs, each with a sustainable population that represents a slice of the current population's total numbers. Won't happen. That's the whole problem: you seem to think that you can just divvy the current population up without any consideration of why the current population is what it is and what makes it sustainable. You're also confused about how your solution will "solve" lag. It might not happen. And you're right, I don't have a full or complete understanding of the situation even though I have a little background knowledge which might be useful. Part of the reason why I bothered to pose this admittedly tough question was to gather insight from other members of the shared community. Sure I expected silly accusations and insults, but there are people who will take the time to share insightful viewpoints both for and against the idea. Its those people that I want to interact with so that we can jointly make EVE better for everyone even if there's a resulting bitter pill to swallow. Sadly, there are prolly a few people afraid to post their thoughts out of fear of ridicule. Let's all do our best to encourge all points of view to be heard. Also, roasting marshmellows around a campfire while singing a certain unmentionable religiously oriented song would be fun too! Edit: Avon! Why did you have to post that awesome thought while I was typing on this awful thumb board? You might be right and if I'm not understanding how things work behind the scenes then maybe there's a better way. What I was initially thinking was that most players are fairly independent types who like to be self sufficient. With smaller overall numbers there just isn't the potential for huge fleet battles due to the myriad of different interests in EVE. But if something, anything can be done to force people to have smaller fleet battles besides lagging them out, I'd prefer it. I just think that any answer will only be a temporary solution that will work until the battles get larger and mechanics even may not limit that. EVE players are really good at breaking Big T.
AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:51:00 - [64] Edited by: AdmiralJohn on 29/04/2010 22:53:06 Originally by: Obsidian Hawk Originally by: Kallieah Hellow Im an alt in an alt alliance filled with alts and more alts. Im here trolling on my alt cause I love to make people mad because I have nothing better to do. Fixed! You know, I wish we were alts. We're not serious enough to have alts though, so take your bad-mouthing someplace where it's wanted. EDIT: We're srsly not alts, at least not in THUNK.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.29 23:25:00 - [65] Originally by: Kallieah make EVE better for everyone You still don't seem to be grasping the whole 'critical part of what makes EVE EVE' part. EVE isn't just one world to impress people with fancy numbers, it's so everyone who plays shares one world, one community, one history. All the stories you hear about, all the 'celebrities' you read about, that dip** on the forums you hate, all in one world. Ringing any bells here? EVE would lose one of its most important features if it was possible that, on reading about something like ISS, or the GHSC heist, or BoB's disbandment, that you could suddenly realise it happened in another instance of the game world and has no effect on you whatsoever. The meaning behind everything in the game would be diminished. Originally by:** Kallieah In the long run, I'm fairly sure that CCP will travel down this road. In the long run CCP are releasing a second game which will tie into the existing world. Rather than splitting up the world as you suggest, they are expanding it beyond the confines of a single game. They recognise the value of the unsharded world, and don't seem inclined to give it up over some technical issues. (Not that it would solve the technical issues, as explained by others) - I wish I was a two foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Josef Huffenpuff Caldari	Posted - 2010.04.29 23:27:00 - [66] Kallieah and others of like mind, It seems by the fact you are still posting here that you still havent got your head round the fact that what you propose ... 1. Is against the basic nature of what most of us like about eve. 2. Has been proposed so many times before that most of us are sick about hearing it, let alone explaing yet again why it won't work. 3. Won't work because despite everyone saying eve is a "single server" It is NOT. It is a cluster of multiple servers. Eve is effectively already "sharded". It is just that changing from one server (or shard if you prefer the term) to another is invisible to you - It happens whenever you jump systems. The absolutely fantastic thing about Eve is all these "shards" have a common Market and database of player characters, allowing us all to play in a single game universe. 4. You don't need to know the first thing about the program code to read multiple posts by CCP devs explaining that the limit of people on a single server is currently around 1400 characters and there is no way to split a single star system over multiple servers or CPU cores without a comple code re-write. Yes, lag is horrible. We all hate it and we all want CCP to magically fix it. But the truth is we will allways "blob" as long as having more numbers in a fight gives an advantage. Whenever CCP reduces lag, we as players just put more people into a system - me included, guilty as charged. Sharding isn't the solution.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:35:00 - [67] I think there's a basic misunderstanding in what I'm proposing here. Yes, EVE exists on multiple computers and I know that. So yes, it does act like it's a bunch of realms already and that's great, but it also allows everyone to go everywhere at any time. This is also good, but it causes the potential for lots of laggies that adversely impact the people who are driving the bulk of the player-created content, the nullsec empires. If there were cute widdle EVEs, you couldn't all go swarming into the same place at the same time like a bunch of lemmings and there wouldn't be the same laggies that everyone gets now, even with the exact same number of computers running multiple worlds. That's kinda what I'm getting at here and lotsa people keep missing what I kinda thought would be a pretty obvious solution. It might take some things away from EVE and I don't argue that, but I'd rather have smaller worlds (population I mean) with unique histories of their own versus one large broken one full of people who all hate the game because the big empires can't have the fleet fights they deserve.
Dan O'Connor Cerberus Network Dignitas.	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:39:00 - [68] So to conclude, I think I speak for many when I say: HTFU and it's never ever gonna happen. Ever. Splitting TQ up would defeat EVE's very definition of Sandbox. ________________________ Apply \| Channel CBSN Lounge
Lady Karma	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:40:00 - [69] :Elysium Alliance: When you create a troll thread, you are meant to back away from it, and let it develop. Not post even more stupid ideas every third post. Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? I think your alliance mates are convoing you right now, telling you to stop posting.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:44:00 - [70] Originally by: Lady Karma :Elysium Alliance: When you create a troll thread, you are meant to back away from it, and let it develop. Not post even more stupid ideas every third post. Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? I think your alliance mates are convoing you right now, telling you to stop posting. While I normally wouldn't bother with troll postings like this, I want to clear the air that this lag thing is a serious problem that warrants attention and someting that I'd like people to talk about in a mature, constructive fashion. Accusations of trolling, name calling, and other silliness doesn't add any value to the discussion. Please take the Negative Nancy stuff elsewhere.

Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:46:00 - [71] Originally by: Kallieah laa dee daa You are simply suggesting reducing EVE's population. That is bad for numerous reasons. Which have already been explained. Repeatedly. Nobody is missing anything, everyone understands what you are saying (better than you do it seems). Very few people, if any, hate the game due to lag; they have the option to quit, and yet are still here. The game is not broken, it merely has limitations. - I wish I was a two foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Lady Karma	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:48:00 - [72] Originally by: Kallieah While I normally wouldn't bother with troll postings like this, You were bothered enough to make a troll thread. Maybe next time search the forums a little, or play the game before coming up with "unique" ideas that completely defeat the point in having one galaxy. Check your in game mail, your alliance mates are cringing.
AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:50:00 - [73] Originally by: Lady Karma Originally by: Kallieah While I normally wouldn't bother with troll postings like this, You were bothered enough to make a troll thread. Maybe next time search the forums a little, or play the game before coming up with "unique" ideas that completely defeat the point in having one galaxy. Check your in game mail, your alliance mates are cringing. I promoted Kallicakes for the great idea, so stop spreading lies.
Lady Karma	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:53:00 - [74] Originally by: AdmiralJohn I promoted Kallicakes for the great idea, so stop spreading lies.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:53:00 - [75] If I have 12 units of population in one location and divide them into three locations, I still have an overall 12 units. To each location it may seem as though there are fewer, but if you take a broader view, there's been effectively no change. Some people feel this is a reduction and while it would be that you'd experience fewer people and broaden your chances to explore a universe that isn't as depleted as the current one. So yes, you'd see fewer people, but CCP would not and really, population matters most to CCP, not to the community.
GavinGoodrich Destry's Lounge Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:56:00 - [76] Edited by: GavinGoodrich on 30/04/2010 00:56:00 /me splits up the big T /isn't sure whether to log into I or _ halp! \o
Josef Huffenpuff Caldari	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:59:00 - [77] Originally by: Kallieah I think there's a basic misunderstanding in what I'm proposing here. Yes, EVE exists on multiple computers and I know that. So yes, it does act like it's a bunch of realms already and that's great, but it also allows everyone to go everywhere at any time. Theres no misunderstanding. It doesnt matter how many eve universes you create, people will still crowd into a single star system for a fight - creating lag. "Sharding" doesnt fix this - but it does make for less people in each game universe and removes arguably the BEST feature of eve which is its single universe.
You'wot	Posted - 2010.04.30 01:04:00 - [78] I always wondered why the region can't be single servers so to speak. I know everything is sharded already but I'm not sure if its the same thing as physically having a designated single server setup. Surely if MMO's like WoW etc can run with 5-10k people per server, 1 region per server in EVE could be doable. Have big gates that connect the servers together, ie log you out of your current region (server) and into the next one. I'd gladly wait a minute or two to change servers if it helped the game run better. Obviously I know nothing about the technical side of things lol, it's just a thought.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 01:07:00 - [79] Originally by: Josef Huffenpuff It doesnt matter how many eve universes you create, people will still crowd into a single star system for a fight - creating lag. "Sharding" doesnt fix this - but it does make for less people in each game universe and removes arguably the BEST feature of eve which is its single universe. But I think it does. If there are fewer overall people, the potential for a monster-lag-level gathering is lowered by sheer numbers. Of the 60k people logged in, 800 if them is a mere drop in the bucket. Of say 8k that's a much larger percentage so the potential for it to happen is much reduced.
Ffuantu Grym Flimflam Productions	Posted - 2010.04.30 02:59:00 - [80] Originally by: Kallieah And, by the way, I know its not the only solution. Second Life is all one world and even Hello Kitty that you guys constantly bash only has one, lag-free world. We don't bash Hello Kitty Online, we love it! That's why we always reccommend it to everybody.

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2010.04.30 03:17:00 - [81] Onyxia raid in 30 minutes, Kallieah get online on your server, which is hopefully my server.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2010.04.30 03:21:00 - [82] Quote: TQ should be divided into multiple, smaller server things Troll post confirmed.
Wolfgang Jager Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2010.04.30 03:24:00 - [83] Signing off this thread, because clearly you just don't get it. The single unified world is a huge part of what makes EVE work for most players. To many of us, "no big battles" = boring; no mass of player traders to drive market scams and economic warfare = boring, no huge alliances to have stupid space drama = boring. The idea that I missed out on a massive capital fleet battle because I was in some other part of the universe is compelling and makes me interested, missing out because it was on "another shard" makes it meaningless. You clearly aren't wired such that you comprehend this and aren't going to shift on it no matter how many people club you over it. Thankfully, if there is one thing CCP gets, this is it. What you propose would kill EVE in the space of months and CCP knows it.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 04:00:00 - [84] Originally by: Super Whopper Onyxia raid in 30 minutes, Kallieah get online on your server, which is hopefully my server. I don't play that particular game. Though, unlike lots of people, I don't feel that people who do are lower life forms. It's entertainment, after all. Well now that we've gotten past a lot of people who are upset about this idea, is it possible to talk specifics about what can be done to make things better? I think I've been pretty specific about why I think breaking Big T into little EVEs would be better in the long run and I don't believe that it'll stop most people from playing. There's usually a forum rage over just about any change proposed and threats of quitting or declarations that EVE will die. Obviously that hasn't happened yet so I seriously doubt that the doom and gloom that is supposed to happen from a change like this would actually come about. We'll have to wait and see when it happens anyway. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2010.04.30 04:18:00 - [85] I do have to agree with one thing. The OP's solution would solve the lag issues. After all, a game with 0 subscribers won't lag at all. --Vel Originally by: Jiseinoku Mining is the path to enlightement.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.04.30 04:23:00 - [86] Originally by: Kallieah But I think it does. If there are fewer overall people, the potential for a monster-lag-level gathering is lowered by sheer numbers. Of the 60k people logged in, 800 if them is a mere drop in the bucket. Of say 8k that's a much larger percentage so the potential for it to happen is much reduced. People will go where the fights are. With 8k people, you can have more fights with fewer people in them since you can have three or four effective alliances holding space. With three alliances, you can potentially have three fronts to fight on (unless two alliances have a NAP, in which case it's A+B vc C on two fronts). With 6k people, you'll end up with two alliances, so all the people looking for a fight only have one front to pick from. There is no lag through the rest of the cluster, only in those star systems hosted on the same server as a 800-per-side fleet fight. The way to solve the lag is not to create fewer fleet fights by reducing the number of people. The way to solve the lag is to create an incentive to have more simultaneous fleet fights in different star systems. It's not Tranquility that needs to be split up into pieces to address the lag, it's the sovereignty mechanic. Rather than TCUs and SBUs, I propose that an IHUB is the core of SOV. A Sovereignty claim allows the alliance to control who can use a star gate. Challenging SOV is done using a "Stargate Interdiction Modulator" on either side of a star gate (since each gate is a pair of structures connected by the one wormhole). This module is fitted to a ship and works something like a cyno crossed with a codebreaker. The ship is disabled for 20 minutes while activating the module, the module requires the ship be targetting the stargate. Interdiction will reduce the capacity of the stargate. Each stargate will have a "capacity", "capacity recovery" (first order derivative of capacity) and "interdiction modulation" (second order derivative of capacity). The interdiction modulator affects the interdiction modulation parameter. Successful interdiction of a stargate requires reducing "capacity" to some threshold level (eg: 10% of maximum capacity). Sovereignty would then be claimed by building up the various indexes as are done at present. An infrastructure hub would only be onlined when all stargates in a system are at 100% effectiveness - thus ensuring that a fleet is required to guard all access to a system for some hours in order to secure the system for deployment of the IHUB. Each TCU (only anchorable on-grid with a stargate) can claim control over one stargate. TCUs can only be onlined after an IHUB is put in place. Once a stargate has been interdicted, the TCU's control of the gate is broken (the TCU goes offline). Each stargate controlled by a TCU can be configured by the alliance to allow only certain traffic through. Each index in a system affects a property of the stargate - military index increases base capacity, industrial index increases the base recovery rate, exploration index reduces the impact of interdiction modulators. Thus challenging SOV in a heavily defended system will require several fleets dedicated to the job of interdicting stargates in the first instance, forcing attacking fleets to split up to interdict gates and defend interdictors from attacking forces. How's that for ten minutes work? [Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES]
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.04.30 04:31:00 - [87] PS: note that none of these structures are ever invulnerable except for stargates. Once an IHUB is anchored, anyone can shoot it and do damage to it. Once a TCU is anchored, anyone can shoot it and do damage to it. The reliance of the sov mechanic on indexes means that the alliance needs to encourage people to be active in their systems doing all manner of activities - not just for the sake of raising indexes, but as a means of hardening their system to enemy attacks. This also opens the way for challenging the sovereignty of NPC space, be it Serpentis or Amarr. The Empires have CONCORD to help them of course, but they are handicapped by not being able to restrict passage through stargates as part of that accord. Though perhaps blinky red -10s might find passage through Empire space isn't all that easy anymore. Restricting the capacity of stargates might also have an impact on the market in Jita - when the physical infrastructure simply can't handle the load of that many freighters jumping through, no more freighters can jump through. I imagine a similar effect would be felt in Motsu or other heavily exploited mission hubs. To me, this has a more sandboxy feel to it than any suggestion of splitting up Tranquility into separate universes. [Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES]
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 04:41:00 - [88] Edited by: Kallieah on 30/04/2010 04:43:00 Mara, I think you actually have a pretty elegant solution to the problem. There's a couple questions I had though. Won't guarding access to a system for several hours present a problem over downtime? Combat would have to start early and be resolved in a reasonable period of time to allow enough time to beat Big T being turned off. Also, allowing people to mess around with highsec gates may outrage the biggest segment of the game population, the highsec dwellers. Those people literally fund EVE so that the much smaller segment of the community who engage in massive fleet combat can have their space in which to play. It's a bad idea to alienate that much corporate income. The other thing I wanted to highlight is that if there were a hypothetical 8k PCU, the driving population would be a lot larger and more diverse than your example. While PvP would be a lot more appealing to more people, there would still be a large number of corps and alliances in the game all doing their own thing all at once. Some of those would, like in the EVE we have today, have zero interest in PvP and wouldn't contribute to the overall lag issue. They'd continue to run missions, haul goods, mine in belts, macro missions, harass each other, or station spin like always so I contend that an 8k PCU realm would indeed not suffer from noticable lag unless a decidated effort were made by a large segment of the population for the sole purpose of making a point that I'm wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if that happened, but the chances are pretty slim. Edit - typos Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2010.04.30 05:01:00 - [89] Edited by: Super Whopper on 30/04/2010 05:01:57 Originally by: Kallieah I think I've been pretty specific about why I think breaking Big T into little EVEs would be better in the long run and I don't believe that it'll stop most people from playing. There's usually a forum rage over just about any change proposed and threats of quitting or declarations that EVE will die. Obviously that hasn't happened yet so I seriously doubt that the doom and gloom that is supposed to happen from a change like this would actually come about. We'll have to wait and see when it happens anyway. Why don't you go play on Serenity for a bit and find out what it's like to have 5000 people online only? I will even give you the login details of one of my accounts. On Serenity a single person can claim entire constellations and there's nobody who will contest you, simply because there aren't enough people there to begin with. You have no idea what drives EVE and what makes EVE great, so, do us all a favour and attend my Onyxia raid and don't quit that game. But, before you ragequit over your ignorance, can I haz ur stuffz? Doubt you have anything of value but it's all worth refining.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.04.30 05:08:00 - [90] Originally by: Kallieah Won't guarding access to a system for several hours present a problem over downtime? I'm quite capable of getting back into EVE within 5 minutes of downtime, since that's during my peak gaming time during the week. If it only takes two players from an alliance to have a presence in local to deter the two players from the other alliance from attempting to interdict a gate, that gate is guarded :) Quote: Also, allowing people to mess around with highsec gates may outrage the biggest segment of the game population, the highsec dwellers. It may anger some, but it will mean markets get split up and open opportunities for smaller players to get into the market themselves. Good luck to folks trying to claim sovereignty in Empire space while CONCORD is still around though :) Quote: ... I contend that an 8k PCU realm would indeed not suffer from noticable lag unless a decidated effort were made by a large segment of the population for the sole purpose of making a point that I'm wrong. There is no lag that I'm aware of outside systems that are overcrowded for the processor they're currently sitting on, or grids that have too many ships. Motsu and Frarn come to mind as systems where there are unusually large numbers of mission-runners, so the system gets lagged due to the sheer number of folks in that system. People will cluster in a system until the lag gets too much for them to handle. The reason they're there is that there's something to be there for - good collection of Caldari Navy agents in Motsu, very good Brutor Tribe agent and storyline in Frarn. Jita is where all the people go because it all the people go to Jita. People keep piling in there until their game crashes trying to load the system, then they spend the next few days trying to get out. Reducing the number of concurrent players will reduce lag in those instances, but only because with fewer players in that universe there's no reason to go to Jita because there is no market. Jita is a big market not because there are thousands of people online using it, but also because there a thousands more people who do their trading through Jita remotely. It's the place to go because that's where everyone goes. So too with fleet fights - reducing the population will not reduce lag in fleet fights. People start a fight, call in reinforcements, and eventually you'll have everyone from fifty jumps around trying to warp onto the one grid. People go to fights because that's where people are. If there were more fleet fights required when two alliances are warring, those people looking for a fight would be spread out over multiple fights, each one as exciting and necessary as the other. Reducing the population will solve lag problems by reducing the amount of interaction that is possible in the game. With less interaction, there will be fewer people interested in staying around, and the population will dissipate (to other games which reward solo play). What makes EVE attractive to many people is the fact that it is one universe where all the players interact whenever they want to. If you have a friend who plays EVE, you don't have to ask "which server are you on?" If you get a friend interested in playing EVE, you don't have to warn them, "oh! Make sure you create a character on Tranquility, not Solace!" [Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES]



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: 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.