EVE Search - It needs to be said, don't nerf the Drake

All Channels

Ships and Modules

It needs to be said, don't nerf the Drake

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Korg Leaf Time Bandits.	Posted - 2010.10.27 12:37:00 - [31] Edited by: Korg Leaf on 27/10/2010 12:43:45 Originally by: Aerilis Two biggest (false) arguments why the Drake shouldn't be nerfed: Yeah, it's tanky, but it has sucky DPS! HAM Drake does nearly 700 DPS out to 20km. HML Drake does more DPS than any other BC at long ranges. OK, so it has amazing Tank and DPS. But because you use your mid-slots for shield tanking, it doesn't have tackle or utility! Wrong again. Drake has 6 mid slots. That means you can fit a prop mod, 3 tank mods, and still have 2 utility slots. In other words, MWD, point, web, and still have over 80k EHP. Try doing that with another battlecruiser. Hurricane has 4 mid slots, and people still prefer to shield tank it. Although its dps is good 700dps out to 20km with hams is a overstatement as the range is closer to 17km in game and 700dps is overheated. The 80k buffer is only achievable with that dps number you quoted using implants admittedly only a powergrid implant and a ham damage implant edit. thought I better add this, the drake is a good bc, arguably the best but is not that much better than the others or as good as them in other situations either.
Jimmy Duce Navy of Xoc	Posted - 2010.10.27 12:47:00 - [32] To explain, the HAM drake is a good ship, the HML drake is also a good ship. It is NOT an overpowered ship. The close range BCs outdps the drake below the far ranges in both HML and HAM setups. At the extremes the drake wins, it is SUPPOSED to win. To continue the argument is the raven overpowered? If it is not then neither is the drake. You can get a raven to ~500 dps out to over 200km and have 100KEHP. OMGOMGOMG nerf the ravens. Leave the damn Caldari ships alone and do something with the ROOT of the problem. MISSILES CAUSE LAG.
Bomberlocks Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2010.10.27 13:05:00 - [33] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Oneiros IV Strength of a drake (and some other popular ships) is in being coherent around job it does, it has just enough slots, cpu and pg, no-nonsense bonuses and fits perfectly to realistic combat situations. While dozens other ships either have some flaw forcing pilot to go for serious tradeoffs or having some meaningless bonus. I think Eve would be a better place if there were more ships like the Drake. The severe lack of fittings on some ships is horribly frustrating (Hi Omen!) -Liang Do an google search for "eve adolf ehrnrooth". He flies mostly solo Omens and is pretty damn good at killing stuff in them.
DeadEye2010 Caldari Manchurian Universal	Posted - 2010.10.27 13:17:00 - [34] [Drake, Drake - bs pvp killer] Capacitor Flux Coil I Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Invulnerability Field II Explosion Dampening Field II Ballistic Deflection Field II Photon Scattering Field II Heat Dissipation Field II 10MN Digital Booster Rockets Micro S95a Partial Shield Transporter Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Hobgoblin II Granted this is for my skills not all 5
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2010.10.27 13:53:00 - [35] Quote: 10MN Digital Booster Rockets Hello clueless EFT warrior. _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS...
Korg Leaf Time Bandits.	Posted - 2010.10.27 14:00:00 - [36] Originally by: DeadEye2010 [Drake, Drake - bs pvp killer] Capacitor Flux Coil I Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Invulnerability Field II Explosion Dampening Field II Ballistic Deflection Field II Photon Scattering Field II Heat Dissipation Field II 10MN Digital Booster Rockets Micro S95a Partial Shield Transporter Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Hobgoblin II Granted this is for my skills not all 5 Thats a fairly poor HAM Drake fit Low Slots Choice of 3x Ballistic Control System 1x Power Diagnostic System 3x Ballistic Control System 1x Damage Control (one above requires implant) 2x Ballistic Control System 1x Power Diagnostic System 1x Damage Control Mid Slots 1x 10mn Microwarpdrive 1x Large Shield Extender 2x Invul Field 1x Web 1x Scram High Slots 7x HAMs Rigs 2x Core Shield Defense Extender 1x EM Rig Drones to taste Fit as much tech 2 as your skills allow
Andrea Griffin	Posted - 2010.10.27 17:51:00 - [37] It needs to be said: Post your "Don't Nerf the Drake" content into the thread that matters. Fix Rockets in ~~'08~~ ~~'09~~ ~~2010~~ ~~2011~~ 2012?!
Kara Jorin	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:17:00 - [38] Interesting take....
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:35:00 - [39] Originally by: Kara Jorin Interesting take.... I take it that's your blog since you're cross posting it so much? Like I said before - it's got a flawed methodology which leads to a flawed conclusion. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
Kara Jorin	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:29:00 - [40] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Kara Jorin Interesting take.... I take it that's your blog since you're cross posting it so much? Like I said before - it's got a flawed methodology which leads to a flawed conclusion. -Liang Because you said in the other thread you didn't like the ships he was comparing. Really if that's your only *****, you missed the point entirely. He's not pointing out how much better the drake is vs the myrm. He's making a point about shield tanking. Reading comprehension ftw. And I posted it in both threads because they were both talking about the Drake being nerfed.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:35:00 - [41] Originally by: Kara Jorin Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Kara Jorin Interesting take.... I take it that's your blog since you're cross posting it so much? Like I said before - it's got a flawed methodology which leads to a flawed conclusion. -Liang Because you said in the other thread you didn't like the ships he was comparing. Really if that's your only ***, you missed the point entirely. He's not pointing out how much better the drake is vs the myrm. He's making a point about shield tanking. Reading comprehension ftw. And I posted it in both threads because they were both talking about the Drake being nerfed. There's a few problems here: - You're cross posting. - He didn't isolate variables - He didn't use appropriate comparisons - His conclusion doesn't even logically follow. Really, he'd have been better off just stating his conclusion instead of trying to build it on top of extremely faulty logic. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:45:00 - [42] I'm really confused as to how you got so many points right in that article, and yet your conclusion was "shield tanking is too powerful." Really now? Giving you the benefit of the doubt (as you're a wormhole player and judging by fits a PvE player primarily) that's a bit on the ignorant side. Shield tanking has been all but avoided due to inferior buffer stats (wtb shield slave set and 1600mm shield extender), a problem fitting remote reps on any non-caldari hull (huge cpu cost that only caldari hulls seem to be able to deal with in practice, while armor reps fit on anything, caldari ships included, although they are terrible in armor fleets), and fleet acclimation of launchers (since a lot of shield tanked ships out there use them) with a mostly turret gang. I admire the effort you put into writing that up because it's more than most are willing to do before they cry nerf, but you do need to have a lookise at the preset configurations that surround the drake before you go identifying it's overwhelming strength as a universal factor of shield tanking (In much the same way I think Liang wants to blame HML range). Bluntly, you had it correct near the end, drakes are currently **ting on HACs and that's making people unhappy. Once battleship pilots grow a pair they'll run over the drakes and the fotm spell will be broken. Voila, no more wide-spread drake fleets and drakes will go back to being "that newb ship." What we are seeing here is a critical mass of drake useage brough on by an all time high abuse of ahac and supercap drops to **, pillage, and plunder any large battleship gang.
TheMahdi	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:00:00 - [43] I'm noticing a familiar style to a certain poster that is suspiciously similar to several other certain posters that are also supporting former posters arguments in almost the same fashion without much deviation. protip: using alts to support your posts is just pathetic.
SheriffFruitfly Caldari	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:11:00 - [44] Main problem with nerfing drake is that it takes away a "rock" from the rockpaperscissors game. Drake nerf = armor hac gangs mostly unchallenged. In reality, it doesn't matter though. Just like the good 'ol BECAUSE OF FALCON whiner days, I fully expect the BECAUSE OF DRAKE whiners to win, and drake will get nerfed. __________________________________________________________ Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:13:00 - [45] Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 27/10/2010 21:14:35 Originally by: TheMahdi I'm noticing a familiar style to a certain poster that is suspiciously similar to several other certain posters that are also supporting former posters arguments in almost the same fashion without much deviation. protip: using alts to support your posts is just pathetic. Pathetic is lacking the ability to communicate your thoughts and ideas into written, spoken, or typed format. Your avatar definitely lends you credibility though (your killboard... not so much).
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide.	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:15:00 - [46] Originally by: SheriffFruitfly Main problem with nerfing drake is that it takes away a "rock" from the rockpaperscissors game. Drake nerf = armor hac gangs mostly unchallenged. In reality, it doesn't matter though. Just like the good 'ol BECAUSE OF FALCON whiner days, I fully expect the BECAUSE OF DRAKE whiners to win, and drake will get nerfed. So you believe the older Falcon wasn't overpowered? ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Jimmy Duce Navy of Xoc	Posted - 2010.10.27 22:21:00 - [47] The old falcon was a bit over powered:D 200+km jamming range was well outrageous, the nerf hammer was a bit too rough on it and I say that as someone who has never flown a falcon and probably never will, the new rook does tickle my fancy though. The people who say the drake needs a nerf often bring up it's damage @ long ranges, and well as I've said missiles should be able to do damage at extreme ranges. Change to mid or close range ammo and the other ships win. That is how they were supposed to be built.
Kraschyn Thek'athor	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:14:00 - [48] I have nothing against the fact that Drakes have long range. But EHP in the range of a BS doing this is to much. Compare the number of stat-increase mods (Targeting Range, Grid increase) you have to push into a Harbinger or Hurricane for long range. Compared to other BCs, Drakes are without fitting problems. Other BCs have to equip one side, loosing the other side. They have to balance, they have to make choices. Drakes choice? Scram or not.
Jimmy Duce Navy of Xoc	Posted - 2010.10.28 00:06:00 - [49] Originally by: Kraschyn Thek'athor I have nothing against the fact that Drakes have long range. But EHP in the range of a BS doing this is to much. Compare the number of stat-increase mods (Targeting Range, Grid increase) you have to push into a Harbinger or Hurricane for long range. Compared to other BCs, Drakes are without fitting problems. Other BCs have to equip one side, loosing the other side. They have to balance, they have to make choices. Drakes choice? Scram or not. This is not a drake specific problem this is a Caldari "problem". Have u ever tried to fit a raven for pvp? Scroll up just ever so slightly. Compare the Cruise raven with any stupid turret sniper, really do it I dare you.
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.10.28 01:20:00 - [50] Originally by: Jimmy Duce This is not a drake specific problem this is a Caldari "problem". Have u ever tried to fit a raven for pvp? Scroll up just ever so slightly. Compare the Cruise raven with any stupid turret sniper, really do it I dare you. This. Seriously, to everyone who wants drakes/missiles nerfed, how many of you bitter vets forgot about BURN EDEN using cruise ravens (I would assume they still do) to jibb targets at max range with damps running and a single well-timed hero tackler? The tactic still works, it has always worked, and that's one of the perks of missile launchers: predictable damage projection to long range WITH A BIG DELAY. What you're also forgetting is that fleet commanders CHOSE to take turret ships instead because INSTANT damage is OVERWHELMINGLY more useful in a fleet setting when you just cannot perfectly land tackles on targets one by one to allow for that huge delay to wind down and the damage to land. As soon as the numbers ramped up high enough, even BE had to pack their **** and get out. Debat if you will just how devstating that tactic could be on a much large scale than BE ever used, but there are major drawbacks to the weapon system. Please stop pretending that missiles just fell out of the sky with some new buff that made them OP.
Aerilis Gallente Percussive Diplomacy	Posted - 2010.10.28 03:36:00 - [51] Originally by: Korg Leaf Edited by: Korg Leaf on 27/10/2010 12:43:45 Originally by: Aerilis Two biggest (false) arguments why the Drake shouldn't be nerfed: Yeah, it's tanky, but it has sucky DPS! HAM Drake does nearly 700 DPS out to 20km. HML Drake does more DPS than any other BC at long ranges. OK, so it has amazing Tank and DPS. But because you use your mid-slots for shield tanking, it doesn't have tackle or utility! Wrong again. Drake has 6 mid slots. That means you can fit a prop mod, 3 tank mods, and still have 2 utility slots. In other words, MWD, point, web, and still have over 80k EHP. Try doing that with another battlecruiser. Hurricane has 4 mid slots, and people still prefer to shield tank it. Although its dps is good 700dps out to 20km with hams is a overstatement as the range is closer to 17km in game and 700dps is overheated. The 80k buffer is only achievable with that dps number you quoted using implants admittedly only a powergrid implant and a ham damage implant edit. thought I better add this, the drake is a good bc, arguably the best but is not that much better than the others or as good as them in other situations either. Actually, not really. This is the setup I was referring to, it only requires a 1% PWG implant. Originally by: drake [Drake, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile [empty high slot] Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Hobgoblin II x5 677 DPS (779 overheated) 80k EHP (90k overheated) Don't want to use any implants at all? That's fine too. Originally by: drake [Drake, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile [empty high slot] Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Hobgoblin II x5 613 DPS (703 overheated) 86k EHP (97k overheated)
Jimmy Duce Navy of Xoc	Posted - 2010.10.28 03:41:00 - [52] Originally by: Aerilis words Please take your HAM drake and shove it. This is about the heavy missile drake being overpowered and needing a nerf. My current statement is that a raven can do 500+ dps @ 220+km. That is WAY more than any other sniper BS. If this is not over powered then the heavy missile drake is not over powered and should BE LEFT THE HELL ALONE.
Roosterton Internet Spaceship Raiders	Posted - 2010.10.28 04:41:00 - [53] Edited by: Roosterton on 28/10/2010 04:43:03 Originally by: Jimmy Duce Originally by: Aerilis words Please take your HAM drake and shove it. This is about the heavy missile drake being overpowered and needing a nerf. My current statement is that a raven can do 500+ dps @ 220+km. That is WAY more than any other sniper BS. If this is not over powered then the heavy missile drake is not over powered and should BE LEFT THE HELL ALONE. This. And please, anyone who's ever PVPed should be able to see that Angel ships are in need of a far bigger nerf than Drakes. -------- Enemy corps raided into disbandment: Three. Originally by: Tarminic OH MY GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.10.28 06:20:00 - [54] Originally by: Roosterton Originally by: Jimmy Duce Originally by: Aerilis words Please take your HAM drake and shove it. This is about the heavy missile drake being overpowered and needing a nerf. My current statement is that a raven can do 500+ dps @ 220+km. That is WAY more than any other sniper BS. If this is not over powered then the heavy missile drake is not over powered and should BE LEFT THE HELL ALONE. This. And please, anyone who's ever PVPed should be able to see that Angel ships are in need of a far bigger nerf than Drakes. While I'm not going to argue about Angel ships, I am going to say there's a world of difference between 15 and 30 seconds of flight time. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
Korg Leaf Time Bandits.	Posted - 2010.10.28 07:55:00 - [55] Edited by: Korg Leaf on 28/10/2010 07:57:18 Originally by: Aerilis quotes Ok i was wrong about needing the 3% implant (im used to using the tech 2 extender not the meta 4 one). The damage numbers you quote are still wrong using rage hams your range is closer to 13-15km depending on opponents speed and you need to web them to have a chance of doing near full damage. You also quote dps numbers using either the 5% all damage implant or the 5% Ham Damage Implant without them its 744 oh (not a huge difference but still less than my cane fit without heat). Anyway when you first started this whole nerf drake discussion the HAM drake wasnt the problem, you were mentioning the HML Drake gangs in 0.0 and if we look at missile damage on them your looking around 470dps with heat and no drones, not exactly huge. edit. making it less wall of texty
Noemi Nagano	Posted - 2010.10.28 08:52:00 - [56] In my opinion the Drake is OP in lagblob fleet fights in comparison to AHACs. It should not be OP at all with proper counters, and it is not OP in comparison to other BC in every other use than a) PvE and b) 0.0 lagblob fleet. I cant see a reason to nerf it or its weapon system, since it works balanced in all other scenarios. Personally I see other ships much more in need of a nerf than the Drake, it has not been changed for a long time and its just lag which make it OP in 0.0 fleet fights.
Aerilis Gallente Percussive Diplomacy	Posted - 2010.10.28 09:35:00 - [57] Originally by: Jimmy Duce Originally by: Aerilis words Please take your HAM drake and shove it. This is about the heavy missile drake being overpowered and needing a nerf. My current statement is that a raven can do 500+ dps @ 220+km. That is WAY more than any other sniper BS. If this is not over powered then the heavy missile drake is not over powered and should BE LEFT THE HELL ALONE. HML Drake does 561 DPS (462 without drones) out to 75km. Raven has more range, yes, but it's missiles are so slow that they start becoming a serious drawback. The 10 second delay with drakes isn't bad, with Ravens at extreme range you're dealing with something like 30 seconds flight times. Add to this fact that the Drake is faster and more agile, has higher resists (works better with logi) and is a smaller target, and you'll realize that in pretty much anything outside of a POS bash the Drake is actually better than a Raven. What's your argument now? Originally by: Korg Leaf Edited by: Korg Leaf on 28/10/2010 07:57:18 Originally by: Aerilis quotes Ok i was wrong about needing the 3% implant (im used to using the tech 2 extender not the meta 4 one). The damage numbers you quote are still wrong using rage hams your range is closer to 13-15km depending on opponents speed and you need to web them to have a chance of doing near full damage. You also quote dps numbers using either the 5% all damage implant or the 5% Ham Damage Implant without them its 744 oh (not a huge difference but still less than my cane fit without heat). Anyway when you first started this whole nerf drake discussion the HAM drake wasnt the problem, you were mentioning the HML Drake gangs in 0.0 and if we look at missile damage on them your looking around 470dps with heat and no drones, not exactly huge. edit. making it less wall of texty Nope, no missile implants used. And range is 18km. And 470 DPS is enormous at the ranges we're talking about.
Korg Leaf Time Bandits.	Posted - 2010.10.28 09:38:00 - [58] Edited by: Korg Leaf on 28/10/2010 09:41:55 Originally by: Aerilis Originally by: Jimmy Duce Originally by: Aerilis words Please take your HAM drake and shove it. This is about the heavy missile drake being overpowered and needing a nerf. My current statement is that a raven can do 500+ dps @ 220+km. That is WAY more than any other sniper BS. If this is not over powered then the heavy missile drake is not over powered and should BE LEFT THE HELL ALONE. HML Drake does 561 DPS (462 without drones) out to 75km. Raven has more range, yes, but it's missiles are so slow that they start becoming a serious drawback. The 10 second delay with drakes isn't bad, with Ravens at extreme range you're dealing with something like 30 seconds flight times. Add to this fact that the Drake is faster and more agile, has higher resists (works better with logi) and is a smaller target, and you'll realize that in pretty much anything outside of a POS bash the Drake is actually better than a Raven. What's your argument now? Originally by: Korg Leaf Edited by: Korg Leaf on 28/10/2010 07:57:18 Originally by: Aerilis quotes Ok i was wrong about needing the 3% implant (im used to using the tech 2 extender not the meta 4 one). The damage numbers you quote are still wrong using rage hams your range is closer to 13-15km depending on opponents speed and you need to web them to have a chance of doing near full damage. You also quote dps numbers using either the 5% all damage implant or the 5% Ham Damage Implant without them its 744 oh (not a huge difference but still less than my cane fit without heat). Anyway when you first started this whole nerf drake discussion the HAM drake wasnt the problem, you were mentioning the HML Drake gangs in 0.0 and if we look at missile damage on them your looking around 470dps with heat and no drones, not exactly huge. edit. making it less wall of texty Nope, no missile implants used. And range is 18km. And 470 DPS is enormous at the ranges we're talking about. I think you will find the eft range is 18.1km as it doesnt take into account missile acceleration and unless they have changed hams recently that damage number you quoted is incorrect without at least one implant according to the latest eft. Plus for rage hams you still need to web the target to do near full damage and thats only to bc and up
Jimmy Duce Navy of Xoc	Posted - 2010.10.28 12:21:00 - [59] Bears repeating Drakes are not IMBA!!! ingame mechanisms, battleships none the less, still a counter as they should be Don't nerf the drakes!!!
Htrag The Carebear Stare Hydroponic Zone	Posted - 2010.10.28 13:33:00 - [60] Originally by: Jimmy Duce There are many reasons these include. 1) It is not overpowered, it has a mean tank and weak dps that is a fair tradeoff 2) It is not the issue, the issue is missiles. ANY missile ship would cause the lag problem, fix the part that missiles cause lag. 3) When random mission runner logs on and his drake can no longer tank lvl 4's or kill that stupid BS at the end of Vengeance then what? This. CCP used to only nerf stuff due to forum whining on an occasional basis. Now it seems like their defacto balancing criteria.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.