EVE Search - The CSM wants to get rid of Jump Bridges.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

The CSM wants to get rid of Jump Bridges.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Skex Relbore Gallente Skexcorp	Posted - 2011.01.27 17:04:00 - [481] Edited by: Skex Relbore on 27/01/2011 17:08:27 This proposal is not the first indication that CCP wants to tell people that they are "sandboxing wrong". The NPC Corp tax was and I wonder which side of that debate the various posters in this thread were. Those of us who opposed that change did so based on the fact that it was only justified by the idea that CCP wanted people in player corporations and were willing to change the game to "encourage" them. Actually I know one, Ephemeron has shown a consistent willingness to ask CCP to force others to accomidate his playstyle. As such he's supported every half brained idea that would somehow make the game "hardcore" (Translated provide him with easy targets) that comes along. From the NPC corp tax to removal of L4's from highsec so I'm completely unsurprised he would support this one. Then we get this proposal to break up large coalitions by making logistics more difficult, another attempt to force certain behaviors in gameplay through mechanics. The NPC corp tax set a bad precedent of CCP using game mechanics to force gameplay choices on the player there by breaking the sandbox model. Removal of a functional gameplay mechanic that is working exactly as designed would be yet one more step down that slippery slope of themeparkdom. Too all the supporters of this nonsense Fin has soundly thrashed you in this debate no matter how much your little intellects think you have faired against him. I've only recently decided to give Null a go so I'm no expert to all this I've not even seen a jump bridge yet. But I have been spending a lot of time reading up on Null politics while trying to figure out where I want to go. So I've been following the conflicts that Finn mentions and his descriptions ring very true. NC was not able maintain their offensive in the east while defending their tech moons despite their extensive JB network that would supposedly enable them to do so. They had to break off that offensive to return and reclaim their tech moons from PL. PL managed to project force perfectly friggin fine in this case with no JB network. The idea that making logistics more time consuming and tedious would in anyway shape or form improve the quality or quantity of PVP opportunities in the game is ludicrous. The more time consuming and tedious logistics becomes the more risk adverse people will become. Consider if it takes 1 hour of logistics to replace a PVP ship one would far more willing to risk that ship in an uncertain engagement than if it took 5 hours. One of the major reasons that RVB gets such a high quantity of the "goodfights" that so many small scale PVP proponents want is because it's logistics were relatively painless. When you are only looking at 2-3 jumps to reship and get back into the fight it's far easier to e motivated to reship and turn right back around again then if you were looking at an hour of carebearing to earn the isk plus 3 hours of hauling **** from Jita to get the ships and modules. Obviously there needs to be some balance so that there is actually some risk but care must be taken to not make the PITA factor beat out the FUN factor. Turning this game even more into Logistics Online is a bad idea. Oh yeah tedious and boring /= hardcore. Besides it's a game if you want hardcore join the Marines. Not supported.
Biocross	Posted - 2011.01.27 17:13:00 - [482] Edited by: Biocross on 27/01/2011 17:13:24 Looking at both sides, and having lived in 0.0 I agree with bridges going. Hardly ever did we move in 0.0 without using a bridge, and there was never any risk to it. Empire is riskier. Furthermore CCP makes the game and they are fully entitled to make changes that in their opinion improve the game. I've seen what the game was like when it started, I honestly didn't like it. I like it now. CCP changes have consistently been in the right direction imho. Supported.
Starkiller Adams	Posted - 2011.01.27 17:46:00 - [483] This is honestly the stupidest idea ever that would make tons of already cramped space useless and dead WOW
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.27 19:23:00 - [484] Ability to disrupt enemy logistics adds new dimension to strategy. That's a fact of both game design and real war. Anything that increases strategic and tactical choices in war is automatically good for PvP. Political discussions are irrelevant. Personal preferences are irrelevant. Those things are valid only in the scope of the sandbox. Decisions to modify the sandbox are outside the scope of the sandbox
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2011.01.27 19:57:00 - [485] Quote: PL managed to project force perfectly friggin fine in this case with no JB network. Pretty bad argument. - PL had nothing to loose. - PL had nothing to defend. - PL had no need to go and help out "friends" on the other side of the map. Any group in this game can project their force anywhere they want. The real issue is when a group can change the area they wanna do this in, within a short amount of time. One can argue that "oh wow, 15 jumps instead of 30 jumps" hardly game breaking. Maybe not, but think in a bigger picture. Think relocation of assets, dreadnoughts, carriers, multiple ships, mods, fuel, everything that needs to be moved for longer fights. Before jumpbridges, moves like that had to be proper planned and executed. And people moved in groups. I`m not saying people aint moving in groups today, but they did in a much bigger degree before. With jumpbridges, people can move on their own for the most of the time. They simply move through the jump bridge system. If that had been done before jump bridges, they would simply been picked off by even the smallest gangs. Region wide logistics could simply be cut off by small roaming gangs, if the groups moving was not prepared or of a proper size. And small roaming gangs can not compete with Deathstar POS + jumpbridge. Add titanbridges and some carefully located cynos, and groups can practically bypass/jump over entire regions. A very common tactic I have seen been used is simply move the entire fleet by jumpbridge until the jumpbridge network ends, then do the rest with titans until the fleet is within a few jumps from the target system, if not jumping directly into the targetsystem. Another argument that keeps getting brought up is that it will reduce activity in 0.0... I can simply point back to the time when ASCN was still alive. Anyone who was active at that time, know that ASCN space was booming with life. At it`s peak it was almost it`s own little empire. One of it`s goals was that it would be as selfsufficient as possible. This was also before jump freighters. Look at feythabolis today, and it`s a wasteland compared to the old days. Either you live in empire, or you live in 0.0 "People dont wanna travel x jumps just to get a fight" Then alliances should stop putting everything within 30jumps of their borders blue. Main reason every major fights today ends up with a+b+c+kitchensink vs d+e+f+toiletbowl is because they can!! There is`nt really any timesink or logistic reason not to. My experiences with jump bridges comes from the short time in AAA. AAA didnt have the biggest jump bridge system around but anyway. It was a joke!! IT had daily roams comming in from Querious through the FAT area. They had no impact, NO impact at all on my movements. I could sit in local and see them passing by, then jump on the bridge network, just to pass by them a few jumps further up the pipe. I could move freely without any interuption by any gangs. Within minutes I could move from FAT to HED and back. At the same time the entire pipe from HED and down to GE could be camped for all I know. IT DID NOT MATTER!!!
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.01.27 20:13:00 - [486] Originally by: TZeer <Much needed reality check> Well put.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.27 21:38:00 - [487] TZeer says the truth. I was member of ASCN for a while, I remember the space used to be more lively than it is now. And as he says, small roaming gangs are completely irrelevant to a local alliance with JBs and titan bridges.
Marked Ugler	Posted - 2011.01.27 23:12:00 - [488] Edited by: Marked Ugler on 27/01/2011 23:11:41 Kill all bridges... Oh, my friend FinnAgain Zero is here!
caldarichecker	Posted - 2011.01.28 02:00:00 - [489] Originally by: TZeer Quote: PL managed to project force perfectly friggin fine in this case with no JB network. Pretty bad argument. - PL had nothing to loose. - PL had nothing to defend. - PL had no need to go and help out "friends" on the other side of the map. Any group in this game can project their force anywhere they want. The real issue is when a group can change the area they wanna do this in, within a short amount of time. <snip wot for new wot> You forget there were two sides of that confrontation (well 3 really but one was under contract to one of the other parties) and NC still had to end their campaign even though they have that massive JB system that according to you and others supporting the idea of JB removal claim should have allowed them to operate in both theaters with impunity. Instead they had to abandon their campaign then were forced to reclaim the systems they lost while trying to move their force back. Sounds like everything is working perfectly fine in that regard. As far as being able to undermine the activities of small roaming gangs. So what? One would expect a large organized power block to be able to effectively deal with small time criminals trying to harass it's citizens. Time and time again these whines such as this just come down to some malcontent being upset that their desired victims have ways to avoid being victims.
lwxsky oli Minmatar FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.01.28 02:19:00 - [490] Originally by: Massive Dragon will these changes make eve better, and will it be more fun? if either answer is yes... i dont think any of this other crap matters. IMO, it will make eve worse, it will be less fun.

Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.28 02:37:00 - [491] Edited by: Ephemeron on 28/01/2011 02:40:11 Originally by: lwxsky oli IMO, it will make eve worse, it will be less fun. It's not a matter of opinion, we have people who know first hand what EVE is like without JB and with JB Lets conduct a poll among all the vets who been with this game since 2004 - is EVE more fun now with JB or was it more fun before JB? Quote: As far as being able to undermine the activities of small roaming gangs. So what? One would expect a large organized power block to be able to effectively deal with small time criminals trying to harass it's citizens. Sure, we expect that. But we expect that security to be achieved by PvP, by patrolling and hunting down the criminals. Not bypassing it completely with safety of teleportation devices. You want security? fight for it
caldarichecker	Posted - 2011.01.28 05:28:00 - [492] Originally by: Ephemeron Edited by: Ephemeron on 28/01/2011 02:40:11 Quote: As far as being able to undermine the activities of small roaming gangs. So what? One would expect a large organized power block to be able to effectively deal with small time criminals trying to harass it's citizens. Sure, we expect that. But we expect that security to be achieved by PvP, by patrolling and hunting down the criminals. Not bypassing it completely with safety of teleportation devices. You want security? fight for it I believe the point would be that they already have. By gaining sovereignty that typically isn't gotten by flying out and planting a flag. What you are asking is that they surrender that bought and paid for security so that any random group of twits can roll in and upset their empires because they are bored. I believe it has been pointed out that those devices are not completely safe. Now someone who wants to make it unsafe does have to commit some resources to doing so but considering the amount of resources that the defender had to commit to gain that "teleport" capability in the first place it's hardly unreasonable that those who try to threaten it must commit more resources and planning than just getting together a dozen bored friends to try and gank transports. It seems to me that your problem with jump bridges is that you can't take a small force of subcap ships and undermine an advantage that likely required a significant force of capital ships to gain in the first place. I'm sorry but David only beats Goliath in fables.
Marconus Orion Global Criminal Countdown	Posted - 2011.01.28 09:15:00 - [493] Originally by: Ephemeron Lets conduct a poll among all the vets who been with this game since 2004 - is EVE more fun now with JB or was it more fun before? Such a poll already exists here. ----------------------- FinnAgain Zero replies: 69
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.01.28 10:40:00 - [494] Originally by: Skex Relbore ... So you would have no problem whatsoever with restricting bridges to industrial type ships? Or do you want to add some exceptions to that assessment? Originally by: Skex Relbore ... Besides it's a game if you want hardcore join the Marines... Pfft, Marines are nothing but GI's that are not hydrophobic. Hardcore is parenting and elementary school educating! Originally by: caldarichecker I believe the point would be that they already have. By gaining sovereignty that typically isn't gotten by flying out and planting a flag. So a weeks worth of blobbing justifies perpetual security that is higher than that of high-sec? Are you sure you want null to be that dull? Originally by: caldarichecker What you are asking is that they surrender that bought and paid for security... Pretty sure he is asking the same that I have been for a year or more. That null entities be required to actually use and police the space they call theirs. But with things as they are there is no need to patrol/police, if anyone contests something you have a few days to gather the 'Da Blob' - that is the extent of the sovereignty system. Hardly inducive quality fights or any other worthwhile pew.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2011.01.28 11:12:00 - [495] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Pretty sure he is asking the same that I have been for a year or more. That null entities be required to actually use and police the space they call theirs. But with things as they are there is no need to patrol/police, if anyone contests something you have a few days to gather the 'Da Blob' - that is the extent of the sovereignty system. Hardly inducive quality fights or any other worthwhile pew. There needs to be some balance between 12-hours-out-of-sync alliances repeatedly razing each other's infrastructure, versus long timers on infrastructure ensuring that all fights will end up as massive capital blobs. I agree with the idea though, that "sovereignty" should simply be a measure of how well the residents are defending their space. -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2011.01.28 11:28:00 - [496] Found a very good tool on dotlan, that can show you how many jump you would need if you optimized your route with jump bridges. DOTLAN jump planner Some examples: HED-GP --> 0OYZ-G (The bottom of Feyhtabolis) Normal Jumps: 39 +/- jumps Jump Bridges: 7 jumps HED-GP --> 66-PM (This is as far out in Omist you can get) Normal Jumps: 35 jumps Jump Bridges: 10 jumps HED-GP --> C-PEWN (Bottom of Esoteria) Normal Jumps: 40 jumps Jump Bridges: 10 Jumps HED-GP --> GE-8JV Normal Jumps: 9 jumps Jump Bridge: 1 jump HED-GP --> AZN-D2 Normal Jumps: 26 Jumps Jump Bridges: 6 jumps The number of jump anyone needs to do, to be able to form up for fleet will have a great impact on participation and the effect that entity has to defend itself.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.01.28 13:50:00 - [497] Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 28/01/2011 13:50:57 Originally by: Mara Rinn There needs to be some balance between 12-hours-out-of-sync alliances repeatedly razing each other's infrastructure, versus long timers on infrastructure ensuring that all fights will end up as massive capital blobs... If regionally exclusive alliances are the desired format then yes, there has to be a time buffer to bridge the gap. Not sure if the protectionist alliance is actually desired by the powers that be though Before bridges you practically had to patrol the various pipes at regular intervals to keep normal traffic flowing, time spent ratting was often less than that spent keeping the paths clear. Whatever is done to bridges, it has to be accompanied by significant boosts to null ability to achieve self-reliance when it comes to common mods/ships .. so a huge buff to the industrial side of things will be required.
FinnAgain Zero Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2011.01.28 15:45:00 - [498] Originally by: Skex Relbore This proposal is not the first indication that CCP wants to tell people that they are "sandboxing wrong". What still gets me is that most of the folks who want to use game mechanics to nerf playstyles they don't like seem unaware that the same process can be turned back on them. If, next year (or the year after, whatever) CCP decides that small gang combat isn't where their vision is, and it's large fleet battles that get column inches in the NY Times, what's to stop them from trying to nerf small gang and boost large fleet? Now, star gate activation time is directly proportional to the number of fleet members you have, decreasing with each member. Individual ships will have to sit on a gate and not move, for an hour, if they want to jump out. And if they move or activate weapons, the timer restarts. And, why, this will even be "good for PvP", since it will increase all those ganks of small fleets/lone travelers who get pounced on and can't escape. It's only when your own ox is getting gored, I suppose, that some people are willing to see that CCP altering mechanics to cater to or harm a style of play isn't a very good system to endorse. Originally by: Sahmul Well I must thank you Finn for showing me that you are not in fact interested in debate Trolling, in this thread?!? Say it aint so? Of course, I probably shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt. Like when you respond to it being pointed out that changes which only effect sov holders are not evenhanded, unlike changes which effect absolutely anybody who uses jump gates in Empire, and your response is "So they're both even handed then." Ah well, I tried. Originally by: Sahmul I could point out that the only thing sanctioned by CONCORD is actual unprovoked aggression, and that all other activities, regardless of how reprehensible they are considered by the playerbase are acceptable Which would be somewhat deliberately missing the point in a discussion of whether or not players are allowed to created their own content or whether or not it's mediated by CCP's interdict in Empire. The very fact that "unprovoked aggression" is met with lethal force, whose avoidance is an exploit, would speak to the difference between player-created content and player-mediated content. Originally by: Mara Rinn If CCP was hoping players would build sandcastles, but instead we are eating the sand, would making the sand unpalatable be making it no longer a sandbox? Yes it would. If players didn't want to form alliances and only wanted to have 10 man roaming gangs, ever, and CCP wanted to try to force them into alliances, that'd be breaking sandbox play. The whole point is that the players create the content in the space that the Empire don't hold. And that content is created, and directed, however the players want. Build sand castles or kick them into someone's face, same difference. Originally by: Mara Rinn Would it be possible to modify the sandbox to the point where nullsec alliances end up constantly at war with their neighbours instead of forming NAPs with all and sundry? It is possible, I'm sure, to break sandbox play in any number of ways. The previously mentioned instant-teleport-to-Jovian-arena-combat would be a great way. Originally by: TZeer Quote: PL managed to project force perfectly friggin fine in this case with no JB network. Pretty bad argument. - PL had nothing to loose. - PL had nothing to defend. - PL had no need to go and help out "friends" on the other side of the map. It's a very good argument, and you tacitly admit it rebuts your claims. Alliances can project crushing force without JB's, they can inflict serious damage on a defender, even if the defender has a huge JB network. We know this, because it just happened. That groups may have to make choices to accomplish this is hardly noteworthy. All you're saying is that the sandbox is fine and we have choice of playstyles. ------------------------------------------------ Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain!
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2011.01.28 17:08:00 - [499] Edited by: TZeer on 28/01/2011 17:10:29 Quote: It's a very good argument, and you tacitly admit it rebuts your claims. Alliances can project crushing force without JB's, they can inflict serious damage on a defender, even if the defender has a huge JB network. We know this, because it just happened. That groups may have to make choices to accomplish this is hardly noteworthy. All you're saying is that the sandbox is fine and we have choice of playstyles. I also said that any entity in eve can project their force anywhere in eve. But the amount of force is highly dependant on the numbers they have in said fleet. The need to jump 30 jumps vs 6 jumps will have an impact on the size of fleets. One thing is moving the actual fleet, another one is when all thoose members in fleet need to get to the staging area. So when an alliance is doing a CTA, if you are getting 100 or 200 in fleet is influenced by how many jump they have to do to get there. It`s been like that since eve came up. Sandbox Eve has always been a sandbox, but CCP has always done changes/modifications within the game when they have felt a certain gamemechanic has been too widespread. - Nano - Nos - System scanner (Removed due to new scan mechanics) - Damps - AOE Doomsday - Motherships (Remember when they couldnt be scrammed?) Last time I checked, correct me if I`m wrong, the cost of having a jump bridge was 10 mil/day.
Marconus Orion Global Criminal Countdown	Posted - 2011.01.29 00:44:00 - [500] Originally by: TZeer Last time I checked, correct me if I`m wrong, the cost of having a jump bridge was 10 mil/day. Yeah, it is a joke. Which is why if jump bridges were to stay, and be able to be used by everyone an alliance has blue, the cost per day should be the number of pilots in said nap train times some number. Right now the cost of jump bridges are an utter and complete joke to run. or better yet... Remove all forms of bridging except black ops covert jump bridge.

Mara Rinn	Posted - 2011.01.29 01:44:00 - [501] Originally by: FinnAgain Zero ... what's to stop them from trying to nerf small gang and boost large fleet? Now, star gate activation time is directly proportional to the number of fleet members you have, decreasing with each member. Individual ships will have to sit on a gate and not move, for an hour, if they want to jump out. And if they move or activate weapons, the timer restarts. And, why, this will even be "good for PvP", since it will increase all those ganks of small fleets/lone travelers who get pounced on and can't escape. You know, part of "making EVE bigger" could be to give stargates mass per hour limits. This would work inversely to your strawman here, but it would certainly make fleet ops interesting. -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
Grath Telkin Amarr Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.01.29 02:08:00 - [502] Burn all the jump bridges, or make the price so astronomical that more than 2 or 3 become a massive burden to run for even the largest, most wealthy alliances. Add on to this that only the alliance that anchors the bridge can use it, and increase the bridge fuel requirements by a huge margin to make them soley used for logistics, and not for moving large fleets.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2011.02.23 20:23:00 - [503] Bridge madness Same madness, in another view. Kill the bridges!
William Loire	Posted - 2011.02.24 02:58:00 - [504] I once was a NC member and I can see their point. Why make life harder on the 0.0 players? Then it occured to me once upon a time we lived in 0.0 without jumpbridges and logistics occurred just fine. I do support buffing manufacturing and industry in 0.0 though. Or perhaps tax empire logistics so 0.0 can compete. I support the removal of Jump Bridges entirely.
FinnAgain Zero Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2011.02.24 05:52:00 - [505] Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 24/02/2011 05:52:42 Originally by: William Loire I once was a NC member and I can see their point. Why make life harder on the 0.0 players? Then it occured to me once upon a time we lived in 0.0 without jumpbridges and logistics occurred just fine. As this is a strawman it doesn't really need to be addressed, but you do realize that this is the same set of errors that's been repeated (again and again and again) in this thread, right? Not only did massive coalitions and "blobbing" exist before Jump Bridges (and will exist after it), logistics was a dramatically different situation, too. Mineral compression, carriers that had massive space, rigged transport ships that could fit in carriers and carry cargo rather than just charges... The game isn't the same as it was before bridges were introduced, and acting as if it is, is an absurdity. Originally by: Mara Rinn Originally by: FinnAgain Zero ... what's to stop them from trying to nerf small gang and boost large fleet? Now, star gate activation time is directly proportional to the number of fleet members you have, decreasing with each member. Individual ships will have to sit on a gate and not move, for an hour, if they want to jump out. And if they move or activate weapons, the timer restarts. And, why, this will even be "good for PvP", since it will increase all those ganks of small fleets/lone travelers who get pounced on and can't escape. You know, part of "making EVE bigger" could be to give stargates mass per hour limits. This would work inversely to your strawman here You shouldn't make claims like that if you don't know the terms. As it happens I didn't use a strawman. There is also no objective need to "make EVE bigger". Just a subjective preference. EVE was also a "lot bigger" when it was almost unpopulated and you could fly around for hours and not see another person. You could reduce warp velocity by 99% and EVE would be "a whole lot bigger". You could make it cost Liquid Ozone to activate a stargate, and yep, EVE would be "a whole lot bigger". But there is no objective benefit to having a "bigger EVE". Especially since a "smaller EVE" is largely the consequence of the game's increased popularity and subscriber count. Originally by: TZeer Bridge madness Yes, but we've already gone over the actual facts. That dreaded bridge network doesn't allow people to fight a war on two fronts. The Drone Regions' bridge network didn't allow them to repel a coordinated invasion effort. It's bridge network didn't allow them to stave off a failscade. Pointing to the number of JB's and getting upset is all well and good, but the actual facts gainsay your claims. ------------------------------------------------ Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain!
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2011.02.24 11:55:00 - [506] Originally by: TZeer Bridge madness Same madness, in another view. Kill the bridges!
FinnAgain Zero Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2011.02.24 12:25:00 - [507] Ah, repeating the same debunked nonsense, again. Good plan. ------------------------------------------------ Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain!
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2011.02.24 15:09:00 - [508] Edited by: TZeer on 24/02/2011 15:09:17 Originally by: FinnAgain Zero Ah, repeating the same debunked nonsense, again. Good plan. Fight fire with fire....
Doctor Invictus Gallente Zaneta Enterprises Inc	Posted - 2011.02.24 15:28:00 - [509] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Whatever is done to bridges, it has to be accompanied by significant boosts to null ability to achieve self-reliance when it comes to common mods/ships .. so a huge buff to the industrial side of things will be required. I've got a whole proposal over at F&I for nullsec/soveriegnty (one-post summary here), with one of the goals being more self-reliance for sovereignty holders. I haven't really linked it with the idea of removing or nerfing jump bridges, though.
Tarikan	Posted - 2011.02.24 15:56:00 - [510] i support the decision to remove or alter JBs



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.