EVE Search - {{ tweak }} Supercapital & Capital Fix

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

{{ tweak }} Supercapital & Capital Fix

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:16:00 - [1] Make super capitals lose their immunity to ewar when ewar is delivered by other capitals and super capitals. This is a tweak, not the nuke from orbit approach that CCP usually takes when making changes.
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:21:00 - [2] Would make armor capitals OP because shield capitals would have to sacrifice tank to fit ewar
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:28:00 - [3] Originally by: Bobbeh Would make armor capitals OP because shield capitals would have to sacrifice tank to fit ewar This is as opposed to the shield capitals that use CPRs for cap instead of Cap Rechargers amirite? -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:31:00 - [4] We arent talking supers here chief. Even if we were No Good Wyvern pilot would fit a CPR over CN PDU And If your Active Tanking you will probably Go CF over CPR Also remember that CPR's and CF's have distinct drawbacks for shield tanks while CR's dont have a draw back for armor tanks.
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:37:00 - [5] Yep just like we see with the drake blobs, everyone would forget about any tank at all and just fit warp disruptors.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:38:00 - [6] Originally by: Bobbeh And If your Active Tanking you will probably Go CF over CPR Comments: - Anyone fitting a cap flux to a capital ship is a moron. - We are talking about capital ships - not just supercapitals - People already fit warp disruptors and/or sensor boosters to their shield tanked capitals. Why do you feel this changes anything? - Armor tankers who burn their mids on warp disruptors and sensor boosters have ** all for capacitor (and therefore RR and/or local tank) compared to shield caps that burn lows on CPRs. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.01.19 22:04:00 - [7] Edited by: Bobbeh on 19/01/2011 22:05:40 Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 19/01/2011 21:57:04 Originally by: Bobbeh And If your Active Tanking you will probably Go CF over CPR Comments: - Anyone fitting a cap flux to a capital ship is a moron. - We are talking about capital ships - not just supercapitals - People already fit warp disruptors and/or sensor boosters to their shield tanked capitals. Why do you feel this changes anything? - Armor tankers who burn their mids on warp disruptors and sensor boosters have **** all for capacitor (and therefore RR and/or local tank) compared to shield caps that burn lows on CPRs. -Liang Liang this doesnt apply just to points it applies to ecm sensor damps webs and tracking disruptors. All of these are denied by the ewar immunity. So this is why im against your idea because you would see caps webbing off supers, carriers tracking distrupting titans and damping sc's. I cannot agree to this also to the Capacitor mods argument im a firm supporter of giving Cap rechargers an armor draw back. Say reduce armor HP overall...
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.01.19 22:33:00 - [8] Originally by: Bobbeh So this is why im against your idea because you would see caps webbing off supers, carriers tracking distrupting titans and damping sc's. I cannot agree to this Two things: - Not my idea - The seems to be primarily about caps/supercaps being able to tackle supercapitals. Quote: also to the Capacitor mods argument im a firm supporter of giving Cap rechargers an armor draw back. Say reduce armor HP overall... That's just ****ed. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.01.19 22:45:00 - [9] Cant be that Fcked as CPRs reduce Shield booster cycle time, and CFR's reduce Shield HP overall. ANd how do you propose the lack of immunity to Points from capitals but not from any other ship without giving capitals a bonus to point and scram strength (which is what makes supers immune to points and webs.) I mean fck i'd love to beable to Web my titan when i wanna warp away quickly.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.01.19 23:55:00 - [10] Originally by: Bobbeh Cant be that Fcked as CPRs reduce Shield booster cycle time, and CFR's reduce Shield HP overall. CPRs are significantly more powerful than Cap Rechargers and* the penalties are stacking nerfed. This has been gone over repeatedly. Cap Flux = Moron. Cap Recharger = Ok. Cap Power Relay = **ING EPIC ZOMG WIN. Quote: ANd how do you propose the lack of immunity to Points from capitals but not from any other ship without giving capitals a bonus to point and scram strength (which is what makes supers immune to points and webs.) I'd personally implement it by letting them mount capital mid slot WDFGs. But that isn't the point - the point is the idea that cap and supercaps can tackle supercaps. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -

Linda87	Posted - 2011.01.20 00:21:00 - [11] Instead of giving capitals and supercapitals such an ability, consider giving Assault frigates a unique role bonus in that they can apply ewar towards ships normally immune to such effects (supercapitals, carriers in triage, dreads in seige). Assault frigates are not invulnerable on their own, but with appropriate support they can be used as a handy counter?
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.01.20 00:53:00 - [12] Well liang i have no idea who you are but your grasp on what is needed is loose to say the least. Giving supers and caps the ability to tackle eachother does not reduce capital or super capital spam. Which was the problem discussed by CCP in the minutes. Furthermore, If your grasp on shield tanking fits is just lacking and thats all i can say. Any low slot cap mod other than a PDU is a TERRIBLE idea on an active shield tank. Which is the only kind of shield tank that truly requires large amounts of cap for short period of time not to mention the lac of a Lowslot cap battery and a lowslot cap injector. So Zip the lip before you lose the tip, Chip. This fix to Capital Spam will be found in the sub capital class is ccp is Smart (Crosses fingers) Because this will end the linear escalation of force present in eve at the moment. It will transform the linear system of escalation to a cyclical system where the counter to a super cap fleet is a sub cap fleet and the counter to a sup cap fleet is a cap fleet, and the counter to a cap fleet is a super cap fleet, and through the circle we go. This wouldnt be hard and would for all intensive purposes fix 3 problems in eve. 1) super cap Proliferation 2) Escalation to Super Cap blob for no reason. 3) The only effective counter to supers being more supers So think outside the box, out side of the nerf buff frame of mind. ITs so immature and 2009, following the my dad can beat up your dad argument.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.20 05:06:00 - [13] This would be a neat idea.....if 10 supercaps couldnt kill an 80 man supercap fleet with ease. If you want a capital ewar ship that would probably have to be a new ship type and right now CCP wants to reduce Capitals Online not make it worse.
Taisuke Black	Posted - 2011.01.20 07:18:00 - [14] I agree that ewar needs some changing, and that it should come in the form of a small tweak. But I disagree with simply allowing capitals to ewar each other. If any ship can ewar a capital it should be a Black Ops. As for the cap recharger/CPR debate, it's finely balanced as-is. Boosters take up more capacitor-per-HP than reppers, but require 1 less slot if you want a heavy tank. Obviously a low-slot module that gives large capacitor regeneration should have a tradeoff with the one module that could truly be overpowered with it, the shield booster. An armor dual-rep setup would have one less low slot to use a CPR so it's balanced.
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.01.20 18:57:00 - [15] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources This would be a neat idea.....if 10 supercaps couldnt kill an 80 man supercap fleet with ease. If you want a capital ewar ship that would probably have to be a new ship type and right now CCP wants to reduce Capitals Online not make it worse. It isn't intended to be an ewar platform. The thing is that if 2 opposing super caps land on each other, nobody will die. They will sit there and bash on each others shields then warp off. Make it so all capitals can warp disrupt super capitals, they might actually start dieing. It isn't intended to be a end all fix for the problem either. It is a tweak, that in reality there could be a meeting at ccp about it tomorrow and could go into the next patch.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.01.20 19:34:00 - [16] Originally by: Bobbeh Well liang i have no idea who you are but your grasp on what is needed is loose to say the least. Giving supers and caps the ability to tackle eachother does not reduce capital or super capital spam. Which was the problem discussed by CCP in the minutes. No, of course it a tweak like this wouldn't make an immediate difference to supercap spam, but it WOULD add more ways to tackle them. I'm not sure why you would think that adding more ways to tackle supercaps wouldn't reduce their overall numbers? Quote: Furthermore, If your grasp on shield tanking fits is just lacking and thats all i can say. Any low slot cap mod other than a PDU is a TERRIBLE idea on an active shield tank. My grasp on shield tanking capitals is obviously much better than your own: - A PDU I can understand. You're going for max EHP and get the ability to run your (local or remote) reps for a few more seconds as as side benefit. - The Cap Flux you suggested is just flat ****ed. - The penalty on CPRs is stacking nefed, and shield boost amps almost entirley negate that penalty. Furthermore, their cap generation is not stacking nerfed and extremely powerful. You will want cap power relays to run your RR, and it still leaves you with a very reasonable active tanked shield capital. Quote:** This fix to Capital Spam will be found in the sub capital class is ccp is Smart. Because this will end the linear escalation of force present in eve at the moment. A few comments: - What we have now is already not linear. Supercaps are far more powerful than regular capitals. - Sub capital fleets don't have the DPS to kill supercaps even if they get them tackled. - We already have sub capital counters to supercaps. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.01.21 00:47:00 - [17] Originally by: Liang Nuren Just for Humor OK just for humors sake The same carrier Fit With this set of lows 1 [Chimera, 1] Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System Dark Blood Capacitor Power Relay Dark Blood Capacitor Power Relay Damage Control II 2 [Chimera, 2] Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System Capacitor Flux Coil II Capacitor Flux Coil II Damage Control II 3 [Chimera, 3] Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II Damage Control II Set these stats 1) EHP 1,410,370 Unstable DPS tank 5156 Capacitor Time 19m 11s Capacity time with 1 Energy transfer too and from the carrier (1 pair of chimeras) 54% stable 2) EHP 1,410,370 Unstable DPS tank 6370 Capacitor Time 10m28s Capacity time with 1 Energy transfer too and from the carrier (1 pair of chimeras) 40% stable 3) EHP 1,492,563 Unstable DPS Tank 6417 Capacitor Time 12m3s Capacity time with 1 Energy transfer too and from the carrier (1 pair of chimeras) 42m 6s Wait ok SOO assuming no carrier flys alone.... Why wouldnt you choice the still cap stable 1000 more dps tank? Just saying Though these arent my fits as i sold my chim when i got my wyvern Furthermore there no effective counter to supers en masse in the support fleet at the moment this is why in another thread i proposed a t2 cruiser hull that like a stealth bomber fires missles larger than its class weapon, but unlike the bomber cannot cloak. The ship would be a paper tiger that is meant to counter Capitals while being covered by a support fleet. I dubbed the idea the Torpedo Boat, though the basis for the idea originated in corp chat on ts. giving this ship a range of 70-80k effectively would make them immune to regular drones from a sc unless assigned. Being a cruiser would make Fighter bombers useless and fighters ok but not great. You would then bring the circle of PVP back around to the support fleet completely
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.01.21 05:52:00 - [18] Originally by: Bobbeh The same carrier Fit I like how you didn't actually specify what it was. From everything I'm able to see, cap flux coils cuts your cap life by over 3x and greatly increases your susceptibility to neuts. Furthermore, as you say, carriers don't tend to fly alone - and thus cap is life. Cap flux coils give you less of it. I would also point out that faction fitting a carrier these days is pretty stupid... so its probably for the best you fly Wyverns instead of Chimeras these days. Quote: Furthermore there no effective counter to supers en masse in the support fleet at the moment this is why in another thread i proposed a t2 cruiser hull that like a stealth bomber fires missles larger than its class weapon, but unlike the bomber cannot cloak. The ship would be a paper tiger that is meant to counter Capitals while being covered by a support fleet. I dubbed the idea the Torpedo Boat, though the basis for the idea originated in corp chat on ts. Yes, I saw that. I pointed it out to my corpmates and we all had a good laugh at your expense. Here are some comments towards your idea: - Cruiser sized ships capable of meaningfully damaging supercaps will utterly obsolete all normal capitals - and potentially large portions of subcapitals. - Cruiser sized ships incapable of meaninfully damaging normal capitals or other subcapitals will rarely be in position outside of preplanned supercapital ganks. They will be "EFT Warrior" counters. - Creating "supercapital killers" that are for all intents and purposes immune to supercapitals is poor balancing. - Requiring a significant number of these ships to down supercapitals is not any better than requiring a significant number of dreads. - We already require 5+ HICs to tackle a supercarrier. This already doesn't scale - why do you believe that massed "T2 Torpedo Cruisers" would scale better? Quote: You would then bring the circle of PVP back around to the support fleet completely I don't believe that's what would actually happen... and frankly creating "uber counters" in such a way is poor balancing. I'd much rather see capitals - which are easily killed by supercapitals - able to provide a bite back in the form of tackle. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.01.22 06:36:00 - [19] Originally by: Liang Nuren snip I wont even go into your cap philosophy cause it Lowsec ish and Short Sighted. Just remember that when 2 Chimeras Cap Transfer eachother They is Cap Created. Both Ships Gain Cap. to your points 1. - Cruiser sized ships capable - Like stealth Bombers making everything above them useless? Cause its the Same Concept. And they didn't unbalance anything, having 3 cit torp launchers wouldnt make it OP against anything since anything larger then a cap can outrun the majority of the damage. - Cruiser sized ships incapable - WTF are you Smoking Man if it Fires Capital size weapons it will be effective against normal caps and to an extent BS. Im sorry do Hics only Bring Focus scripts when your sure theres gonna be super caps? no. What i mean is you could fold 5 or 6 of these into a fleet if you know your going to be shooting, Structures caps or supers and let them move in once you control the field, til then they could be safed up. - Creating "supercapital killers" - OK Soooo Answer me this, If it can fly in space it can be dd'd, also It would bring to light the flaw in Pvp at the moment which is that Super caps don't need a support fleet. They wouldnt be immune by any means but for a group of super carriers they'd be annoying and hard to kill. - I agree Except Noone wants to Bonus Dreads cause it would unbalance them from BS, Not to mention its not a question of Bringing number, we will always bring numbers. The problem with always needing something bigger to destroy something is that this system of thinking never ends - We already require 5+ HICs - You Are seriously Fail if you need 5 hics to tackle 1 single super carrier. Since unless it has help can only neut out 2 hics at a time if the pilot is good and if they are all cycling focused points. every time 1 came close to capping out it would just fly outa range cap up and fly back in. 5 hics would have an easy time with 1 super carrier. Your Corp m8s might laugh cause they are short sighted and Rooks to eve. But Anyone who thinks long term can see the only way to make eve last is to make it cyclical not linear in as many systems as possible. Creating a Cruiser that uses 2-3 citadel launchers, that had a low ehp and cannot cloak. How could it possibly be OP. It would be easily taken out by cruisers t1 and t2 frigates, bcs,bs. The ships focus would be Large Volley but it would need to be protected. This would Encourage Team play and fleet strategic planning. ALso Posting with your alt just shows how unprofessional you are. True Assembly hall going post with mains! But thats not the point. The Point Is if you look for the solution in caps then you will find that those will just be blobbed. OMG you make the Falcon of Caps and they will just be spammed till they need to be built a counter. You build a Hic for Caps and they will just be spammed. If you built the ship i recommended it would be spammed by the spam of a cruiser hulls that have next to no ehp, well then a regular fleet could be formed to wipe them out. Think logically for once nub
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.01.22 09:01:00 - [20] Originally by: Liang Nuren No, of course it a tweak like this wouldn't make an immediate difference to supercap spam, but it WOULD add more ways to tackle them. I'm not sure why you would think that adding more ways to tackle supercaps wouldn't reduce their overall numbers? There is the not completely unrealistic scenario that it would lead to a situation where you only deploy supercaps if you are sure you got enough to not only annihilate a small fleet of HICs and Dictors in short order, but you got enough to annihilate a substantial force of carriers and dreads in short order, i.e. before losing more than 1-2 supers. Giving capitals the ability to tackle them will just introduce another round of the arms race to mass the largest possible supercap fleet. No, a sensible solution is to improve the survivability of subcap counters against supercaps (read: nerf their damage projection against subcaps), and as far as lowsec is concerned rething the availability of ECM bursts and other means of anti-HIC capabilties (ecm drone swarm, neuts, but also fighters and dps drones).

Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.01.22 19:42:00 - [21] Originally by: Bobbeh 1. - Cruiser sized ships capable - Like stealth Bombers making everything above them useless? Cause its the Same Concept. And they didn't unbalance anything, having 3 cit torp launchers wouldnt make it OP against anything since anything larger then a cap can outrun the majority of the damage. - Cruiser sized ships incapable - WTF are you Smoking Man if it Fires Capital size weapons it will be effective against normal caps and to an extent BS. Im sorry do Hics only Bring Focus scripts when your sure theres gonna be super caps? no. What i mean is you could fold 5 or 6 of these into a fleet if you know your going to be shooting, Structures caps or supers and let them move in once you control the field, til then they could be safed up. Why are you trying to fill the role of the dread with a cruiser? Your idea replaces the role of the dread with lower SP requirment and lower ISK investment and on top of that only further ****s the dread into -only ass hats use- territory. You are a dumb ass who seems to have focused on a very narrow minded idea. The complete rebalanced of everything that would have to unfold because you toss citadel torps on a cruiser hull FAR EXCEEDS the balance issues that come up from super caps losing their ability to warp off when other caps are on the field.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.01.23 11:30:00 - [22] Originally by: Bobbeh I wont even go into your cap philosophy cause it Lowsec ish and Short Sighted. I strongly dispute that my capital philosophy is short sighted - though I freely admit that it is geared mostly towards fights where individuals actually matter. Quote: Cruiser sized ships capable - Like stealth Bombers making everything above them useless? ... Cruiser sized ships incapable - WTF are you Smoking Man if it Fires Capital size weapons it will be effective against normal caps and to an extent BS. ... Creating a Cruiser that uses 2-3 citadel launchers, that had a low ehp and cannot cloak. How could it possibly be OP. It would be easily taken out by cruisers t1 and t2 frigates, bcs,bs. The ships focus would be Large Volley but it would need to be protected. This would Encourage Team play and fleet strategic planning. I very specifically did not say that it would make everything above them obsolete. What I said was that they would utterly obsolete capitals (think dreads) or be so utterly unwieldy that they'd never be where they need to be outside of preplanned cap/supercap ganks. Truly, your proposal is nothing but an EFT warrior's dream. So unwieldy that it will a theoretical counter against supercaps. Unwieldy theoretical counters are worse than no counters because they remove hope that CCP can per persuaded to fix the problem. Quote: Creating "supercapital killers" - OK Soooo Answer me this, If it can fly in space it can be dd'd, also It would bring to light the flaw in Pvp at the moment which is that Super caps don't need a support fleet. They wouldnt be immune by any means but for a group of super carriers they'd be annoying and hard to kill. Three things: - It is already brought to light that a supercapital fleet doesn't really need a support fleet. - Doomsdays are a pretty poor counter to massed cruisers. - You went to considerable effort to illustrate how they would be immune to supercapitals. Quote: I agree Except Noone wants to Bonus Dreads cause it would unbalance them from BS, Not to mention its not a question of Bringing number, we will always bring numbers. The problem with always needing something bigger to destroy something is that this system of thinking never ends I am not at all saying that I want to simply bring a bigger hammer to hit supercaps. In fact, I'm rather arguing the opposite - adding the ability for supercaps and caps to bypass supercap ewar immunity would quite literally be encouraging smaller ships to hit bigger ones. Quote: We already require 5+ HICs - You Are seriously Fail if you need 5 hics to tackle 1 single super carrier. Let me know how that works out with swarms of ECM/Neut drones, Remote ECM Burst, and a pair of neuts going at you. I think you're so focused on having 5000 people at your back that you don't understand the concerns of individuals fighting individuals. Quote: Your Corp m8s might laugh cause they are short sighted and Rooks to eve. But Anyone who thinks long term can see the only way to make eve last is to make it cyclical not linear in as many systems as possible. We are hardly eve noobs - and all of us have a better handle on the game than you do. I already addressed your system and how it provides a "cycle". I also addressed how I am in fact providing a cycle. Quote: ALso Posting with your alt just shows how unprofessional you are. True Assembly hall going post with mains! Excuse me? Quote: The Point Is if you look for the solution in caps then you will find that those will just be blobbed. Why yes, I agree. Capitals tackling supercapitals, supercapitals tackling supercapitals... bring more people to the fight! And more will die. A glorious orgy of destruction! I'm not seeing the problem here? -Liang
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.01.23 12:02:00 - [23] Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 22/01/2011 09:15:06 Originally by: Liang Nuren No, of course it a tweak like this wouldn't make an immediate difference to supercap spam, but it WOULD add more ways to tackle them. I'm not sure why you would think that adding more ways to tackle supercaps wouldn't reduce their overall numbers? There is the not completely unrealistic scenario that it would lead to a situation where you only deploy supercaps if you are sure you got enough to not only annihilate a small fleet of HICs and Dictors in short order, but you got enough to annihilate a substantial force of carriers and dreads in short order, i.e. before losing more than 1-2 supers. Giving capitals the ability to tackle them will just introduce another round of the arms race to mass the largest possible supercap fleet. No, a sensible solution is to improve the survivability of subcap counters against supercaps (read: nerf their damage projection against subcaps), and as far as lowsec is concerned rething the availability of ECM bursts and other means of anti-HIC capabilties (ecm drone swarm, neuts, but also fighters and dps drones). Sure, I think any sensible person would agree with you. However, this was presented as a tweak to current gameplay mechanics - and as such I tend to agree it would be a good move. I don't pretend it is the only necessary move... though I will say that Bobbeh's suggestion is outright lunacy. Quote: Edit: And the logoff safeguard. Its kinda funny how the standard tactic to save a supercap that actually gets tackled in lowsec is CTRL-Q or whatever the shortcut is after the patch. If agression would scale a bit, or even extend as long as something is being shot at, this whole problem would not exist in lowsec to this extend. The root of that problem is that supercaps have enormous amounts of EHP - enough that they're simply game breaking. The arguments go that they need to survive multiple doomsdays or survive long enough to make a difference when the other side jumps in 100+ dreads. IMO that's totally bull**** - supercaps should die when forced into overwhelming odds. But, enormous EHP combined with ewar immunity and fantastic damage projection conspires to make them "i win" buttons. -Liang
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.01.23 20:49:00 - [24] I predict there will be the day CCP nerfs Super Carriers and all Super Carrier pilots will have wished they would have supported this.


Pages: [1] :: 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.