EVE Search - What to make of Incursion?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

What to make of Incursion?

» 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 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Quemist	Posted - 2011.01.26 08:38:00 - [181] How about people accept responsibility for aiding and abetting a criminal? What ever happened to that?
Cyaxares II	Posted - 2011.01.26 09:03:00 - [182] Edited by: Cyaxares II on 26/01/2011 09:05:44 Originally by: Olleybear Quick tip. Eve isn't WoW. PUG's exist in WoW. Corporations exit in Eve. PuGs exist in WoW and are about as successful as PuGs would be in EVE. The main difference is in WoW PvE content can be hard because if it takes a couple of wipes before you have mastered the content that's no big deal (except if you are in a PuG and everything falls apart after the first one or two wipes), learning the fights by trial and error is an important component of the fun and challenge in WoW raiding. In any MMO you know what you are in for if you try end-game PvE content on the day it gets released (unless you have practiced it on in beta or on the test server/realm). The key issue is "consequences", something which EVE players used to be very proud of - in WoW each death costs me about 5 gold, the first completed dungeon in a PuG each day will net me 80 gold + loot + valor points. Using my professions I can make about 500 gold/hour if I want to. Dying a few times while figuring out new content or explaining it to other people (hello, Mr. "Is everything the same as in normal?"-Tank) is a nuisance but no big deal in terms of financials. In EVE dying a few times to figure out new PvE content becomes very un-fun really fast. And having to rely on a random group so you don't die becomes extremely risky (don't assume there aren't trolls in WoW PuGs that will cause wipes intentionally - but they cause you to lose maybe 5 minutes of your time and some gold + consumables before you can kick them, it's no big deal). I seriously wonder if EVE's ship-loss mechanics effectively prevent any challenging PvE content as people will only engage in PvE when they know they won't lose their ship (or the rewards are much bigger than the expected losses). The whole component of "figuring out the fight" just doesn't seem to work very well if you stand to lose 10-20x the payout for successfully defeating the NPCs on each single try. -- <Abuser> Won't the wave of intelligent bots make CCP work at least in the direction of securing the engine? <[IA]Morpheus> Of course it will, that's obvious.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.01.26 09:09:00 - [183] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Daedalus II What is really needed is for CCP to do something about the RR aggression mechanic. As long as aggression transfers to the RR ship it is as you say; you can not join an unknown fleet. The only safe way to play with unknowns is to not use RR on them; the pilot in an RR ship risks his whole ship on the premise the one he's repairing is not a jerk or idiot. Given that 95% of the eve population seems to be jerks or idiots that is a pretty risky gamble. And without any RR what so ever, any PUG fleet will be DOA. With a better RR aggression mechanic you can still not be sure you're not in a fleet full of players who only look for themselves, but you can at least know that they can't get you concorded any second. If we see it like this; in how many other MMOs are the healers punished by death for offering to help? Doesn't seem like much of an incentive to cooperation in my eyes. We are looking into this issue right now. Suspend Concord in Incursion systems. Its the simplest solution after all if Concord was there one would think they'd stop the Sansha's the fact they aren't shows they don't have the force to respond in a minute to a player who was remote repping someone else. Folks have the map and can plot a course around incursion systems, so they can continue normal activities outside the incursion systems.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2011.01.26 09:10:00 - [184] Originally by: Quemist How about people accept responsibility for aiding and abetting a criminal? What ever happened to that? Nothing happened to it or will happen to it. It will still remain after you give people the option to choose whether or not they want to continue aiding someone after he has commited a criminal act.
Watak Hunt	Posted - 2011.01.26 09:11:00 - [185] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Daedalus II What is really needed is for CCP to do something about the RR aggression mechanic. As long as aggression transfers to the RR ship it is as you say; you can not join an unknown fleet. The only safe way to play with unknowns is to not use RR on them; the pilot in an RR ship risks his whole ship on the premise the one he's repairing is not a jerk or idiot. Given that 95% of the eve population seems to be jerks or idiots that is a pretty risky gamble. And without any RR what so ever, any PUG fleet will be DOA. With a better RR aggression mechanic you can still not be sure you're not in a fleet full of players who only look for themselves, but you can at least know that they can't get you concorded any second. If we see it like this; in how many other MMOs are the healers punished by death for offering to help? Doesn't seem like much of an incentive to cooperation in my eyes. We are looking into this issue right now. Sorry, but if this were PvP I know that I would go for the remote reps first off as they are the biggest threat. Why compromise Sansha abilities in order to pander to those complaining about how hard it is. There is more than one way to skin a cat and until people realise this they deserve to be Concorded by their own fleet mates.
HeliosGal Caldari	Posted - 2011.01.26 09:17:00 - [186] give a boost to rr in the sansha zones
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.01.26 09:21:00 - [187] Originally by: Destination SkillQueue Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 26/01/2011 09:17:18 Originally by: Quemist How about people accept responsibility for aiding and abetting a criminal? What ever happened to that? Nothing happened to it or will happen to it. It will still remain after you give people the option to choose whether or not they want to continue aiding someone after he has commited a criminal act. Originally by: El'Niaga Suspend Concord in Incursion systems. Its the simplest solution after all if Concord was there one would think they'd stop the Sansha's the fact they aren't shows they don't have the force to respond in a minute to a player who was remote repping someone else. Folks have the map and can plot a course around incursion systems, so they can continue normal activities outside the incursion systems. It's a simple solution, but it's still just a workaround to the RR problem and has many other side effects. It would cause mass evacuations of incursion systems. Not because of sansha, but because players would flood those systems in an effort to gangrape and loot everything they could get their hands on without fear of CONCORD repraisals. It depends on your point of view how you like that, but it still doesn't fit the RR problem. Folks already doing that, inviting logistics into their fleets then dropping them so they get killed, etc. So in reality removing Concord would not change much. There are cloaked folks picking wrecks clean too. I realize it means more piracy, but CCP lately is taking the easy road. If they make it so logistics doesn't get global then you have the problem of neuts RR again in wars etc. You have to ask yourself why would Sansha allow Navy and Concord ships to remain...they wouldn't those would be the first ships wiped out in any system. Thus having them still there just is a continuity issue.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation Hounds of Anarchy	Posted - 2011.01.26 09:59:00 - [188] Edited by: Whitehound on 26/01/2011 10:05:26 Here is a tip: Only remote rep a ship that costs more than your own ship. Logistic ships come in many forms and at different prices. Let each price class repair its own. If the player turns out to be dumb, then at least you have the knowledge that it will have cost him more than it did you. If you however sit in an expensive T3 and remote rep a 3-week old noob in a rifter, thinking your such a generous and lovable guy, then you should not complain when you explode. It will not stop players from getting CONCORDed, but it will help in protecting the value of your ship. --
leich Amarr bish bash bosh	Posted - 2011.01.26 10:27:00 - [189] STOP Moaning. There is no RR Issue RR is fine just the way it is. Do not change something that isnt broke. If you think it is broke your shuold go play WOW you carebear
Gavjack Bunk Gallente Dark Nexxus S I L E N T.	Posted - 2011.01.26 10:28:00 - [190] Originally by: Whitehound Only remote rep a ship that costs more than ALL the ships repping it, and by a factor of about 5 at least. FYP.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.01.26 10:39:00 - [191] Originally by: Mara Rinn Originally by: Steve Thomas unfortunatly for us to actualy have the non linear gameplay, we need a working game And thus the push by the CSM to get CCP to focus on excellence of delivered product, not excellence of workflow :) But, but, but, inter office memos are arriving much more efficiently now! Now that's progress! Of course the part where they get read still needs some work...
Frecator Dementa Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.01.26 10:47:00 - [192] Originally by: Daedalus II Originally by: Burseg Sardaukar Imagine a smartbombing typhoon being RR'd by 15+ Exequrors in a belt he normally wouldn't have enough time to kill all the Mackinaws he wanted. Should those Exequrors be immune? IMO the easiest way is just to stop all remote effects on a target that gets a GCC. If you really really want to get concorded you can start your repper on him again after that, but you will get a warning if you do (and have warnings turned on). this pls ---- <sig goes here>
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.01.26 10:49:00 - [193] Originally by: El'Niaga Folks already doing that, inviting logistics into their fleets then dropping them so they get killed, etc. People keep bringing up this notion about "dropping" people from the fleets. Why? Being in a fleet makes absolutely zero difference for whom you can remote-support and what the consequences of that support are. The only thing I can think of is that throwing someone out of the fleet gives him a session change, so they can't (manually) leave their quickly crumbling ship for 30s and instead have to wait for the pod to leave the "natural" wayà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Quemist	Posted - 2011.01.26 10:52:00 - [194] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: El'Niaga Folks already doing that, inviting logistics into their fleets then dropping them so they get killed, etc. People keep bringing up this notion about "dropping" people from the fleets. Why? Being in a fleet makes absolutely zero difference for whom you can remote-support and what the consequences of that support are. The only thing I can think of is that throwing someone out of the fleet gives him a session change, so they can't (manually) leave their quickly crumbling ship for 30s and instead have to wait for the pod to leave the "natural" wayà People only spider tanking with fleet members. Someone is kicked out of fleet... stops getting repped because they're neutral. I don't think the session timer is what kills them.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation Hounds of Anarchy	Posted - 2011.01.26 11:03:00 - [195] Originally by: Tippia The only thing I can think of is that throwing someone out of the fleet gives him a session change, so they can't (manually) leave their quickly crumbling ship for 30s and instead have to wait for the pod to leave the "natural" wayà No. There are not that many skilled commanders around and the smaller fleets will simply make room for a possibly smarter, better pilot to fleet up with them. You do not want to share the LPs you might get with someone who is likely to bring you down. Your fleet members will also only have to rep those in purple and can ignore everyone else. It is simply a matter of risk management and the chance of getting something out of the fight. --
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.01.26 11:24:00 - [196] Originally by: Whitehound No. There are not that many skilled commanders around and the smaller fleets will simply make room for a possibly smarter, better pilot to fleet up with them. You do not want to share the LPs you might get with someone who is likely to bring you down. Your fleet members will also only have to rep those in purple and can ignore everyone else. It is simply a matter of risk management and the chance of getting something out of the fight. All good and well, but the way people throw around the concept of "dropping fleet", it sounds like they believe that this has anything to do with the mechanics of remote support. In particular, it has been mentioned in connection with getting everyone CONCORDed, when it is a complete non-factor in how GCC works. If the fleets want someone killed the way you describe it, they can just stop repping the guy ù no need to drop him. If it's used as a griefing mechanic, then either the entire fleet is a bunch of griefers (in which case, as mentioned, they don't need to drop him), or the fleet members are moronic automatons who don't question why they've targeted and repped this guy all along and why he's no longer in the fleet when he was two seconds ago. I'm not arguing that people might want to "trim" their fleets in various ways to get the most rewards ù that's a completely different matter. I'm only questioning the notion that dropping someone from a fleet gets him killed. It's the fleet members who do the killing (be it because they're griefers or because they have goldfish memory). ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.01.26 11:26:00 - [197] My official response: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! (4k people lost their ships in high sec....) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.01.26 11:43:00 - [198] Originally by: Quemist Originally by: Tippia Originally by: El'Niaga Folks already doing that, inviting logistics into their fleets then dropping them so they get killed, etc. People keep bringing up this notion about "dropping" people from the fleets. Why? Being in a fleet makes absolutely zero difference for whom you can remote-support and what the consequences of that support are. The only thing I can think of is that throwing someone out of the fleet gives him a session change, so they can't (manually) leave their quickly crumbling ship for 30s and instead have to wait for the pod to leave the "natural" wayà People only spider tanking with fleet members. Someone is kicked out of fleet... stops getting repped because they're neutral. I don't think the session timer is what kills them. so that, apparently from what I gather in this thread, calls concord in. ok....... --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Caldariftw123	Posted - 2011.01.26 11:48:00 - [199] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Quemist Originally by: Tippia Originally by: El'Niaga Folks already doing that, inviting logistics into their fleets then dropping them so they get killed, etc. People keep bringing up this notion about "dropping" people from the fleets. Why? Being in a fleet makes absolutely zero difference for whom you can remote-support and what the consequences of that support are. The only thing I can think of is that throwing someone out of the fleet gives him a session change, so they can't (manually) leave their quickly crumbling ship for 30s and instead have to wait for the pod to leave the "natural" wayà People only spider tanking with fleet members. Someone is kicked out of fleet... stops getting repped because they're neutral. I don't think the session timer is what kills them. so that, apparently from what I gather in this thread, calls concord in. ok....... Not to my knowledge .. My understanding is that one of the ways to get concord in is you are being repped by people, you then shoot some random guy to gain GCC and this in turn causes the logistics people to get GCC as they have just repped someone with GCC. You and the logistics get concorded. Sansha then ruin the fleets faces in a big way, (and some guy in a cov ops picks the wrecks clean is the stage 4) PROFIT! part.)
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.01.26 12:02:00 - [200] Originally by: Caldariftw123 Not to my knowledge .. My understanding is that one of the ways to get concord in is you are being repped by people, you then shoot some random guy to gain GCC and this in turn causes the logistics people to get GCC as they have just repped someone with GCC. You and the logistics get concorded. Sansha then ruin the fleets faces in a big way, (and some guy in a cov ops picks the wrecks clean is the stage 4) PROFIT! part.) Yesà and that has nothing to do with being in (or being kicked from) fleets. Yet the two are being thrown around in a manner that makes it seem like people believe there is a connection between them. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Caldariftw123	Posted - 2011.01.26 12:15:00 - [201] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Caldariftw123 Not to my knowledge .. My understanding is that one of the ways to get concord in is you are being repped by people, you then shoot some random guy to gain GCC and this in turn causes the logistics people to get GCC as they have just repped someone with GCC. You and the logistics get concorded. Sansha then ruin the fleets faces in a big way, (and some guy in a cov ops picks the wrecks clean is the stage 4) PROFIT! part.) Yesà and that has nothing to do with being in (or being kicked from) fleets. Yet the two are being thrown around in a manner that makes it seem like people believe there is a connection between them. Yep .. which leads me to conclude, once again, that most people don't know what they are talking about when they complain. No wonder companies barely listen to complaints and action them when 90% of them are moronic. p.s. seeing as you are reading this thread and you know just about everything any idea if that ship we got back in december with it's sansha decoder is of any use yet? Or was that all just a tease?
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.01.26 12:16:00 - [202] Originally by: Caldariftw123 Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Quemist Originally by: Tippia People keep bringing up this notion about "dropping" people from the fleets. Why? Being in a fleet makes absolutely zero difference for whom you can remote-support and what the consequences of that support are. The only thing I can think of is that throwing someone out of the fleet gives him a session change, so they can't (manually) leave their quickly crumbling ship for 30s and instead have to wait for the pod to leave the "natural" wayà People only spider tanking with fleet members. Someone is kicked out of fleet... stops getting repped because they're neutral. I don't think the session timer is what kills them. so that, apparently from what I gather in this thread, calls concord in. ok....... Not to my knowledge .. My understanding is that one of the ways to get concord in is you are being repped by people, you then shoot some random guy to gain GCC and this in turn causes the logistics people to get GCC as they have just repped someone with GCC. You and the logistics get concorded. Sansha then ruin the fleets faces in a big way, (and some guy in a cov ops picks the wrecks clean is the stage 4) PROFIT! part.) I know that part. what this thread seems to be build around is, that dropping logis out of your fleet will call the concord on you. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Aderata Nonkin	Posted - 2011.01.26 12:20:00 - [203] I thought EVE was a "sandbox game where you can do whatever you want". But the "whatever you want"-bit seem to only consist of killing other ships because otherwise you're a noob or a carebear. It's cliche and very very old by now. Try to use some other "insults" because I think most people you so eloquently like to call "carebear" frankly don't give a monkey.
Iogrim	Posted - 2011.01.26 12:22:00 - [204] Originally by: Sig Sour My official response: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! (4k people lost their ships in high sec....) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unfortunately, many of them were noobships. I myself lost 5 Ibis'es, Executioner and Condor (Dodixie ran out of Vigils! What a shame!).
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.01.26 12:40:00 - [205] Originally by: Aderata Nonkin I thought EVE was a "sandbox game where you can do whatever you want". But the "whatever you want"-bit seem to only consist of killing other ships because otherwise you're a noob or a carebear. It's cliche and very very old by now. Try to use some other "insults" because I think most people you so eloquently like to call "carebear" frankly don't give a monkey. ok how about this for a non-insult: man up and shoot back. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Infinity Ziona Minmatar Cloakers	Posted - 2011.01.26 12:44:00 - [206] Originally by: Aderata Nonkin I thought EVE was a "sandbox game where you can do whatever you want". But the "whatever you want"-bit seem to only consist of killing other ships because otherwise you're a noob or a carebear. It's cliche and very very old by now. Try to use some other "insults" because I think most people you so eloquently like to call "carebear" frankly don't give a monkey. Result of kids getting picked on at school. Low self esteem. Que EvE Online. Now they can be a pirate / griefer / hater who pick on the new nerds (carebears) and pretend to be 90% psychotic asshats like their old school foes. Well at least for a few hours, then they log off, get a skinny latte, go to the office and get their family sedan scratched by a scary hillbilly (probably one of the guys who used to beat them up at school). If theres any justice their insurance company will write them a letter with 'Herp Derp, Cry Moar Noob'. Sadly won't happen. --------------------------------------------- I AM BETTER THAN YOU.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2011.01.26 13:30:00 - [207] Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: Destination SkillQueue Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 26/01/2011 09:17:18 Originally by: Quemist How about people accept responsibility for aiding and abetting a criminal? What ever happened to that? Nothing happened to it or will happen to it. It will still remain after you give people the option to choose whether or not they want to continue aiding someone after he has commited a criminal act. Originally by: El'Niaga Suspend Concord in Incursion systems. Its the simplest solution after all if Concord was there one would think they'd stop the Sansha's the fact they aren't shows they don't have the force to respond in a minute to a player who was remote repping someone else. Folks have the map and can plot a course around incursion systems, so they can continue normal activities outside the incursion systems. It's a simple solution, but it's still just a workaround to the RR problem and has many other side effects. It would cause mass evacuations of incursion systems. Not because of sansha, but because players would flood those systems in an effort to gangrape and loot everything they could get their hands on without fear of CONCORD repraisals. It depends on your point of view how you like that, but it still doesn't fit the RR problem. Folks already doing that, inviting logistics into their fleets then dropping them so they get killed, etc. So in reality removing Concord would not change much. There are cloaked folks picking wrecks clean too. I realize it means more piracy, but CCP lately is taking the easy road. If they make it so logistics doesn't get global then you have the problem of neuts RR again in wars etc. You have to ask yourself why would Sansha allow Navy and Concord ships to remain...they wouldn't those would be the first ships wiped out in any system. Thus having them still there just is a continuity issue. I don't think you get it or I'm misunderstanding what kind of CONCORD removal we are talking about. If you remove CONCORD entirely from an incursion system, think of what a trade or mission hub would be like. Most of the kills and profit to be made aren't from RR tricks and it would cause huge disruptions to everyones gameplay. The tears you see now would be a but a single drop in comparison to the tidalwave such a change would cause. More importantly that still leaves the point, that such a solution doesn't fix the actual problem. That just tries to solve the symptom by ignoring the problem and creating even more havoc. The problem is that the RR guy doesn't get to choose when he gets GCC. In practice the choosing for him is done by the guy he is repping. This is wrong. People don't seem to be able to defend why it should stay. They just rant about how you can work around this design flaw or talk about treating symptoms of the problem. The basic issue remains however. The RR guy should get control whether or not he wants to initiate the GCC. As long as the decision is done for him by someone else the problem persists. I don't see how it would be a problem in wars. Currently you get to shoot the neutral RR who reps a wartarget you shoot and the neutral rep has no risk of getting CONCORDED. How exactly would giving the option to stop the RR pilot from repping a player who gets GCC change things for the worse, since neutral RR of wartargets doesn't cause GCC? It seems to me you are mixing aggression flagging with GCC. They aren't the same thing. I also remind you, that while you give an in universe explenation for the removal of CONCORD, it makes for bad gameplay and doesn't fix the initial problem. And while such justifications are good to have, gameplay always takes priority over them.
My Postman	Posted - 2011.01.26 13:40:00 - [208] This thread is hilarious. Flooded with the lowlifes of eve with the one and only thing in their mind how to possibly circumvent flawed game mechanics to ruin another ones day. Followed by even worse, who want to remove concord from infested systems (or constellations) in highsec for "RPing" (what a lough), but all they want is shoot others in the back without beeing bbq¦ed by concord. Ninja looters clapping their hands for billions of loot. CCP is already "having a look" at known issues from RRing, which is one thing of this thread i support. Tippia is trying to be "useful" and tries to support CCP with many possibilities of changing GCC, RRing and other effects of remote modules, which is the second thing i support. More news at 10.
Infinity Ziona Minmatar Cloakers	Posted - 2011.01.26 15:27:00 - [209] Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 26/01/2011 15:28:08 Theres a very simple solution: No amount of repping is going to prevent concord from killing you. They have too much DPS. Therefore you don't need to give flag a remote repper as a criminal. If there is a case where a person gets enough of a remote rep chain going that they could tank concord then that would be an exploit as everyone already knows thats a no-no, and warnings and bans would be forthcoming. Therefore GCC on remote reppers is a pointless mechanic in regards to concord and simply should be removed. End of story. --------------------------------------------- I AM BETTER THAN YOU.
Posta Wifda Mosta	Posted - 2011.01.26 15:43:00 - [210] Edited by: Posta Wifda Mosta on 26/01/2011 15:44:29 Edited by: Posta Wifda Mosta on 26/01/2011 15:44:03 Here's a thought, criminals "think" they are cool, how about make anyone with a negative security status red to anyone with a positive security status. Scrap concord and we police ourself. Since the paper hat pirates flee from lowsec to highsec like the carebears they truly are in order to avoid combatn with our alliance, we would like to be able to hunt them down in highsec also. I need more frozen ***** pirate corpse's in my hangar. In effect they have chosen to exclude themselves from the general EvE community, so let us have at them without the chains that bind us.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 :: 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.