EVE Search - Proposal for Tiericide of the Industrial Class.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Proposal for Tiericide of the Industrial Class.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 274	Posted - 2013.01.30 09:18:00 - [31] - Quote Just had a thought. It's a bit silly, but you never know. What are people's thoughts on Pirate Industrials? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Bow'en Solutum Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 23	Posted - 2013.01.30 21:53:00 - [32] - Quote What about having Haulers designed for specific cargo? I know that personally, on my Mining Alt, that with Caldari Industrial 5, Transport Ships 5, and Mining Barge 3 that unless I want to completely Pimp out a Bustard, I am better of hauling Ore in a Mining Barge. Now I don't mind that, but previously that was a large part of my mining "gameplay" (fill hull, dock and dump, haul to trade station for sales). The recent changes have made Ore Hold a much better "shipping option" pre-Freighter in most cases. My recommendation is to have some dedicated Haulers for various cargo. A "Ship Hauler" (large Ship Bay, small General Hold), an "Ore Hauler" (large Ore Bay, small General Hold) and a "Stuff Hauler" (current model of Industrials).
Vayn Baxtor Community for Justice Paradox Trust 25	Posted - 2013.01.31 01:28:00 - [33] - Quote Quote: A "Ship Hauler" (large Ship Bay, small General Hold), an "Ore Hauler" (large Ore Bay, small General Hold) and a "Stuff Hauler" (current model of Industrials). Sounds great. Would be good to see ways to lower the workload stress on those who are literrally doing logistics for megacorps, especially since not everybody can bring a billion ISK freighter.
Daichi Yamato Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire 564	Posted - 2013.01.31 02:28:00 - [34] - Quote i thought it would be most logical to imitate the miner tiericide. A hauler for dangerous space - most likely smaller and faster with extra warp strength and a small hold rather than heavily tanked. maybe even defences like drones and weapons. perhaps an iteration of this without defences could be the 'noob hauler'. i also like the idea of a hauler that has strong sensors that make it difficult to probe (something i think the skiff could use). An afk hauler - relatively tough tank and moderate capacity at the expense of speed A super hauler - that maximises hauling at the expense of everything else. massive hold, light tank but moderate speed for active hauling. PI and ship specific haulers sound cool, but what could they do that a super hauler couldnt do in hi-sec? or a fast hauler couldnt do in dangerous space? or an afk hauler couldnt do whilst afk-ing?
Pearl Canopus School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 8	Posted - 2013.01.31 14:29:00 - [35] - Quote Hakan MacTrew wrote: Just had a thought. It's a bit silly, but you never know. What are people's thoughts on Pirate Industrials? Make them smuggler types, but maybe give them ewar, scan proof holds or other interesting and maybe unique bonuses? This is a great idea. But I'm really sure, this idea has been mentioned in this thread before. Bow'en wrote: What about having Haulers designed for specific cargo? I know that personally, on my Mining Alt, that with Caldari Industrial 5, Transport Ships 5, and Mining Barge 3 that unless I want to completely Pimp out a Bustard, I am better of hauling Ore in a Mining Barge. This is one of the problems I mentioned above like a couple of other players too. I cannot know, which changes the running rebalancing of ships will provide. When the ore bay of mining barges have risen, the cargo bay of industrial ships kept small. Moreover the ORE Industrial skill offers the Noctis only. This is a point to pick. There are several threads running this issue. I support the idea to introduce a full set of non-racial but Tech1 ORE haulers (small/fast, small/hardened, bulk/slow). Moreover tug-boats are beloved by a lot of players. Stacking (more or less specialized transport-)containers to a tug without any own cargo bay. Bow'en wrote: Now I don't mind that, but previously that was a large part of my mining "gameplay" (fill hull, dock and dump, haul to trade station for sales). The recent changes have made Ore Hold a much better "shipping option" pre-Freighter in most cases. My recommendation is to have some dedicated Haulers for various cargo. A "Ship Hauler" (large Ship Bay, small General Hold), an "Ore Hauler" (large Ore Bay, small General Hold) and a "Stuff Hauler" (current model of Industrials). The intention I see here, is a Mini-Carrier. I'm not sure whether I like this idea for industrials instead of capital industrials (sub capitals). I truely believe carrying several ships might be the job of capital ships. There are capital industrial ships with multi task solutions (hauling, command option, compressing, corp bay, corp hangar and so on.). This tasks could be divided to several specialized industrials (low efficiency) or subcapitals. Another suggestion was to use modules for specializing a more universal chassis comparable to Tech3 ships but not as Tech3 construction. So specializing could perform on a ship or on a module base. But back to haulers. IMHO ORE Industrials skill need a true right to exist. And please beware this thread from "Orca is a good ore hauler..."-patter. Subcapitals are no haulers in the meaning of this thread.
Bow'en Solutum Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 25	Posted - 2013.01.31 17:49:00 - [36] - Quote For the record, I agree on ORE Haulers, that character is currently ~6 days from Ore Industrial 5 (when he is not mining he runs a Noctis behind me when I carebear). Now all that said, while that is a nice boon to ORE trained pilots, I think that there should still be a T1 Indy per Race that is at least Ore Hold based, otherwise you are telling someone who wants to follow a freighting path that they need to train two different skills depending on what they are hauling, or worse, that if they want to be effective sub-Cap they need a skill that does not help them when they can afford to make the jump to Freighters and Jump Freighters.
Pearl Canopus School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 8	Posted - 2013.02.01 11:35:00 - [37] - Quote Bow'en wrote: Now all that said, while that is a nice boon to ORE trained pilots, I think that there should still be a T1 Indy per Race that is at least Ore Hold based... This all might be right. If the skill pathes for ORE would be nearly equal to racial ship skill pathes, there will be potential to train ORE skill path as a miner. If your profession would be more militaric, you should train another skill path, what matches your profession better. I truely believe, that different skill pathes will be trained by many capsuleers already. I do this with Gallente Industrials, ORE Mining Barge and Caldari ship path. Nobody said, that the further skills like ORE Capital Industrial can not be filled with ore freighters and other mining business stuff. But they are not an issue of this thread. But I also support the idea to give racial haulers a smaller, additional ore bay or place an ore hauler within the racial pathes. As a new point to pick I will introduce the Syndicate ships again. Please have a closer look at the Zephyr and its description. There is potential for a ship/skill path developement up to special explorers, secured industrials and many more. In this way it's not interesting, whoever the ships would produce futurally.
Tennessee Jack Blac-x 11	Posted - 2013.02.12 15:35:00 - [38] - Quote I am going to jump in here for a quick comment on this (that and because this was burred about 15 days old, and some trolls decided to jump into mine (shamelss plug here) regarding industrials. But I will be specific on yours instead of hijacking this thread for my own concepts. There is a valid issue with having a hauler that can hold 50,000m3 (or a battleship inside its hold). It is mainly linked with wormhole mechanics and how a C1 won't allow a Battleship inside (but would allow this ship with a battleship hull in it). We run into a balancing issue regarding this. There is not enough of a difference between the Hauler and the Armored Transport (as the armored transport can hold more, have a higher ehp). The pricetag is not the best method of creating difference within the ships. The Fast Transport and the Armored Transport would probably be enough, instead of making a 3rd ship that does not quite cut it between the two of those. As a complete newbie ship... I suppose, but it probably needs more in it to be more viable. What that can be, I do not know.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band 380	Posted - 2013.02.12 21:07:00 - [39] - Quote Tennessee Jack wrote: There is a valid issue with having a hauler that can hold 50,000m3 (or a battleship inside its hold). It is mainly linked with wormhole mechanics and how a C1 won't allow a Battleship inside I think they should just buck up and add the mass of the stuff on and in the ship to the ship's mass. For the vast majority of combat ships that won't add close to as much as any armor plates they might fit or the bonus from running a propulsion module. But industrials carrying very heavy cargo will align slower than empty industrials. And very heavy industrials won't make it through wormholes as easily as lightweight industrials will. They could actually reduce the base mass of industrials and make them align rather fast when empty. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Tennessee Jack Blac-x 12	Posted - 2013.02.12 21:50:00 - [40] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Tennessee Jack wrote: There is a valid issue with having a hauler that can hold 50,000m3 (or a battleship inside its hold). It is mainly linked with wormhole mechanics and how a C1 won't allow a Battleship inside I think they should just buck up and add the mass of the stuff on and in the ship to the ship's mass. For the vast majority of combat ships that won't add close to as much as any armor plates they might fit or the bonus from running a propulsion module. But industrials carrying very heavy cargo will align slower than empty industrials. And very heavy industrials won't make it through wormholes as easily as lightweight industrials will. They could actually reduce the base mass of industrials and make them align rather fast when empty. I considered the mass issues also, which comes again back to wormholes, as these ships would become the new wormhole closers (over a battleship mass, with the potential to fit a mwd on it and have a massive tank. It has to stay small in mass. This is an oddity I haven't figured out as of yet. It would be a mess to setup restrictions for this ship.

Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band 381	Posted - 2013.02.13 06:42:00 - [41] - Quote Tennessee Jack wrote: I considered the mass issues also, which comes again back to wormholes, as these ships would become the new wormhole closers (over a battleship mass, with the potential to fit a mwd on it and have a massive tank. It has to stay small in mass. This is an oddity I haven't figured out as of yet. It would be a mess to setup restrictions for this ship. Why does it have to stay small? What's wrong with using it as a wormhole closer? To get its mass really high, you have to put massive stuff in the cargo. It'll still probably be sorta expensive, in part just because you need an industrial that can hold so much mass. Probably the most useful thing will be that you can adjust the mass to just the right amount. What's wrong with that? It'll make closing wormholes slightly less scary and not actually any easier than it already is? -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band 381	Posted - 2013.02.13 06:48:00 - [42] - Quote Hakan MacTrew wrote: Just had a thought. It's a bit silly, but you never know. What are people's thoughts on Pirate Industrials? Make them smuggler types, but maybe give them ewar, scan proof holds or other interesting and maybe unique bonuses? I like this a lot. It could help to bring back the kind of piracy that CCP wanted EVE to have but were never able to put in it. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Tennessee Jack Blac-x 12	Posted - 2013.02.13 13:32:00 - [43] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Tennessee Jack wrote: I considered the mass issues also, which comes again back to wormholes, as these ships would become the new wormhole closers (over a battleship mass, with the potential to fit a mwd on it and have a massive tank. It has to stay small in mass. This is an oddity I haven't figured out as of yet. It would be a mess to setup restrictions for this ship. Why does it have to stay small? What's wrong with using it as a wormhole closer? To get its mass really high, you have to put massive stuff in the cargo. It'll still probably be sorta expensive, in part just because you need an industrial that can hold so much mass. Probably the most useful thing will be that you can adjust the mass to just the right amount. What's wrong with that? It'll make closing wormholes slightly less scary and not actually any easier than it already is? It's giving a new role to a ship that never had it before. I am more concerned about its mass and its change to gameplay. The restriction of c1 wormholes is there for a reason
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band 382	Posted - 2013.02.14 05:48:00 - [44] - Quote Tennessee Jack wrote: It's giving a new role to a ship that never had it before. I am more concerned about its mass and its change to gameplay. The restriction of c1 wormholes is there for a reason It wouldn't give the industrials any special roles. They would just be doing the same thing other ships can do, only slightly better. Wormhole collapsing isn't a role because any ship can do it. I know exactly what adding onboard mass to ships would do to gameplay. The majority of people wouldn't notice any change, but industrial and freighter pilots would soon learn that the mass of your cargo affects your align time. Hauler pilots would be able to make faster trips when carrying small loads, and would be slowed down when carrying a lot. The biggest effect of this is that people would no longer choose not to make a trip just because they didn't fill their cargohold yet. It would increase the efficiency and realism in EVE significantly, and offer yet another way that pirates can take advantage of unprepared people who don't belong in lowsec. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted 316	Posted - 2013.02.14 07:24:00 - [45] - Quote This could work, but I think all hauling ships would need to be rebalanced at the same time. It already takes eons to get a lower skilled charon to warp, with additional mass from cargo I would probably be able to make dinner and have a nap before it reached the next system. Swapping the ship velocity bonus to an agility bonus could offset the effect a little. All in all, I'm pro cargo-mass-calculation. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Kathern Aurilen 19	Posted - 2013.02.15 03:06:00 - [46] - Quote PhatController wrote: Cargo expanders and rigs would not be used if this happened, as wasting a slot for a tiny 50-200m3 or cargo on a ship that already has 35k m3 is pointless. Also, why add guns/missiles to haulers. Also agree that +1 warp strength is OP. But most of all, why fix something that isn't broken? I don't see any real benefit to doing this. The only thing I can think of atm that's need changed in the hauling space, is the addition of a ship to plug the huge hole in between industrial's and haulers, maybe in the 250-350k m3 range. With a cargo extender 2 in a 35k hold would give u a 44625 m3 hold... 27.5% I am a chat alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew -á:( I named my mining frig adVenture time!!
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band 383	Posted - 2013.02.15 11:17:00 - [47] - Quote Hakan MacTrew wrote: This could work, but I think all hauling ships would need to be rebalanced at the same time. It already takes eons to get a lower skilled charon to warp, with additional mass from cargo I would probably be able to make dinner and have a nap before it reached the next system. Swapping the ship velocity bonus to an agility bonus could offset the effect a little. All in all, I'm pro cargo-mass-calculation. Of course they would need rebalancing. Like I said, they should warp faster than current when empty, and only slower than current when filled with dense cargo. It would require looking at item density, fixing (and adding in some cases) module mass-to-volume ratios, and then checking how these ships align when full to the brim with heavy stuff, and adjust their base mass and inertia modifier until the difference in align time between empty and full is favorable; not too much and not too little. Kathern, that person was talking about someone else's idea to make cargo expanders grant a static amount of cargo space, instead of a percentage-based bonus like they do currently. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Bugsy VanHalen Society of lost Souls 466	Posted - 2013.02.15 16:54:00 - [48] - Quote PhatController wrote: Cargo expanders and rigs would not be used if this happened, as wasting a slot for a tiny 50-200m3 or cargo on a ship that already has 35k m3 is pointless. Also, why add guns/missiles to haulers. Also agree that +1 warp strength is OP. But most of all, why fix something that isn't broken? I don't see any real benefit to doing this. The only thing I can think of atm that's need changed in the hauling space, is the addition of a ship to plug the huge hole in between industrial's and haulers, maybe in the 250-350k m3 range. The size of a jump freighter? I'd rather just see a big boost to the ORCA cargo hold to fill this need. Since it can no longer be used as a unscanable hauler, compensate it by giving it a much larger cargo bay. This would equally benift those using it for mining fleets as it could hold more ore. To the OP. Your general idea is close to what I believe we will get. With the exception of combat modules, and +1 warp strength on a T1, I just can't see that happening. I expect we will get 3 indys for each race. Not sure what they will do about the extra 2 gal inddy's but really the itty 2 and 4 are rarely used. I would say we will get one with a cargo buff, one with a tank buff, and one with a speed buff for each race. Current T1 indys have 5000-10000 ehp when cargo fit. I could see the tanked version getting 20-30,000 but that's about it. it is a T1 indy after all. other two will probably still be in the 5-10k ehp range. I just hope they keep at least one blockade runner with two high slots. currently only the prowler has 2 high slot, but is is nice for scanning moons as it can fit a cov-ops cloak and a probe launcher, with plenty of extra probes in the cargo bay. This is a needed tool. In fact I think all T2 blockade runners should have two high slots.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band 383	Posted - 2013.02.17 01:40:00 - [49] - Quote Bugsy VanHalen wrote: PhatController wrote: The only thing I can think of atm that's need changed in the hauling space, is the addition of a ship to plug the huge hole in between industrial's and haulers, maybe in the 250-350k m3 range. I'd rather just see a big boost to the ORCA cargo hold to fill this need. Please stop mentioning the Orca as a suitable mini-freighter, because it just is not. It has enough cargo room for the role; that's not the issue. The reason it doesn't work is because it doesn't align faster than a freighter, it's not significantly cheaper to train for or to buy, it has lots of roles that a mini-freighter doesn't need. It has just too much extra baggage, if you will. Do we really have to point this out to every single person? Is there not one person out there who has the common sense to see why an Orca is not a good fit as a mini-freighter? I am so tired of pointing this out to you people. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Melekhar Tazinas Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2013.02.17 06:44:00 - [50] - Quote What would you say would be a good price range for a mini-freighter, then? It should clearly be cheaper than an Orca, but ~300-400m might make it too affordable already?

Arronicus Brave Newbies Inc. 197	Posted - 2013.02.17 09:21:00 - [51] - Quote Alara IonStorm wrote: 3. Orca and Rorqual The Cargo Expander Change will hurt the Orca which is why I suggest the ORE Bay be Expanded to a lofty 250000 Orca / 500000 Rorqual and their Cargo Hold be dropped to around 2500m3 for Crystal Storage. OP Advertises thread as Industrial tiericide/rebalancing, but is secretly using thread to promote OP's idea that the Rorqual and Orca should be nerfed as hauling ships, and should only be able to carry 2500m3 of items, instead of 100k/120k as is currently possible. No, no, and no. So glad to know that CCP won't be making this kind of blunder.
Caitlyn Tufy Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact 177	Posted - 2013.02.17 11:55:00 - [52] - Quote Arronicus wrote: [quote=Alara IonStorm]OP Advertises thread as Industrial tiericide/rebalancing, but is secretly using thread to promote OP's idea that the Rorqual and Orca should be nerfed as hauling ships, and should only be able to carry 2500m3 of items, instead of 100k/120k as is currently possible. No, no, and no. So glad to know that CCP won't be making this kind of blunder. Thing is, Orca and Rorqual are supposed to be mining support ships, but they're often used as a mini freighter / super transport or mobile bases, because there's no intermediate ships. In my opinion, we could split industrial as follows: Tech 1: 1. Small fast transport with high speed, low cargo space in 5k m3 region (sort of industrial frigate) 2. versatile transport with moderate speed, cargo space in 40k m3 region and the ability to use cynos 3. combat transport with moderate speed, maximum cargo space in 20k m3 region (mostly lower, as it would be tanked), decent health and the ability to field cruiser-like dps Tech 2: 1. Blockade Runner (same as now, except potentially with 2 highs on all of them) 2. Deep Space Transport changed into a mini Freighter (slighly better aligning as Orca, no ore hold, hangar, fewer slots, but around 200k m3 max cargo and considerably lower cost 3. Freighter (same as now) 4. Jump Freighter (same as now) This way, Orca would retain its flexibility, the current top end T1 transports would remain where they are, but we'd get a few dedicated ships and an intermediate step between T1 and Freighters that doesn't require you to become a mining director :)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band 384	Posted - 2013.02.17 13:09:00 - [53] - Quote Caitlyn Tufy wrote: 2. Deep Space Transport changed into a mini Freighter (slighly better aligning as Orca, no ore hold, hangar, fewer slots, but around 200k m3 max cargo and considerably lower cost The mini-freighter should be tech 1. Just something cheap-for-its-size so it can be as affordable as possible. The Deep Space Transport line should have its attributes looked at. Perhaps a third line of transports should be added, matching with the idea of three types of industrial. But Deep Space Transports should be awesome and expensive, as is befitting their being tech 2. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Caitlyn Tufy Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact 178	Posted - 2013.02.17 14:12:00 - [54] - Quote The problem with that suggestion is how fast the ship is available and how much it costs. A mini freighter would need to be priced somewhere around 400-500 million isk, which is more than any other T1 ship that I'm aware of. Furthermore, it would need a separate skill that would push its training time to around 8 days (same as battleships), lest it would be an equivalent of giving a 1 day old character the ability to pilot battleships/mining barges. There has to be some sense of progression, from light industrials to medium sized ones to large ones. Perhaps it would make more sense to split the ships into different sizes, same as combat ships or mining barges are, similar to this (only primary skills are listed, spaceship command / advanced spaceship command would be added as needed, of course; it would take 30 minutes to train basic industrial, 8 days for light freighter and about a month for freighter. T2s would be sidegrades to their corresponding size. Racial Industrial skill I (basic industrials T1) Racial Industrial skill V -> Racial Transport skill I (industrials T2) Racial Industrial skill III -> Racial Freighter skill I (light freighters T1) Racial Industrial skill III -> Racial Freighter skill III -> Capital Freighter I (freighter T1) Racial Industrial skill III -> Racial Freighter skill III -> Capital Freighter IV -> Jump Freighter I (freighter T2)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band 384	Posted - 2013.02.17 14:33:00 - [55] - Quote Making a ship bigger and more expensive isn't an excuse to make it tech 2. Tech 2 has nothing to do with magnitude. You're right that it would need to be pretty expensive. Orcas and freighters cost more though, and they are tech 1. Also, being tech 1 has nothing to do with the training time. Obviously, the ship would probably require advanced spaceship command, but the specifics of that should be left up to CCP. They're really good at sorting that stuff out. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Jason Xado Xado Industries 60	Posted - 2013.02.17 16:12:00 - [56] - Quote I like the ideas of having Industrials that fill specific roles. Here is a quick list of ideas I just brainstormed through: 1.) Mining Support - Large Ore Hold, Very Small General Hold, Lot's of high slots and tractor beam bonuses. 2.) Combat Supply - Ship Maintenance Array, Allow Ship Fitting, Ammo and Charges hold, High Defense 3.) PI Support - Large PI Hold, Very Small General Hold 4.) Small Fast Supply - Small Hold, fast and agile 5.) Convoy Defense - Medium Hold - Guns and such 6.) Ship Transport - Large Ship Hold (just hold assembled ships, not a maintenance array). Very Small General Hold. 7.) Combat Drop Ship. Has room for one ship. Can fly into battle and allow one player to switch his ship with the one in hold. Good abilities to get out of combat after drop is made. 8.) Supply Ship - Large Ammo and Charges hold, long range reverse tractor beam to send ammo and supplies to fleet mates. Or maybe some sort of supply beam that works like a logistics beam but moves items from ship to ship. 9.) Cargo Smuggler - Contrband Hold, Reduced chance of customs detection Anyway just some ideas to throw around :-)
Vayn Baxtor Community for Justice 29	Posted - 2013.02.17 19:11:00 - [57] - Quote All sounds great so far. I just want to see that we do actually get something to help the corp/ally cargo logistics pilots. I'd almost say it is a damn necessity to have a decent cyno ship that can do half of what a JF can do, too. It is often too much of a workload to get things from A to B, especially for small corps that have just a few people who have such. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.


Pages: 1 [2] :: 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.