EVE Search - Sticky:GM Response On Bumping

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Sticky:GM Response On Bumping

» 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 .. 24 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 416	Posted - 2015.01.10 17:33:58 - [661] - Quote Solonius Rex wrote: Sharise Dragonstar wrote: The solution to bumping is so easy. Collision detection. Have ships damaged according to there size, whatever they are bumpings size and whatever speed they are doing when they get bumped. A frigate bumping a freighter at 2k a sec should nudge the freighter off line but should also destroy itself. If you want to test this theory...take a small road car, accelerate it to top speed and ram a HGV...let us know how you get on. (BTW that was a joke in case anyone stupid enough to try). Just deactivate collision detection at station entrances. So frigates undocking in jita at maximum velocity and bumping into freighters should be slaughtered? The solution is so easy! The tears from missioners and other carebears who accidentally collide with an in-space structure or other ship by mistake while at full speed would be delicious. Not to mention the havoc a bumping Mach could cause hitting small ships head on to make them explode. I would love this change. Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
Kairos Antilles The Scope Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2015.01.11 05:49:42 - [662] - Quote I just can't believe this discussion is still a 'thing'.
PastyWhiteDevil Mayhem and Ruin Point Blank Alliance 5	Posted - 2015.01.16 20:54:04 - [663] - Quote Kimo Khan wrote: You are missing my point. I know bumping is not a flaggable action in itself, but the scenario I mentioned is that it is combined with a flaggable action, just like Remote Repping is flagable only when you use it on a flagged person. So why would bumping when used with a criminal gank not be flaggable? It is not a question to players, it is a question to CCP to consider. Bumping to prevent warp is a circumvention to the warp scram mechanic which flags a person. Edit: Removed the whole thing of not bumping during warp as I can see that abused as well. what if you were to receive an intentionally distracting convo? should the sender get a glag? "Bumping to prevent warp is a circumvention to the warp scram mechanic" that's almost like saying align time is a circumvention of the scram mechanic. bumping is just manipulating align time. and if you are advocating that ships should not be "bumpable" once they initiate warp that is also a bad idea. it would be a buff to super caps which is not needed.
Argonicus Wastion Dominion Home Front Coalition 5	Posted - 2015.01.16 21:46:13 - [664] - Quote It maybe role bonuses for all indy and freighters, like reduced jump fatigue
Ebola IV Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.01.18 15:31:25 - [665] - Quote The Solution is easy indeed: Just add a counter for bumping the same ship within a given time (like 5 minutes). After counter reaches 2 give a global warning to the bumper; After it hits 3 add a suspect flag to the bumper. It wouldnt change null-sec, but would affect low- and hi-sec in a very positive way. The high-sec elite pvpers would either be in need for a new "easy-mode-perma-unpunished-warp-scrambler" or alternatively finally add some proper timing in order to get something ganked. I mean, theres already really some special amount of skill needed to be in time at the Uedama undock and initiate the 3-click-sequence: warp to the Ganker-FCs safe spot, being fleetwarped to the victim, locking the broadcastet target and finally activating those guns while the bumper macro-bumps the victim all evening... So the mentioned bump counter would add to the already huge skill-requirements, as the bumping would need some coordination too and the elite pvpers would be forced to break new ground by being forced to dive into the "risk-vs-reward"-philosophy for the first time and actually risk something valuable other than all those cadged catalysts (or at least change the machariel doctrine)
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11331	Posted - 2015.01.19 02:23:37 - [666] - Quote Ebola IV wrote: The solution is easy indeed: Just add a counter for bumping the same ship within a given time (like 5 minutes). After counter reaches 2 give a global warning to the bumper; After it hits 3 add a suspect flag to the bumper. I can think of a few ways off the top of my head to use such a mechanic in ways that you won't like. Nevermind that it begs the question "why should the people who are afk be given protections of any kind?" (although your suggestion would, in fact, hurt them very badly by letting clever people flag literally any hauler they feel like without consequence) "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 440	Posted - 2015.01.19 04:00:24 - [667] - Quote Solution to bumping is easy...after CONCORD spawns in response to a gank attempt on a ship...that ship can warp off for 60 seconds unaffected by bumping. No complex suspect mechanics, no unintended consequences...just a clean and easy solution.
Ebola IV Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.01.19 09:24:41 - [668] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ebola IV wrote: The solution is easy indeed: Just add a counter for bumping the same ship within a given time (like 5 minutes). After counter reaches 2 give a global warning to the bumper; After it hits 3 add a suspect flag to the bumper. I can think of a few ways off the top of my head to use such a mechanic in ways that you won't like. Tell me more, I'm curious Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nevermind that it begs the question "why should the people who are afk be given protections of any kind?" (although your suggestion would, in fact, hurt them very badly by letting clever people flag literally any hauler they feel like without consequence) Well, of course my suggestion would need a proper implementation, so the system knows whos the bumper and whos the bumpee. And yes, even when Troll X decides to camp hi-sec gate while trying to cross someones alignment line to force them to be the bumper.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 476	Posted - 2015.01.19 10:36:56 - [669] - Quote Ebola IV wrote: Well, of course my suggestion would need a proper implementation, so the system knows whos the bumper and whos the bumpee. And yes, even when Troll X decides to camp hi-sec gate while trying to cross someones alignment line to force them to be the bumper. This is the core of the problem. It is very difficult to come up with a set of rules to decide who is the bumper and who the bumpee. And if the system flags a "bumper" that means if players just figure out just one way to game the system, even if it has low probability of success, it will be eventually be used to gank other players without CONCORD intervention. Freighters are large capital ships, and just like every other large capital ship since the beginning of this game they are vulnerable to bumping. If the bumping of ships in highsec ever gets out of control, the fix will come either from a module that needs to be added at a fitting cost (low-slot MJD?), or with a change to policy like "you can't bump a ship for more than an hour or it is harassment". CCP intends for hauler ganking to be in the game - and bumping is pretty much the only way you can hold down such a large ship long enough to get enough gank ships to it. Plus, there are many uses of bumping in other parts of the game other than highsec ganking make it unlikely that CCP is ever going to change the core of the mechanic, and they certainly won't just to increase the safety of haulers in highsec who are already very, very safe. Why do people insist on arguing for changes to the game solely for their own personal advantage on the forums? There are plenty of ways to avoid bumpers either by flying other ships, or bringing friends. Vulnerability to bumping is a (intended/emergent) weakness of freighters - just like everything else in this game there are tradeoffs. Use freighters when they are appropriate to haul your stuff, and use another ship or tactics when they are not. You know, actually play the game? Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
Tim Timpson Solitude Trading 17	Posted - 2015.01.20 11:25:53 - [670] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Freighters are large capital ships, and just like every other large capital ship since the beginning of this game they are vulnerable to bumping. If the bumping of ships in highsec ever gets out of control, the fix will come either from a module that needs to be added at a fitting cost (low-slot MJD?) An alignment stabliser would be a good addition. Removes cargo space in order to make a freighter hold alignment better when bumped. As it also takes up a spot where bulkheads would go, using it would mean you can't be as tanked either. Black Pedro wrote: or with a change to policy like "you can't bump a ship for more than an hour or it is harassment". I was under the impression this was already a rule. If you bumped someone for a significant amount of time without attempting to gank them I'm pretty sure if it was reported GMs would intervene and am certain I've read that somewhere written by a GM or dev. Like you said, CCP intends for hauler ganking to be in the game and bumping is a key part of that, but bumping for no reason other to bump and for a significant amount of time is just attempting to stop someone else playing, which is not part of that.

Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11389	Posted - 2015.01.23 00:18:59 - [671] - Quote Ebola IV wrote: Tell me more, I'm curious Hopefully it hasn't escaped your attention that it isn't all that tricky to have a few people bump the gank target into someone else, several times. Boom, instant free flag, no 15 minute GCC. Much, much less people required to gank a freighter, too, so CODE could start camping way more areas, more often, more effectively. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Concord Guy's Cousin State War Academy Caldari State 395	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:25:15 - [672] - Quote Tim Timpson wrote: I was under the impression this was already a rule. If you bumped someone for a significant amount of time without attempting to gank them I'm pretty sure if it was reported GMs would intervene and am certain I've read that somewhere written by a GM or dev. The official word as it stands is as follows (emphasis mine): Taken from the opening post of this thread. GM Karidor wrote: However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment The following are from this post, also by GM Karidor. Quote: While it will involve inconvenience, we will have to see that one actively tried evasion before we consider someone being followed around and harassed. Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard. Ideally you would move to other systems and more than just one or two jumps to avoid being found again quickly, requiring some effort to locate you again (i.e. through locator agents) Quote: If the victim just moved next door, that could still be interpreted as 'general area of operation', if the miner starts changing regions and is still being followed around by the same person that keeps bumping in a regular manner then the intent is pretty clear. ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries" NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Ebola IV Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.01.24 07:31:20 - [673] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ebola IV wrote: Tell me more, I'm curious Hopefully it hasn't escaped your attention that it isn't all that tricky to have a few people bump the gank target into someone else, several times. Boom, instant free flag, no 15 minute GCC. Much, much less people required to gank a freighter, too, so CODE could start camping way more areas, more often, more effectively. This would apply, if the system doesn't/can't decide between bumper and bumpee. Thats true. But as I already said: My suggestion would need a proper implementation which actually CAN decide between the former and the latter. If it can't, it fails and would make ganking even easier than it's now ;)
Ebola IV Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.01.24 07:34:07 - [674] - Quote Kairos Antilles wrote: I just can't believe this discussion is still a 'thing'. cool story bro...
Concord Guy's Cousin State War Academy Caldari State 401	Posted - 2015.01.24 10:15:07 - [675] - Quote Ebola IV wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ebola IV wrote: Tell me more, I'm curious Hopefully it hasn't escaped your attention that it isn't all that tricky to have a few people bump the gank target into someone else, several times. Boom, instant free flag, no 15 minute GCC. Much, much less people required to gank a freighter, too, so CODE could start camping way more areas, more often, more effectively. This would apply, if the system doesn't/can't decide between bumper and bumpee. Thats true. But as I already said: My suggestion would need a proper implementation which actually CAN decide between the former and the latter. If it can't, it fails and would make ganking even easier than it's now ;) So... How do you propose the system distinguishes between bumper and bumpee? Bearing in mind that at least 50% of bumps are random accidents. ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries" NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Solonius Rex F0RCED ENTRY F0RCED ENTRY. 64	Posted - 2015.01.25 16:55:00 - [676] - Quote Ebola IV wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ebola IV wrote: Tell me more, I'm curious Hopefully it hasn't escaped your attention that it isn't all that tricky to have a few people bump the gank target into someone else, several times. Boom, instant free flag, no 15 minute GCC. Much, much less people required to gank a freighter, too, so CODE could start camping way more areas, more often, more effectively. This would apply, if the system doesn't/can't decide between bumper and bumpee. Thats true. But as I already said: My suggestion would need a proper implementation which actually CAN decide between the former and the latter. If it can't, it fails and would make ganking even easier than it's now ;) Wouldnt an autopilot ship continuously bump a stationary ship in its path? Wouldnt it be clear who is doing the bumping, in such a situation? And wouldnt that provide the easiest kill, ever, to the stationary ship?
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11445	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:25:02 - [677] - Quote Ebola IV wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ebola IV wrote: Tell me more, I'm curious Hopefully it hasn't escaped your attention that it isn't all that tricky to have a few people bump the gank target into someone else, several times. Boom, instant free flag, no 15 minute GCC. Much, much less people required to gank a freighter, too, so CODE could start camping way more areas, more often, more effectively. This would apply, if the system doesn't/can't decide between bumper and bumpee. Thats true. But as I already said: My suggestion would need a proper implementation which actually CAN decide between the former and the latter. If it can't, it fails and would make ganking even easier than it's now ;) They can't even add alliance bookmarks, what makes you think they can possibly recode the game's base physics engine from the ground up? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Lord Parallax Dead Pirates Syndicate 5	Posted - 2015.02.18 17:36:47 - [678] - Quote SO as I have interrupted the vagueness of this "miner-bumping" I can now freely bump a player for as long as I deem fit as long as they stay within my "operational area" given I am a roamer with no general location to call home my "operational area" could be an entire empire or the entire game and technically would mean I can follow this person anywhere in the game as it is my " operational area". They would have to endure my "miner-bumping" that would eventually lead to them being ganked as I am bumping them to prevent them from being able to warp away and all though I didn't aggress I ensured them to technically be "tackled" on grind allowing the gankers to destroy the person I have been bumping for IDK 40 systems ( since I consider myself to be a roaming pirate). Thanks for pretty much saying miner-bumping is legal and we wont get in trouble for it at all.......still.... Long live JAMES315. and his supporters.............................. TOP KEK
Aodan OfClanBrien The Industry Of Strength 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:08:58 - [679] - Quote " We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics." bumping is toxic to the game play within Eve online, writing it off as "emergent gameplay" is just a lazy way of dealing with a problem
Sylphy TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium 72	Posted - 2015.03.04 08:42:23 - [680] - Quote Is ti normal that I can bump my deployed Rorqual into movement while it's industrial core is running? By trying to warp through it with an Occator? Is that part of the emergent gameplay that I have to cycle down the industrial core and reposition my Rorqual because the hauler can't arrive more accurately to a bookmark. Why not make a skill that improves accuracy when arriving to the bookmark? The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.

Drez Arthie Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 37	Posted - 2015.03.26 01:36:02 - [681] - Quote Aodan OfClanBrien wrote: " We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics." bumping is toxic to the game play within Eve online, writing it off as "emergent gameplay" is just a lazy way of dealing with a problem It is emergent gameplay, that's not the question. It's where do you draw the line between player interaction and player harassment? I think there is no need to restrict players' ability to interfere with each other, but there should be more ability for those interefered with to respond. If you bump a miner, and then bump him when he comes back to the asteroid, and then bump him five times more, he should get klll rights or something. The miner might be totally risk averse and do nothing, but then again he might decide this is a great chance to fight back and buy a Proteus and hunt you down.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 553	Posted - 2015.04.06 23:46:22 - [682] - Quote Drez Arthie wrote: Aodan OfClanBrien wrote: " We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics." bumping is toxic to the game play within Eve online, writing it off as "emergent gameplay" is just a lazy way of dealing with a problem It is emergent gameplay, that's not the question. It's where do you draw the line between player interaction and player harassment? I think there is no need to restrict players' ability to interfere with each other, but there should be more ability for those interefered with to respond. If you bump a miner, and then bump him when he comes back to the asteroid, and then bump him five times more, he should get klll rights or something. The miner might be totally risk averse and do nothing, but then again he might decide this is a great chance to fight back and buy a Proteus and hunt you down. Kill rights are for criminals. The frustrated local bumping a selfish multiboxer is not a criminal. The criminal is the multiboxer taking all the ore within a few hours of downtime every single day. It's easy for a solo miner to avoid being bumped but it's very disruptive against large mining fleets. It's easy for a solo freighter pilot to web sling into warp but it's very disruptive to the freighters supporting large mining fleets. Bumping does not need reworking. It only affects dumb pilots or large mining fleets hogging resources. Working as intended. There are all our dominion Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Dana Goodeye Quafe Commandos Point Blank Alliance 1	Posted - 2015.04.12 11:43:59 - [683] - Quote well... this bumping effect is just silly, oki? a ruiser collide with a bs high speed, none of them got damaged, but its not enough, the bs gonna gain speed... its just silly. like when i cant warp, because an acceleration gate"bumping" me out of alligment, or an asteroid, and i got pointed, but i cant use them as a cover when i get shot. ccp, make these things uncollidable, or make us able to use them as cover against bullets, missiles -.- my frigs would like that :) and one more thing... in my opinion, if one or more ppl bumping me lets say 3 times, and this is one ppl, or they are in fleet, or same corp or alliance, it would be nice to get a duel invite from them automatically, but my fleet, corp and alliance could be ... i dont know the word for it... participate? well, if i would accept a bumping duel like this, my alliance corp and fleetmates would be able to shoot them too. think about it... escorting haulers in hisec would be a thing... it would be awesomeee =D ccp make it happen or i will bimp you to death -.-
Aodan OfClanBrien 3	Posted - 2015.04.20 19:46:36 - [684] - Quote Drez Arthie wrote: Aodan OfClanBrien wrote: " We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics." bumping is toxic to the game play within Eve online, writing it off as "emergent gameplay" is just a lazy way of dealing with a problem It is emergent gameplay, that's not the question. It's where do you draw the line between player interaction and player harassment? I think there is no need to restrict players' ability to interfere with each other, but there should be more ability for those interefered with to respond. If you bump a miner, and then bump him when he comes back to the asteroid, and then bump him five times more, he should get klll rights or something. The miner might be totally risk averse and do nothing, but then again he might decide this is a great chance to fight back and buy a Proteus and hunt you down. I agree with your comment,when I wrote my comment I was exacerbated by what I perceived as a lazy answer to a problem in-game. I was seeing (in a high sec ice mining belt), a player who (clearly) has multiple alts, was using a skiff to scout the belt, bumping from the ice (newbie miners in their retrievers) using a Machariel, while watching people going to a fro from the only station in system in a tengu.Clearly the miners can't compete against a Machariel or a tengu and the bumping was pure harassment and greifing. I agree with bumping to gain some sort of tactical advantage in a fight ie bumping somebody away from a gate before they jump, but what i am seeing is just nasty and spitefull behavour against newbros (who are not afking) trying to mine ice as a change from veldspar.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 875	Posted - 2015.04.20 20:15:04 - [685] - Quote Aodan OfClanBrien wrote: Drez Arthie wrote: Aodan OfClanBrien wrote: " We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics." bumping is toxic to the game play within Eve online, writing it off as "emergent gameplay" is just a lazy way of dealing with a problem It is emergent gameplay, that's not the question. It's where do you draw the line between player interaction and player harassment? I think there is no need to restrict players' ability to interfere with each other, but there should be more ability for those interefered with to respond. If you bump a miner, and then bump him when he comes back to the asteroid, and then bump him five times more, he should get klll rights or something. The miner might be totally risk averse and do nothing, but then again he might decide this is a great chance to fight back and buy a Proteus and hunt you down. I agree with your comment,when I wrote my comment I was exacerbated by what I perceived as a lazy answer to a problem in-game. I was seeing (in a high sec ice mining belt), a player who (clearly) has multiple alts, was using a skiff to scout the belt, bumping from the ice (newbie miners in their retrievers) using a Machariel, while watching people going to a fro from the only station in system in a tengu.Clearly the miners can't compete against a Machariel or a tengu and the bumping was pure harassment and greifing. I agree with bumping to gain some sort of tactical advantage in a fight ie bumping somebody away from a gate before they jump, but what i am seeing is just nasty and spitefull behavour against newbros (who are not afking) trying to mine ice as a change from veldspar. What more do you want? CCP has already provided two mining ships, the Procurer and the Skiff (four if you count the mining frigates) that are effectively immune to bumping if actively piloted. Eve is a competitive PvP sandbox game where players compete for power and resources. I fail to see how it is nasty or spiteful to try to outcompete your fellow players for a limited resource like an ice field even using an emergent gameplay tool like bumping. Playing the game as designed is not "pure harassment" or "griefing" by any stretch of these definitions, especially when you are directly competing for a resources and when CCP has given you several tools to avoid the bumpers.
Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 20894	Posted - 2015.04.23 10:13:01 - [686] - Quote bumps into Black Pedro lawsuit for sexual harassment incoming Jokarz > you got owned? Chris Justice > just a bit Chris Justice > They were pulsing smart bombs at the point we all warped in. insta death. Lev Arturis > pervs got 59 killmails PERVS doing lowsec DD
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12790	Posted - 2015.04.24 15:00:35 - [687] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: What more do you want? You know perfectly well what they want. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1741	Posted - 2015.04.29 16:40:30 - [688] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Black Pedro wrote: What more do you want? You know perfectly well what they want. Cake?
Leto Thule Origin. Black Legion. 2472	Posted - 2015.05.07 00:43:53 - [689] - Quote Dana Goodeye wrote: well... this bumping effect is just silly, oki? a ruiser collide with a bs high speed, none of them got damaged, but its not enough, the bs gonna gain speed... its just silly. like when i cant warp, because an acceleration gate"bumping" me out of alligment, or an asteroid, and i got pointed, but i cant use them as a cover when i get shot. ccp, make these things uncollidable, or make us able to use them as cover against bullets, missiles -.- my frigs would like that :) and one more thing... in my opinion, if one or more ppl bumping me lets say 3 times, and this is one ppl, or they are in fleet, or same corp or alliance, it would be nice to get a duel invite from them automatically, but my fleet, corp and alliance could be ... i dont know the word for it... participate? well, if i would accept a bumping duel like this, my alliance corp and fleetmates would be able to shoot them too. think about it... escorting haulers in hisec would be a thing... it would be awesomeee =D ccp make it happen or i will bump you to death -.- Please god no. Cover? This isn't an FPS. Are you an asshole? Do you like flying with other assholes? Can you listen to the FC and not be horribad? Origin. is recruiting!
Nomis Alexander Haldskel Corporation 32	Posted - 2015.05.10 22:02:34 - [690] - Quote Aodan OfClanBrien wrote: bumping is toxic to the game play within Eve online, writing it off as "emergent gameplay" is just a lazy way of dealing with a problem Miner, calm down. Nobody ever got poisoned off a bump, at least not the last time I checked.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 1,69s, ref 20250707/2045
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.