EVE Search - Sticky:[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Build Costs

» 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 .. 17 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Jonas Sukarala Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 137	Posted - 2013.05.04 12:28:00 - [211] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: No, but SOME devs were concerned that it was going to be too hard on players with less income. As a result we spent quite a bit of time talking about how quickly we wanted BS to be accessible, and we also looked into metrics around player income in as much detail as possible. It was easy to establish that people simply have higher income than they used to across all character ages. With that information, everyone agreed this was the best way to move forward. okay makes sense but do you also feel like most of the players that the battleships still aren't up to scratch for the price compared to how well the ABC's and bc's/navy bc's perform? 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor.

CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 680	Posted - 2013.05.04 12:41:00 - [212] - Quote Quote: okay makes sense but do you also feel like most of the players that the battleships still aren't up to scratch for the price compared to how well the ABC's and bc's/navy bc's perform? I really don't feel this way. As I said before, I think its really dangerous to think about performance relative to price. I can ask you maybe - if all ships cost the same amount, would BS be okay? I know a lot of people feel ABC are too strong still, but that's its own issue which we are still watching.

Jonas Sukarala Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 137	Posted - 2013.05.04 12:46:00 - [213] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Quote: okay makes sense but do you also feel like most of the players that the battleships still aren't up to scratch for the price compared to how well the ABC's and bc's/navy bc's perform? I really don't feel this way. As I said before, I think its really dangerous to think about performance relative to price. I can ask you maybe - if all ships cost the same amount, would BS be okay? I know a lot of people feel ABC are too strong still, but that's its own issue which we are still watching. even if they all cost 200 mil basic thats before the 70mils worth of mods and rigs i would say some battleships really aren't worth the price... Attack battleships are the weakest partly because ABC's and also because they aren't mobile enough/tanky enough for the price when you could get a navy bc for much less with better mobility. So on ABC's any thoughts on making them T2 as they are specialists much like logistics are .. large mods on medium hull? 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor.
Akiyo Mayaki 171	Posted - 2013.05.04 12:46:00 - [214] - Quote At least buff the Raven just a little bit so the price will matter. It's not going to be sold. No
Zimmy Zeta Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 17570	Posted - 2013.05.04 12:56:00 - [215] - Quote So, since the role "cheap, mass produced battleship with low entry barriers for highsec POS grinds" that was formerly filled by the Geddon will apparently no longer exist, what are your ideas for the future of highsec wars? ABCs? Just think of how bad an average post by me is, and then realize half of them are even worse
Jones Hawkwood Sacred Templars Unclaimed. 3	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:15:00 - [216] - Quote mynnna wrote: Current Tier 3 prices have a range of approximately 200-240m depending on hull. In the past you've smoothed that kind of variation out, will you be doing that here too? Won't the heavier building costs on T3 be compensated by a drop in mineral prices? That's what I think, at least.
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 700	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:22:00 - [217] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Quote: okay makes sense but do you also feel like most of the players that the battleships still aren't up to scratch for the price compared to how well the ABC's and bc's/navy bc's perform? I really don't feel this way. As I said before, I think its really dangerous to think about performance relative to price. I can ask you maybe - if all ships cost the same amount, would BS be okay? I know a lot of people feel ABC are too strong still, but that's its own issue which we are still watching. You need to do more than just watch it. Even before the BS price increase, I was struggling to see the reasons to fly an attack BS over and ABC. The advantages in tank of an attack BS are simply not worth the loss of mobility; indeed, it's quite easy to argue that the ABCs are more survivable and hence "tankier" because they're so much mobile. You've really got to go medieval on the ABCs to give attack BS a place in the game.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 9091	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:23:00 - [218] - Quote Roime wrote: Malcanis wrote: Roime wrote: Fact: I won't be flying tier 1 or 2 battleships after Odyssey, their poor performance won't justify the huge ISK loss on the killboard Do you honestly let "killboard stats" dictate your playstyle? Really? wow What else? Some people have other goals. So if CCP didn't give us killmails, you'd literally have nothing to play for? 1 Kings 12:11
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 9091	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:25:00 - [219] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Quote: okay makes sense but do you also feel like most of the players that the battleships still aren't up to scratch for the price compared to how well the ABC's and bc's/navy bc's perform? I really don't feel this way. As I said before, I think its really dangerous to think about performance relative to price. I can ask you maybe - if all ships cost the same amount, would BS be okay? I know a lot of people feel ABC are too strong still, but that's its own issue which we are still watching. You need to do more than just watch it. Even before the BS price increase, I was struggling to see the reasons to fly an attack BS over and ABC. The advantages in tank of an attack BS are simply not worth the loss of mobility; indeed, it's quite easy to argue that the ABCs are more survivable and hence "tankier" because they're so much mobile. You've really got to go medieval on the ABCs to give attack BS a place in the game. Scenario: A straight up fight between an equally sized Rokh Fleet and Naga fleet over some objective (breaking up a camp on a station, destroying a POS, whatever). I can't see any plausible scenario where the Rokhs won't easily win. 1 Kings 12:11
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 700	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:28:00 - [220] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Scenario: A straight up fight between an equally sized Rokh Fleet and Naga fleet over some objective (breaking up a camp on a station, destroying a POS, whatever). I can't see any plausible scenario where the Rokhs won't easily win. Agreed, although noting that the Rokh isn't an attack BS...

MeBiatch Republic University Minmatar Republic 958	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:30:00 - [221] - Quote Akiyo Mayaki wrote: At least buff the Raven just a little bit so the price will matter. It's not going to be sold. why the new raven is like the old drake... its going to be great for blob fests in tidi... expect to see shield cruise/mjd raven comming to a battlefield near you. Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
Smabs Higher Than Everest Black Legion. 80	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:30:00 - [222] - Quote Quote: Scenario: A straight up fight between an equally sized Rokh Fleet and Naga fleet over some objective (breaking up a camp on a station, destroying a POS, whatever). I can't see any plausible scenario where the Rokhs won't easily win. I thought he was talking about the mega/raven/apoc/pest, which look like they've been re-designed as reasonably fast damage dealers with a limited tank. The problem is that at 200 mil or more there's no reason to choose any of those over a tier 3 battlecruiser. You also use rokhs and nagas as an example, which kinda says a lot since they're already both in use as very common fleet doctrines.
Bucca Zerodyme Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence 29	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:34:00 - [223] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: No, but SOME devs were concerned that it was going to be too hard on players with less income. As a result we spent quite a bit of time talking about how quickly we wanted BS to be accessible, and we also looked into metrics around player income in as much detail as possible. It was easy to establish that people simply have higher income than they used to across all character ages. With that information, everyone agreed this was the best way to move forward. Come on dont play the card "Data says". You know the old saying, "never trust a statistic which you didnt manipulated yourself"? What Kind of Metric do you used? - Average income - Average wealth - Average assets - Average ISK spend Did you tried to seperate ppl for the professions? Did you checked why they got more income? Did you count plex as income too? Did you exclude alts? Did you used different time intervals? Did you excluded the super rich? Did you checked for easy modes to earn isk, like FW (before it was nerfed) Did you checked for multiboxing? Did you checked the groups, who want to buy a BS or did you checked all groups? Did you checked for patterns, combinations like Missions + Salvaging? Did you checked the average play time or ISK/hour radio? Did you checked for there loses too (ISK spend on PvP or Got blown up by NPC's)? You can even check on more stuff if you like to, there are no bounds. Before you showed us what you did, i wont believe you a single word on metrics.
Little Dragon Khamez Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition 137	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:37:00 - [224] - Quote Begin Rant I have to admit that this is the most miserable year of playing eve online I've ever had and I've been a long time player since 2008. Everything these dev's touch turns to S H I T. Dear CCP, it wasn't me that totally ***ed the economy, I'm just a simple mission runner and had nothing to do with the Moon Goo, I've never claimed sov and I've never attempted to manipulate the market by ganking mining barges. Also I've never ever had a problem with rogue drones dropping alloys and I've never suggested that the Russian drone regions be changed. Also I've never employed an economist to interfere in a player driven market that was otherwise functioning really well. And I've never noticed my mission bounties or rewards going up since I joined back in the day... I've never run a null sec alliance and I've never spent the night in jabber chat/Team speak with my so called 'null sec enemies' planning our next highly staged engagement, oddly enough my alliance has never got a permanent representative in the CSM either. I fly Amarr/Caldari ships exclusively because that fits my character profile as a Khanid. After this next patch it looks like I will be flying sub battleships exclusively as the Amarr BS's with their fitting problems and high cap usage will be pretty looking flying scrap heaps not worth the pixels they are generated from when their prices inflate thanks to this latest development. Also it's nice to see a high level of Dev participation in this thread. We'd love to have as many cogent responses over in the Amarr battleship rebalance thread. End Rant*
Trevor Voss State War Academy Caldari State 3	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:42:00 - [225] - Quote Adapt or die. Things happen, things change.
Bucca Zerodyme Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence 29	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:45:00 - [226] - Quote Trevor Voss wrote: Adapt or die. Things happen, things change. I would rather die, then adapt to bullshit
Smabs Higher Than Everest Black Legion. 80	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:45:00 - [227] - Quote Quote: Adapt or die. Things happen, things change. For individual players, sure. It depends on what CCP wants, but I'm struggling to see the appeal of the new attack battleships at that price.
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1046	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:48:00 - [228] - Quote Ya'll going "I AIN'T PAYING 240M FOR A (insert any ship here)" are pretty funny. Dunno where you're getting those numbers, because there are two problems with them. First, either this RubyPorto wrote: Aducat Ragnarson wrote: ITT: CCP: 'BS's will get an increase in buildcost of approximately 40mil isk' Former T1 BS 2 days ago: 90-130mil Playerbase: 'Waaaaaah! My [former T1 BS] will cost 250million!' 90 to 130mil, 40mil increase -> 250mil Solid mathskills... Speaking of.... 40m average increase. [backoftheenvelope] Ignore races, and there are 3 Battleships. T1: 100m becomes 100m+x T2: 150m becomes 150m+y T3: 240m becomes 240m+z 40m average increase = (x+y+z)/3 Assume z is 0. Because the post says t3s will stay about the same. 40=(x+y+0)/3 x+y=120 Now, for t1 BS to only go up by 40m, t2 would have to increase by 80m. I find that unlikely. I find it more likely that t1 increase by ~80m and t2 by ~40m. [/backoftheenvelope] So, roundabouts 200m per tier 1 or 2 battleship and 240m for tier 3s. Which is still a significant cost savings if you can run attack rather than combat (or combat rather than attack, I can't keep them straight). Or my original prediction back on page 2 ("Around 185m for Combat, 175m for Attack, 165m for Disruption, assuming jita buy price for minerals" which Ruby's numbers actually get very close to anyway for the most part) is a more accurate reflection of the price. And second, minerals are going to drop post-Odyssey anyway, which will help counteract some of the price rise. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Zimmy Zeta Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 17582	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:49:00 - [229] - Quote Trevor Voss wrote: Adapt or die. Things happen, things change. CCP Rise asked us for feedback in his OP, and he is getting it. "Yes, master, thy will be done" wouldn't be a very constructive feedback, no? Just think of how bad an average post by me is, and then realize half of them are even worse
Smabs Higher Than Everest Black Legion. 80	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:50:00 - [230] - Quote Quote: Or my original prediction back on page 2 ("Around 185m for Combat, 175m for Attack, 165m for Disruption, assuming jita buy price for minerals" which Ruby's numbers actually get very close to anyway for the most part) is a more accurate reflection of the price. Did you include the cost of rigs and guns?

Altimo Homicidal Teddy Bears 27	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:51:00 - [231] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Quote: okay makes sense but do you also feel like most of the players that the battleships still aren't up to scratch for the price compared to how well the ABC's and bc's/navy bc's perform? I really don't feel this way. As I said before, I think its really dangerous to think about performance relative to price. I can ask you maybe - if all ships cost the same amount, would BS be okay? I know a lot of people feel ABC are too strong still, but that's its own issue which we are still watching. It might be dangerous to think that way, but I sincerely believe that as far as battleships are concerned, their role needs to be looked at as a whole. If I go buy a car, I want to know what I'm getting, as a consumer I care about how well my car performs, what kind of functions it has, does it have air conditioning etc. Adjusting the price soley based on "Mineral value" Is also dangerous for this game. There needs to be a justification for someone to purchase a battleship. I don't want just a "Better hurricane" that performs only slightly better than a hurricane in terms of damage, and can't do so well in many combat situations. As I've already said before, why would I want to spend that kind of investment, when a battlecruiser, and other ship classes of smaller size, can do almost as much damage, handle more combat situations and potentially survive more battles and cost less or for the same price, offer more. What does a battleship do? They do more damage and in some cases fulfill support roles, but they become big targets on their own, so if you want to use battleships effectively you have to use them in larger numbers or with support, but then if your just looking for damage there's no need to have one. You can just use an ABC, and it's easier and more effective to field them than it is to field battleships. If you want tank, being buffer, battlecruisers and command ships can fill that role easy, and with logi support you almost don't even want to waste the time. I rarely even see roaming fleets using battleships because of the agility needed to get from one place to another quickly. They are used in alliance wars, but they have hundreds of them and that's where I've seen most of them being fielded. So it's hard to find these in small gangs often when you just see T3 cruisers, and drakes, and hurricanes, and ABC's. Sure the new changes are nice, but it doesn't give them that much of an upgrade, the only ships getting real changes I've seen are the typhoon, the armageddon and the megathrone and the hyperion. The others are only having their stuff slightly adjusted. They still don't offer much value for what they are worth, which is why for the most part I don't bother using them even now. Lasers are only ever good against things weak to em thermal, large turrets don't hit very well unless you have ridiculous bonuses, and most skills at level 5 and even then you can still have trouble oh wait your nerfing tracking enhancers, now that makes me want to use battleship guns even less, unless of course I'm in a Mach or a ship that can track as good. Secondly, getting into a battleship for a new player isn't a big deal, it never was, it was being able to fully utilize the ship, training the skills and enhancing your ability to fly the ship. That doesn't just happen over night, and ultimately as battleships are now, just the tech1's are outperformed, majorly but their faction counterparts, and marauders. They are utterly eclipsed, sure I can make a bunch of money farming missions, but I use a Machariel, that's not your everyday battleship. Simply put, t1 battleships are becoming phased out, because they don't perform their roles as well as they used to, and every time you can get them into a role, there are other ships that can do a better job, for the same value or less depending on what you are trying to achieve.
Bucca Zerodyme Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence 29	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:54:00 - [232] - Quote mynnna wrote: Or my original prediction back on page 2 ("Around 185m for Combat, 175m for Attack, 165m for Disruption, assuming jita buy price for minerals" which Ruby's numbers actually get very close to anyway for the most part) is a more accurate reflection of the price. And second, minerals are going to drop post-Odyssey anyway, which will help counteract some of the price rise. Not all of us believe that, the Tritanium will stay in Null, it wont be imported, Hell who is going to haul Tritanium from Null to High sec? see: http://evenews24.com/2013/05/01/mabrick-thoughts-on-odyssey-industry-changes/
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1046	Posted - 2013.05.04 13:56:00 - [233] - Quote Smabs wrote: Quote: Or my original prediction back on page 2 ("Around 185m for Combat, 175m for Attack, 165m for Disruption, assuming jita buy price for minerals" which Ruby's numbers actually get very close to anyway for the most part) is a more accurate reflection of the price. Did you include the cost of rigs and guns? Hull cost only admittedly, so fair point. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Little Dragon Khamez Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition 137	Posted - 2013.05.04 14:10:00 - [234] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello everyone! The AVERAGE build cost of a battleship is going up by around 40mil Former tier 3 prices will not change substantially, and so the majority of the change in cost is carried by the former tier 1 and 2s. Prices will be differentiated slightly by role ('attack' and 'disruption' being a bit cheaper than 'combat') The reasons for the change are as follows: ... that lowering the cost of tier 3 battleships would have a recessionary effect on EVE's economy as mineral prices suffered. CCP Rise Have you ever thought that what eve may need is a drop in mineral prices, such action may be recessionary, but who the hell cares, its supposed to be a player driven economy, if that means that prices go up then they go down again so be it. If that means that people find it easier to make money then later on it's harder then so be it. That's just the challenges of the game. That's realism. What the devs are doing is interfering in this market so that it is no longer player driven. They are sustaining a bubble that needs to be burst. We have to ask ourselves 'who does this benefit'. It's not newer players wishing to buy battleships, that incidentally you've just made it easier for them to get into quicker thanks to your imminent skill changes. Lowering the skill requirements for cruisers and bc's etc I understood, new players can get their hands on more capable ships quicker and thus be encouraged to become subscribers, that part makes sense. Pushing up the prices of ships so that they are out of reach of the same players doesn't make any sense at all and flies in the face of what you trying to achieve. The left hand literally does not know what the right is doing. Back when I started running missions in 2008 (an old account) Ravens cost 72 to 75 million, now they are going to cost somewhere between 160 and 250 million depending on the market the player is in and how these mineral changes pan out. It was an awful lot of work to earn that 75 million to a new guy working his way up through the agent list doing level 1s' 2s and 3's before finally qualifying for a L4 mission. Given that mission rewards haven't changed that much and skill books still cost the same a new player today is going to have to do 3 times the work of the 2008 guy. he will also be much more afraid to take it his lovely, shiny and expensive battleship for a quick spin in low sec or null. High ship prices are encouraging a care bear mentality which is the opposite of what you devs have repeated stated that you do not want. I don't wish to be unpleasant but I'm not seeing any evidence of any joined up thinking in the management team.
Raging Beaver Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 14	Posted - 2013.05.04 14:12:00 - [235] - Quote My opinion on this is - f...k you. During the so-called balancing all you do is make cheap, crappy ships more expensive. The whole point to T1 ships was for them to be cheap. Right now they are not and when these changes hit, there will be no such thing as a "cheap" BS. You're saying it's ok because "we looked into some metrics around player wealth and income and found that EVE players are making money faster and faster". Ok, SOME players make money. I don't, I make YOU money, most of my income comes from buying Plex and selling them for isk. Right now, for one GTC, I'd be able to but 3 (THREE) Abaddons and fit one of them. Sorry mate, but that's not enough. About 8-9 fitted would be ok but not 1fitted +2 hulls! As far as I remember, this rebalancing thing was to make every ship useful and used. To make sure that pilots are more eager to engage in PvP activities. Well this is the entirely wrong path! Ships have to be cheap and disposable and not hugely expensive as they are now. Noboty will fight if they need to grind some idiotic plexes only to have crap-for-loot drop from the overseer. Nobody will fight if they need to grind forsaken hubs for 7 hours to fit a damn BS. They will ONLY engage in PVP once they are sure of victory. It is the prices, the out-of-this planet prices, that make people so very risk averse. This is what you want to achieve? Because this is what you will achieve with constant price increase. Of course you may say that there will be people who will be able to afford it - sure, botters will. They can afford to fly everything they can. They will thank you for it. Good job. And for all of you that are going to say "then start doing (insert whatever) to earn isk" my answer would be - p... off. To sum up: CCP Rise - I absolutely hate this change. Not going to cancel my subscription - don't have one.
Little Dragon Khamez Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition 137	Posted - 2013.05.04 14:14:00 - [236] - Quote Bucca Zerodyme wrote: mynnna wrote: Or my original prediction back on page 2 ("Around 185m for Combat, 175m for Attack, 165m for Disruption, assuming jita buy price for minerals" which Ruby's numbers actually get very close to anyway for the most part) is a more accurate reflection of the price. And second, minerals are going to drop post-Odyssey anyway, which will help counteract some of the price rise. Not all of us believe that, the Tritanium will stay in Null, it wont be imported, Hell who is going to haul Tritanium from Null to High sec? see: http://evenews24.com/2013/05/01/mabrick-thoughts-on-odyssey-industry-changes/ I fully agree, I 've never seen a change to anything in eve that hasn't pushed up mineral prices.
Aducat Ragnarson Cult of the Black Goat Dark Taboo 121	Posted - 2013.05.04 14:47:00 - [237] - Quote Back when i started playing this game in 1950 we did not even have such things as a raven or tempest, but you could still go to the store and buy one for about three fiddy. Now look at it today, when the patch hits they will cost around 500bil and you have to sell your first born into slavery! Think of the children! They will be the ones suffering from this, as they have to fly 4 more lvl 3 missions in order to buy a BS now!
Rual Storge Caldari Provisions Caldari State 9	Posted - 2013.05.04 14:49:00 - [238] - Quote Bucca Zerodyme wrote: mynnna wrote: Or my original prediction back on page 2 ("Around 185m for Combat, 175m for Attack, 165m for Disruption, assuming jita buy price for minerals" which Ruby's numbers actually get very close to anyway for the most part) is a more accurate reflection of the price. And second, minerals are going to drop post-Odyssey anyway, which will help counteract some of the price rise. Not all of us believe that, the Tritanium will stay in Null, it wont be imported, Hell who is going to haul Tritanium from Null to High sec? see: http://evenews24.com/2013/05/01/mabrick-thoughts-on-odyssey-industry-changes/ The industry model is going to be inverted. Instead of: Cheaper mins in high sec Build ships in highsec to import IT will be Cheaper mins in null Build ships in 0.0 to export or use
Shadow Lord77 Shadow Industries I 279	Posted - 2013.05.04 14:54:00 - [239] - Quote Here's a little suggestion: set a flag for every battleship that was put in production before the patch. Then when someone reprocesses that battleship make it reprocess for the amount that it took to build it before the patch. And every battleship built after the patch hit just increase its base mineral amount. None of this 'extra materials' bull dung. It doesn't make any sense lore wise and the production efficiency skill doesn't factor into it, and you can't reprocess it for its newer build cost after the patch hits. Doesn't that make sense?
Naomi Knight Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 353	Posted - 2013.05.04 14:59:00 - [240] - Quote Shadow Lord77 wrote: Here's a little suggestion: set a flag for every battleship that was put in production before the patch. Then when someone reprocesses that battleship make it reprocess for the amount that it took to build it before the patch. And every battleship built after the patch hit just increase its base mineral amount. None of this 'extra materials' bull dung. It doesn't make any sense lore wise and the production efficiency skill doesn't factor into it, and you can't reprocess it for its newer build cost after the patch hits. Doesn't that make sense? so how do you know which one do you buy on the market?:O



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: 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.