EVE Search - T2 BC Gang boosting ships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

T2 BC Gang boosting ships

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.12.08 15:43:00 - [31] "If you look at the build requirements all the gang mods are actually tech 2 mods with just a tech1 labling." Yeah, putting tech.2 components in the list of materials needed to make them wasn't the brightest idea if they're supposed to be tech.1 thing, either :<
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2005.12.08 16:57:00 - [32] Originally by: Esotera keepiru, I think you are also missing my point.... You need to have Squadron V to us a command processor to run more than 1 GANG mod in a T1 BC... Why would you need less skills to use a T2.. Needing Squadron V should be a PRIMARY skill needed for a T2 GANG BOOSTING BC... The motherships all get +1mod/level - should they require squadron command 5? (serious question - I like people to be consistant in their positions)
Sivona	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:00:00 - [33] Is the tech II command BC's being able to run 3 gang modules with only squadron command 4 confirmed. If so it seems really quite pointless training squadron command 5 (a tier 6 charisma primary) and the whole concept of specilisation is defunct - you can get there in about 6 days of training, for one of the most specilised roles on the battlefield.
Sivona	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:02:00 - [34] Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: Esotera keepiru, I think you are also missing my point.... You need to have Squadron V to us a command processor to run more than 1 GANG mod in a T1 BC... Why would you need less skills to use a T2.. Needing Squadron V should be a PRIMARY skill needed for a T2 GANG BOOSTING BC... The motherships all get +1mod/level - should they require squadron command 5? (serious question - I like people to be consistant in their positions) The cost of the mothership is mroe of the limiting factor than skill requirement, not the case for tech II BC's, i would be actually quite suprised it is not a pre-requsite as the whole concept is these are super heavy logistics/gang ships.
keepiru	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:05:00 - [35] More like 8-9 days if you already have HAC 4 & have spent 30 days training BC 5 Plus of course any amount of leadership skills @ 5 to actually use gang modules in the fleet version - dont lie to yourself, field ccs are just big slow hacs. I dont particularly call that low specialisation. ------------- Where are the named 800mm Plates and Mega Ions, CCP?
Denrace	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:07:00 - [36] Originally by: TerrorWOLF Originally by: Denrace Here is the solution: There are two types of T2 BC's right? The HAC version The Fleet Command Version So, for the HAC version, make its requirement HEAVY ASSAULT SHIPS level 5. And make the Fleet Command one need SQUADRON COMMAND level 5. I fail to see how anyone without HAC/Squad Command level 5 deserves to pilot a T2 BC. They should be for absolute specialists alone. Denrace stop it with your HEAVY ASSAULT SHIPS level 5 the T2 BCs aren't assault ships with more damage (i don't see the speed end agility), they are something different. I can understand it that they need Squadron Command 5 like it was (but i am happy they put it to 4) but not Heavy Assault Ships. I specialist in BCs because i like them even before there was talk about the T2s coming out and people laugh and say i was stupid. I fell good in one. If you specialized in HACs and put Heavy Assault Ships to 5 its your thing but Command Ships aren't HACs and don't force other players to do thing you have done because you wanted it to do. Look, the combat based version of each races T2 BC is BASICALLY A BIG Heavy Assault Ship. Theres no getting around it. It is a step up from a HAC, and is a big, powerful ship, which should have primarily HAC based skills. The fleet command BC is a different kettle of fish though. ____________________________________________
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:09:00 - [37] ôThe motherships all get +1mod/level - should they require squadron command 5? (serious question - I like people to be consistant in their positions)ö In the case of the Mothership I would have it as an optional skill. So those with squadron command 5 get the +1 mod per level bonus. Those without squadron command 5 can still fly the ship only they donÆt get the bonusÆs. Its a shame ships dont have an optional style bonus that's only active when you have a skill. Back on the difference between T1 and T2. What should the skill difference be between using T1 and T2. Should T2 take 2 million more skill points, 4mill, 8mill? Something else? _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Sivona	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:15:00 - [38] Originally by: keepiru More like 8-9 days if you already have HAC 4 & have spent 30 days training BC 5 Plus of course any amount of leadership skills @ 5 to actually use gang modules in the fleet version - dont lie to yourself, field ccs are just big slow hacs. I dont particularly call that low specialisation. Leadership and gang modules skills are already required for the tech I version frankly i dont know many PVP orientated players who dont have HAC 4 and its not a big training. Battlecruiser 5 for most pvp orientated players is only 25-26days and if you wish to be used in a fleet battle is very very useful anyway, anyone wishing to specilise in this role is already on the way to training this as its the only way you can get some durability and reach out and touch a target. The point here is this goes against the whole paradigm that has stood since day 1 of tech II, that tech II requires more specilisation than tech I, in this case the tech II result of multiple gang modules can be achieved with significantly less training within its key field. Tell me any other tech II item that requires less skill to use it than the tech I. This is inconsistent with everything skill related in the game.
Barbicane	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:01:00 - [39] I don't find lowering the T2BCs prereqs to Squadron Command 4 to be the problem. It actually makes sense that BC2 vs. T1 BC compares to HAC vs. T1 cruiser. What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal. This needs to be addressed by CCP before releasing RMR.
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:09:00 - [40] Originally by: Barbicane I don't find lowering the T2BCs prereqs to Squadron Command 4 to be the problem. It actually makes sense that BC2 vs. T1 BC compares to HAC vs. T1 cruiser. What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal. This needs to be addressed by CCP before releasing RMR. A 20% boost is small?!

SengH	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:11:00 - [41] Edited by: SengH on 08/12/2005 19:11:14 Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: Barbicane I don't find lowering the T2BCs prereqs to Squadron Command 4 to be the problem. It actually makes sense that BC2 vs. T1 BC compares to HAC vs. T1 cruiser. What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal. This needs to be addressed by CCP before releasing RMR. A 20% boost is small?! last I checked it was only 10% boost and when your talking about the base gang mod effectiveness being 2-3% thats really small. Only when you start maxxing your skills does it give you an edge.
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:34:00 - [42] Originally by: SengH Edited by: SengH on 08/12/2005 19:11:14 Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: Barbicane I don't find lowering the T2BCs prereqs to Squadron Command 4 to be the problem. It actually makes sense that BC2 vs. T1 BC compares to HAC vs. T1 cruiser. What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal. This needs to be addressed by CCP before releasing RMR. A 20% boost is small?! last I checked it was only 10% boost and when your talking about the base gang mod effectiveness being 2-3% thats really small. Only when you start maxxing your skills does it give you an edge. You're right... I thought I recalled it being 20% on SISI for some build... anyways, you still get your command coprocs and a 10% boost (even if that translates to 2-3%, I know people that have taken large projectile spec to 5 for 2% damage)
SengH	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:41:00 - [43] Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: SengH Edited by: SengH on 08/12/2005 19:11:14 Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: Barbicane I don't find lowering the T2BCs prereqs to Squadron Command 4 to be the problem. It actually makes sense that BC2 vs. T1 BC compares to HAC vs. T1 cruiser. What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal. This needs to be addressed by CCP before releasing RMR. A 20% boost is small?! last I checked it was only 10% boost and when your talking about the base gang mod effectiveness being 2-3% thats really small. Only when you start maxxing your skills does it give you an edge. You're right... I thought I recalled it being 20% on SISI for some build... anyways, you still get your command coprocs and a 10% boost (even if that translates to 2-3%, I know people that have taken large projectile spec to 5 for 2% damage) Its less than 2-3 %. At an average specialist skill of lvl 4. 10% of 12% is 1.2%.
Jim Steele	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:42:00 - [44] Nah i think the current requirements are spot on, i do like the look of the caldari gang ship for its two rail bonuses. How far do 250's hit with maxed out skills? Author of "The Apoc Guide"
Santiac	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:42:00 - [45] While i do believe it isn't right to lower the Fleet command BC's Squadron Cmd req to IV, i know i might - and probably am - biased by having trained Squadron Command to V. This also puts me in a position where any suggestion might seem geared towards the favour of anyone who took the time to train this skill. But here goes :) I have no problem with the Field Cmd ship having it's Squadron Command lowered to IV, this ship already requires other skills to lvl V to be truly effective (small/medium turret). But as far as the Fleet Cmd ship is going, i can't help but feel a bit.. fooled. While i can see it from the people who has yet to train Squadron Command to lvl V, and is interrested in flying these ships' point of view, i can't help but wonder what happened to all the Gang specialisation? The Cmd-CPU bonus surely frees up more slots, which is all nice and dandy, but the fact that there is only one single Gang Assist Module oriented bonus, on a ship that should have been so specialised towards GA modules, more or less - in my humble opinion - equates to Logistic Ships only having a single bonus towards their niche support type, and nothing else. As for me, i would not consider a Logistics ship with a single +5% effectiveness to a single type of support, along with 2 offensive and 1 tanking oriented bonuses, a Logistically specialised ship. :) Would it be an idea, to more or less try to mimic the logistical ship boni in some manner? Another possibility could be to add a 3rd bonus to the Fleet Command ships (-5 / -15% GA mod Cap useage per level), coming from the Squadron Command skill. This would help to circumvent the fact, that while us who trained Squadron Cmd to V are now able to use Cmd-CPU's, we have no need to use them, seeing as either half of our bonuses are geared toward us also fitting other hi-slot modules, or we simply do not have the cap to actively use more then 3 mods at a time. :) ________________________________________ <insert clever/witty comment here>
Jin Entres	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:44:00 - [46] I'd really like this change to be reverted. Mainly for a few reasons: 1. Field Command ships are the Mk II HACs in combat ability. If the specialization required will stay this low, it's the realistic next step for all well-established HAC pilots. They will be considerably more common and that will reflect in price aswell. The specialization needed is in my opionion both too low and does not reflect the role these ships are designed for (to my knowledge). 2. Charisma has never had a purpose for PvP before. Still, when I and many others created our characters not knowing virtually anything about EVE and chose the 'profession' Commander, that's what we got. With these new ships, I saw a glimpse of hope - maybe there would at last be a specialization field for me. Something to make up for the several million skillpoints I'm lagging behind those who started at the same time. I'm disappointed and will not hide my discontent. However I'm happy with the other new content.
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:55:00 - [47] Originally by: j0sephine Possible solution? change the command processor requirements to Squadron Command 2 or 3. (it's tech.1 module, requiring lvl.5 of skill with lvl.5 pre-requirement on it is absolutely nuts) Then change the skill itself so that it resembles the drone control skill ... i.e. each level of Squadron Command trained past the level required to use processors, allows to use one more command processor. So if requirement is lvl.3, somene with lvl.3 can use 1 processor, someone with lvl.4 can use 2 of them, etc. edit: alternatively, drop the requirements on the command processor even further, just to leadership 4 or 5. and either leave the squadron command skill with its current effect, or improve the boost it gives some tiny bit o.O; Quoted so ppl actually read it and see what a damnably fine idea it is. Good thinking with this one j0. Nyxus Plasmatique> "Cry 'Cartiff' and let slip the dogs of war!"
Shira d'Radonis	Posted - 2005.12.08 20:03:00 - [48] Squad Command V for the Fleet Command ships and HAC V for the Field Command Ships kills two birds with one stone... it gives the charisma-heavy players and those heavily-invested in leadership skills their own ship class, and it puts a rest to the griping of HAC pilots who have already trained HAC 5 and feel they've wasted their time since apparently the field command ship is going to pwn all according to popular opinion. ----------------------------------------------- ôàquod ad ius naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales suntö
Imhotep Khem	Posted - 2005.12.08 20:05:00 - [49] Well going to tier 2 usually requires some IV skills and going to Tech 2 requires some V skills. The whole tree si kind of flaky. These are called T2 BC so they require BC V. But you can see they also blend HAC and Logistics as well. So I think you can consider these ships both tier 2 and tech 2. Tier 2 HAC/Logistics Tech 2 BC. So it requires IV on HAC/Logictics and V on BC. I agree in that I was hoping for more seperation between leadership and fighters. CCP just refuses to create horizontal seperation, only verticle. I think they made a mistake with the HAC requirement. You cant be both Command and Assault!? Field command should have defensive and logistics bonuses, not damage bonuses. Both should require logistics neither HAC. AS it stands the Field Command does not add any flavor to the game. Its just another gun boat. ____ If your not dyin' your not tryin'.
Barbicane	Posted - 2005.12.08 21:29:00 - [50] Edited by: Barbicane on 08/12/2005 21:33:01 Originally by: SengH Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: SengH Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: Barbicane ...What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal.... A 20% boost is small?! last I checked it was only 10% boost and when your talking about the base gang mod effectiveness being 2-3% thats really small. Only when you start maxxing your skills does it give you an edge. ... Its less than 2-3 %. At an average specialist skill of lvl 4. 10% of 12% is 1.2%. Yup, that's what I meant. With the other skills maxed, it's a matter of 18.75% effect with Squad Command level 5 vs. 17.5% with level 4 on base 2% gang mod. That extra 1.25% is hardly worth the 25-30 day training time. I'm pretty sure there are a good number of other skills you could train in that time that will give more benefit to your gang. Wing Command could improve the difference, but I bet it will take a looong time before it is introduced. CCP probably want to study the effects of the current leadership skills first.

SengH	Posted - 2005.12.08 22:11:00 - [51] Originally by: Barbicane Edited by: Barbicane on 08/12/2005 21:33:01 Originally by: SengH Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: SengH Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: Barbicane ...What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal.... A 20% boost is small?! last I checked it was only 10% boost and when your talking about the base gang mod effectiveness being 2-3% thats really small. Only when you start maxxing your skills does it give you an edge. ... Its less than 2-3 %. At an average specialist skill of lvl 4. 10% of 12% is 1.2%. Yup, that's what I meant. With the other skills maxed, it's a matter of 18.75% effect with Squad Command level 5 vs. 17.5% with level 4 on base 2% gang mod. That extra 1.25% is hardly worth the 25-30 day training time. I'm pretty sure there are a good number of other skills you could train in that time that will give more benefit to your gang. Wing Command could improve the difference, but I bet it will take a looong time before it is introduced. CCP probably want to study the effects of the current leadership skills first. They are impossible to study. Sure you can say you go a bit faster here a bit more shield there. But at the end of the day your final result is the success of the engagement and theres no exact same engagement you can reproduce to say.. here and here have gone differently.
Barbicane	Posted - 2005.12.08 22:19:00 - [52] Originally by: SengH Originally by: Barbicane ...With the other skills maxed, it's a matter of 18.75% effect with Squad Command level 5 vs. 17.5% with level 4 on base 2% gang mod. That extra 1.25% is hardly worth the 25-30 day training time. I'm pretty sure there are a good number of other skills you could train in that time that will give more benefit to your gang. Wing Command could improve the difference, but I bet it will take a looong time before it is introduced. CCP probably want to study the effects of the current leadership skills first. They are impossible to study. Sure you can say you go a bit faster here a bit more shield there. But at the end of the day your final result is the success of the engagement and theres no exact same engagement you can reproduce to say.. here and here have gone differently. By "study", I meant listening to people whining on how overpowered the gang mods are . But you're probably right. It would be too hard to separate this data from everything else.
Niki Silver	Posted - 2005.12.08 22:39:00 - [53] I find it very disturbing that the command bonuses for the fleet command ships make it specialize with a certain type of gang assist module. For example the Claymore gets a 3% bonus per level for Skirmish warfare links. Well that's all fine and dandy but I want to use Armor Warfare links. Will be damned if am gonna switch to Amarr ships to be able to do that effectively. The Fleet Command bonus needs to be to all gang assist modules, not a particular type. It is just plain wrong to force a ship that requires such a rediculous ammount of skill to use a certain type of module.
Denrace	Posted - 2005.12.08 22:50:00 - [54] Originally by: Jim Steele Nah i think the current requirements are spot on, i do like the look of the caldari gang ship for its two rail bonuses. How far do 250's hit with maxed out skills? Mine on my Eagle with HAC 5 and full range mods (tracking comps + tracking enhancers and long range ammo) hit for over 230km (damage is crap though) ____________________________________________
Denrace	Posted - 2005.12.08 22:51:00 - [55] Originally by: Shira d'Radonis Squad Command V for the Fleet Command ships and HAC V for the Field Command Ships kills two birds with one stone... it gives the charisma-heavy players and those heavily-invested in leadership skills their own ship class, and it puts a rest to the griping of HAC pilots who have already trained HAC 5 and feel they've wasted their time since apparently the field command ship is going to pwn all according to popular opinion. Perfect. ____________________________________________
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2005.12.08 22:58:00 - [56] Originally by: Denrace Originally by: Jim Steele Nah i think the current requirements are spot on, i do like the look of the caldari gang ship for its two rail bonuses. How far do 250's hit with maxed out skills? Mine on my Eagle with HAC 5 and full range mods (tracking comps + tracking enhancers and long range ammo) hit for over 230km (damage is crap though) On test server, one of the tech 2 railgun charges is the damage of lead with a +100% range modifier. It severely nerfs your tracking, but who cares? You're dealing base damage at 250km! On a different note - Squadron command is on the Command Ship skill so it'd require CCP changing the skill structure entirely to make one ship need SC 4 and the other 5.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.12.09 00:36:00 - [57] Edited by: j0sephine on 09/12/2005 00:36:18 "The point here is this goes against the whole paradigm that has stood since day 1 of tech II, that tech II requires more specilisation than tech I, in this case the tech II result of multiple gang modules can be achieved with significantly less training within its key field. Tell me any other tech II item that requires less skill to use it than the tech I. This is inconsistent with everything skill related in the game." While it's true, the actual inconsistency here is with extremely high requirements set for tech.1 gang modules. Asking to copy this error onto ships which are supposed to be specialized for this field, and then to make other ships in the same group follow this scheme... not only doesn't correct the problem in question, but if anything makes it more acute and spreads it further. And as far as skill requirements go... a small comparison, perhaps, is in order for people screaming to have the requirements upped amount of skillpoints needed to assemble and undock: * tech.2 battlecruiser as currently on SiSi: 5.89 mil * tech.2 battlecruiser as requested: 6.66 mil * dreadnaught: 4.24 mil ... 5 mil if included jump drive navigation which isn't technically required yup, in the current form tech.2 battlecruiser already takes ~40% more skillpoints just to be put together, than tech.1 capital ship two sizes larger. What you're asking is to have that gap to be made even wider, close to ~60% is this ship really that much better than a dreadnaught, to justify this kind of skill gap? And before you answer 'yes because dreadnaughts in turn cost more' ... ask yourself if you'd pay ~1.5 x the price of dreadnaught to fly one of these new battlecruisers, if their skill requirements were in turn reduced to ~2.5 mil skillpoints...
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.12.09 08:22:00 - [58] Edited by: Pottsey on 09/12/2005 08:24:32 I agree that the skillpoints are on the high side but what about keeping Squad Command level 5 for the Fleet command and getting rid of the logistics skills? ItÆs not like the ship uses any of the logistics skills or modules. Actually I do like the logistics skills being part of the ship for a roleplay point of few but it seems like the best skill to cut out. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
SengH	Posted - 2005.12.09 08:36:00 - [59] The main problem is in the correct hands... these ships will turn an average fleet into a near invincible one. There is no major improvement in any one area, but playing the strengths of your fleet with the individual gang mods really turns them into omgwtfbbq ships. The problem is the stacking and the generaility with which it applies across the whole fleet. CCP is taking a wary approach here. 10% additional shield and armor hp might not seem like alot. But ie. you have 30 BSes in your gang. Thats an extra 30000 cumalative HP your fleet has more than the others. Sure its only an extra 1000(500 shield/500 armor) per ship, but it buys your guys precious extra seconds to get out. Likewise the T2 BCs used by someone who knows what hes doing... will make a fleet thats aware of the bonuses nigh invulnerable. Esp with the stacking on top of the current bonuses + the mindlink implant. The T1 BC + Gang mods have already had more effect on the TQ battles today than Dreadnoughts ever had. Its very hard to analyze quantitatively, but I agree with CCPs assessment that you should need more SP to use it than a capital ship. However for a command ship just an extra 3 gang mods + 3% per level of command ship seems a bit pathetic. I'd rather them drop all the gun bonuses and go full out leadership upgrades. New bonuses: Per level of BC: 10% reduction of cap usage of gang assist modules + (original BC bonus. Per level of Command ship: +2/3% increase to effectiveness of all gang warfare modules & ability to use +1 gang module per level. 99% reduction to gang warfare CPU requirements and 75% reduction of command processor CPU requirements per level. Ability to use all 8 hislots of the fleet command ship with gang mods as a full out command ship should not be gimped. For a 300mil ++ ship I'd expect to use it to the max. Ofc you could burst all 8 gang mods but you wouldnt have much cap left after hehe.
Esotera	Posted - 2005.12.09 10:27:00 - [60] Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 09/12/2005 08:24:32 I agree that the skillpoints are on the high side but what about keeping Squad Command level 5 for the Fleet command and getting rid of the logistics skills? ItÆs not like the ship uses any of the logistics skills or modules. Actually I do like the logistics skills being part of the ship for a roleplay point of few but it seems like the best skill to cut out. I must say I like your view and sengh view. I really have no idea why the logistics is on there.. And I do agree these ships need to be very specific.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.