EVE Search - Sticky:[Rubicon 1.1] Rapid Missile Update

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Rubicon 1.1] Rapid Missile Update

» 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 .. 25 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Jeremiah Saken State Protectorate Caldari State 10	Posted - 2014.03.21 22:25:00 - [631] - Quote Quote: Since when did we start designing ships and/or modules strictly for PvP purposes? EvE is PvP game. Rest is just shards. Rapids were designed for smaller targets than ships using them. Its niche, for PvE weapon platform must be universal. I know, with long reload you can't choose dmg which is main missile advatage, but they are happy with that and i don't think you can't change it. Missile user here.
Arthur Aihaken Arsenite 3129	Posted - 2014.03.22 01:02:00 - [632] - Quote CCP Fozzie, how can we go about engaging in a meaningful dialog about missiles? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Aivo Dresden Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 301	Posted - 2014.03.22 10:55:00 - [633] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: FYI the last 6 weeks have been the 6 weeks with the highest ever amount of PVP damage dealt by RLMLs, and the other metrics are all backing this up. There are obviously still UI and usability tweaks to be made but overall I am extremely happy with the current state of RLMLs. Because there is no alternative. What a completely useless statistic. Seriously though, what else would you fit on a Caracal? Heavy missiles? That has to be a joke right? They are even worse. You fit HMs you'll get killed by a Tristan. CCP Fozzie wrote: Obviously the gameplay style associated with Rapid Missile Launchers isn't everyone's cup of tea, but modules don't need to appeal to every player. There are plenty of people for whom the extra damage and precision of rapid launchers is well worth the reload time, for other players there are other launcher options to choose from. It's almost as if you're completely oblivious to just how bad it is. Do you even play this game? Have you tried roaming in a Caracal with RLML? It is a horribly mechanic. You somehow keep trying to justify it for no good reason. In fact, you're not even acknowledging there's a problem with it. And NO, there are no other launchers to choose from. Maybe if you hadn't completely broken HMs, we'd have another launcher but as it is, we don't. Arthur Aihaken wrote: CCP Fozzie, how can we go about engaging in a meaningful dialog about missiles? We can't. According to Fozzie it's all peachy.
Sgt Ocker Last Bastion of Freedom 132	Posted - 2014.03.22 15:15:00 - [634] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Tulara wrote: Drop the reload time to at least 20 (while all the others weapons systems are at 10 LOL), or this missile launcher will remain unused. Considering that RLMLs are being used more now than at any previous point in their history, I think "remain unused" is a bit of an exaggeration. FYI the last 6 weeks have been the 6 weeks with the highest ever amount of PVP damage dealt by RLMLs, and the other metrics are all backing this up. There are obviously still UI and usability tweaks to be made but overall I am extremely happy with the current state of RLMLs. Any weapon system works in a gang of 30 where your just added dps. Doesn't mean it is good.. And yes, as others have stated, people may be using RLML simply because they are the best out of a bunch of mediocre options. Just for comparisons sake - what was the usage of RLML in PVP over the six weeks vs this time last year? Devs always asks for valid, clear reasons for change we want something changed. Yet Devs don't show players the same courtesy and simply say it is so and we have to accept it. Quote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Obviously the gameplay style associated with Rapid Missile Launchers isn't everyone's cup of tea, but modules don't need to appeal to every player. There are plenty of people for whom the extra damage and precision of rapid launchers is well worth the reload time, for other players there are other launcher options to choose from. Yes the sandbox is DEAD. We now play the way Devs say because having modules usable by a majority and being versatile is not the right way to go. Reminiscent of the recent capital tracking nerf, buff 1 dread and nerf 2 others. Medium Missile options,, VERY VERY limited. From outright BAD to usable in limited situations. Ready up a Phoenix and be ready for the abuse and laughter. Do the same to lasers, hybrids and projectiles as you have done to missiles; you would very quickly have no game to worry about, as people would quit on masse. Try a fair comparison. Give back the old RLML with -50% capacity and the old firing rate. See how Burst Rapids compare when there is "choice". FYI; CCP Fozzie, you should spend more time thinking about what your writing and less writing what you're thinking. You often come across as very narrow minded. Quote: Arthur Aihaken CCP Fozzie, how can we go about engaging in a meaningful dialog about missiles? It has been had, CCP Fozzie said it is so, we accept it. End dialogue. Is catering for the few and ignoring the majority good business practice??
Vinyl 41 Perkone Academy 36	Posted - 2014.03.22 18:05:00 - [635] - Quote rlml are the only weapon system left for missle users that you can hope of killing those pesky ( buffed to infinity and a lil bit beyond) ceptors so no wonder that we see a nice "use percentage" on those and there is that "UI and usability " problem - yeah 30 seconds reload - so instead of creating some fancy new mechanic to allow faster reload we play a lil bit with overheating and how it affects those launchers ie. they gain a much bigger rof bonus from it and they can oh for a longer but we revert the stats to the pre rewok state - this way we get functional pve launchers and a deadly on demand burst weapon ps. CCP why u hate missles so much ?
Arthur Aihaken Arsenite 3130	Posted - 2014.03.22 18:22:00 - [636] - Quote Vinyl 41 wrote: and there is that "UI and usability " problem - yeah 30 seconds reloadGÇª Well, 35 seconds - but who's countingGÇª (wait, that would be me!) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Vinyl 41 Perkone Academy 36	Posted - 2014.03.22 19:00:00 - [637] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Vinyl 41 wrote: and there is that "UI and usability " problem - yeah 30 seconds reloadGÇª Well, 35 seconds - but who's countingGÇª (wait, that would be me!) Can we at least get an animation for the rapid heavy launcher? Better yet, can we flatten it so that it doesn't stick out so much on the hulls? i was allways wondering why those never got any animation ps. fixed that lil ugly thing you pointed out
Arthur Aihaken Arsenite 3131	Posted - 2014.03.22 20:33:00 - [638] - Quote Vinyl 41 wrote: i was allways wondering why those never got any animation ps. fixed that lil ugly thing you pointed out Oversight? From what I could tell it's the only main weapon system that doesn't have an animation. I was actually hoping it had changed to 30 seconds and that I'd missed the memo... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Sgt Ocker Last Bastion of Freedom 132	Posted - 2014.03.22 23:58:00 - [639] - Quote Vinyl 41 wrote: rlml are the only weapon system left for missle users that you can hope of killing those pesky ( buffed to infinity and a lil bit beyond) ceptors so no wonder that we see a nice "use percentage" on those and there is that "UI and usability " problem - yeah 35 seconds reload - so instead of creating some fancy new mechanic to allow faster reload we play a lil bit with overheating and how it affects those launchers ie. they gain a much bigger rof bonus from it and they can oh for a longer but we revert the stats to the pre rewok state - this way we get functional pve launchers and a deadly on demand burst weapon ps. CCP why u hate missles so much ? At a quick glance what you are asking for is the same thing that has been asked for over and over since November last year. Unfortunately it seems CCP Fozzie is not prepared to look at alternatives. He is now vindicated in his statement that "Burst Mechanic Will Be Fun" by metrics (which by the way only show what they are programmed to show). If he really had the best interests of RLML in mind he would take notice of statments like; Quote: It should also be said that much of my utilization of rlmls has to do with how absolutely awful heavy missiles are. While I am satisfied with HAMs they are not a good selection for many situations which I encounter. Therefore the use of RLMLs should not be interpreted as complete happiness with them from someone who actually uses them. CCP does not want feedback regarding the Burst Mechanic, unless it is positive. As there is no real positive feedback it is being manufactured by metrics. So over the last 6 weeks, metrics has seen the highest usage of RLML "EVER". This can mean many things; Prior to Rubicon and the RLML burst mechanic very few people used RLML. So even a very low usage number shows a high uptake statistically. The interceptor buffs are too high and people are getting desperate enough to use RLML as they are advertised as the answer to killing fast frigates. Many people who used to use RLML prior to Rubicon have had them sitting around for months, unable to sell them except at a loss so have decided (like me) to use them till the ship gets killed then move on. I have more scenarios but you guys have to be tired of me blabbering on by now so I'll leave you with; These few words tell me EVERYTHING needed about the future of RLML; Quote: CCP Fozzie; for other players there are other launcher options to choose from.
Pew Terror Green Associates TITANS. 152	Posted - 2014.03.23 06:26:00 - [640] - Quote Love the theorizing about how bad cruiser sized missiles are when you run into HAM sacrilege gangs on a daily...
Aivo Dresden Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 304	Posted - 2014.03.23 08:21:00 - [641] - Quote Pew Terror wrote: Love the theorizing about how bad cruiser sized missiles are when you run into HAM sacrilege gangs on a daily... The Sac gets 25% ROF and 25% dmg from its hull bonus. That is only to heavy missiles though, so not really relevant when discussing RLML. The CNI gets 25% ROF and 25% Expl Radius; which actually kind of puts it where RLML damage should be (maybe with a 20sec instead of 35sec reload instead. Seriously; half the time I can't even reload during gate to gate warps, 35sec is just too long). The disturbing thing here is that devs seem to be putting a bunch of different launchers and turrets in EFT or Pyfa and then go "looks balanced to me". Everyone who's actually tried these and said "hang on; have you looked at the actual practical side of this, like at damage application or you know; fun factor" just gets ignored. What is the point of these threads if you're going to completely ignore all feedback given and instead wave around some popularity spreadsheet?
Arthur Aihaken Arsenite 3131	Posted - 2014.03.23 09:41:00 - [642] - Quote ROF penalizes rapid launchers in the worst way possible. On paper it might look like the same DPS, but more launchers and/or a damage bonus trump ROF with fewer launchers and no damage bonus. GÇó Tengu -+ Worst for RLML, +37.5% rate of fire GÇó Scythe Fleet Issue -+ Best for RLML, +50% damage GÇó Raven, Scorpion Navy Issue, Tempest -+ Worst for RHML, +25% rate of fire GÇó Typhoon Fleet Issue -+ Best for RHML, +37.5% damage I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Arsenite 3131	Posted - 2014.03.23 16:17:00 - [643] - Quote So what's happening with the ammunition swap? The only way I see this working is to allow an instantaneous swap when switching ammunition - but only replacing the new type with the current capacity. Otherwise, you'll be able to get around the 35-second reload and will ultimately be able to get 3 reloads in less time than the 35-second standard reload. Just make it 20 seconds and we can call it a day already... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Vinyl 41 Perkone Academy 36	Posted - 2014.03.23 17:00:00 - [644] - Quote having the option to insta swap ammo will only be beneficial when you are over 50% of the magazine under it you risk of running out of ammo and being force to run the normal reload - this would be a sub optimal fix since only preselecting the ammo type would be fixed but we would still be stuck with the super long reload mid fight CCP if you want to switch the meta to burst weapons maybe it would be good to rething how OH works with weapons
Arthur Aihaken Arsenite 3142	Posted - 2014.03.25 04:12:00 - [645] - Quote Dropping the reload to 30 seconds would probably be enough to balance it out. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Vinyl 41 Perkone Academy 36	Posted - 2014.03.25 08:59:00 - [646] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Dropping the reload to 30 seconds would probably be enough to balance it out; a flat 20-seconds for both reload and swap would address it entirely. i remeber when this started you was totaly against those changes now your literaly begging ccp to do smt where even the smallest change will make you happy - oh that fighting spirit
Arthur Aihaken Arsenite 3142	Posted - 2014.03.25 09:23:00 - [647] - Quote Vinyl 41 wrote: i remeber when this started you was totaly against those changes now your literaly begging ccp to do smt where even the smallest change will make you happy - oh that fighting spirit I was never against a reduction in reloading time - I just preferred more ammunition. A lot more. But, since that's extremely unlikely to happen at this point I'm trying to be realistic with any expectations. I'm expecting nothing, but hoping we'll get thrown a bone... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Silverbackyererse 44	Posted - 2014.03.25 11:01:00 - [648] - Quote Welease wapid wights fwom this howibble place CCP Wise.
Sgt Ocker Last Bastion of Freedom 136	Posted - 2014.03.25 13:14:00 - [649] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Vinyl 41 wrote: i remeber when this started you was totaly against those changes now your literaly begging ccp to do smt where even the smallest change will make you happy - oh that fighting spirit I was never against a reduction in reloading time - I just preferred more ammunition. A lot more. But, since that's extremely unlikely to happen at this point I'm trying to be realistic with any expectations. I'm expecting nothing, but hoping we'll get thrown a bone... Sorry Arthur, you got your bone, it is made of clay and has no real value - Chew carefully it is fragile. Quote: CCP Fozzie; Obviously the gameplay style associated with Rapid Missile Launchers isn't everyone's cup of tea, but modules don't need to appeal to every player. There are plenty of people for whom the extra damage and precision of rapid launchers is well worth the reload time, for other players there are other launcher options to choose from. I do so love the use of the word "Plenty" to quantify something. Plenty of nothing - is still nothing. Without figures to show how "Plenty" was reached and what it equates to, it is a meaningless word often used to cover a less than acceptable number or outcome.
Ransu Asanari Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables 107	Posted - 2014.03.25 20:33:00 - [650] - Quote CCP Fozzie, Thanks for following up on this thread. I'd still like to know where the status is on fixing the ammo swap mechanic, to separate it from the extended reload time. That is one of the main pain points of the Rapid Launchers, as being able to swap damage type, missile explosion size (Precision/Fury), or change to FoF to counter EWAR; is one of the main advantages of missiles flexibility which the new launchers broke. We're already discussing 1.4 Rubicon changes, and there's been no confirmed updates about the ammo swap fix since CCP Rise mentioned it on February 3rd. CCP Fozzie wrote: Obviously the gameplay style associated with Rapid Missile Launchers isn't everyone's cup of tea, but modules don't need to appeal to every player. There are plenty of people for whom the extra damage and precision of rapid launchers is well worth the reload time, for other players there are other launcher options to choose from. As for this sentiment, and usage statistics, I will echo others, and put myself in the "only using it because of no viable Cruiser sized alternative". I've specifically refrained from flying Cruisers a lot of the time, because the application is so poor, and I've given examples of the gameplay experience not being enjoyable, and being inferior compared to gunnery. I would love to fly Heavy Missile cruisers and try to roam gangs or fly solo, but the damage application is very poor, so I won't.
Kynric Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate 67	Posted - 2014.04.08 14:53:00 - [651] - Quote Bumped as a reminder that the ammo switch problem has not been addressed. The choices which ammo selection offers are interesting and a big part of what makes missiles fun as a weapon system. Unfortunately the rapid redesign has severely handicapped that functionality.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey Cirrius Technologies O X I D E 152	Posted - 2014.04.08 17:31:00 - [652] - Quote Can we get something other than a BS that can use Rapid Heavies as well? You know, something like a battlecruiser, with a hull bonus allowing the fitting of large type weapons. What would you even call something like that? Oh! I know. How about a Tier 3 Battlecruiser. On a serious note, missiles are the only weapon that can't be fitted on a Tier 3 BC. Any type of missiles. There are no Tier 3 BC's with cruise missiles, or torps (although SBs fit torps so I'll let that go for now), or rapid heavies. Why is this? And why does it seem so hard for CCP to actually finish what they start?
Mournful Conciousness Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate 703	Posted - 2014.04.08 17:44:00 - [653] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: Can we get something other than a BS that can use Rapid Heavies as well? You know, something like a battlecruiser, with a hull bonus allowing the fitting of large type weapons. What would you even call something like that? Oh! I know. How about a Tier 3 Battlecruiser. On a serious note, missiles are the only weapon that can't be fitted on a Tier 3 BC. Any type of missiles. There are no Tier 3 BC's with cruise missiles, or torps (although SBs fit torps so I'll let that go for now), or rapid heavies. Why is this? And why does it seem so hard for CCP to actually finish what they start? A naga hosting 8 cruise missile launchers would be OP on toast! It would make for some interesting battles I'll admit, since the it could destroy a ship like itself with its own alpha strike. ... so I agree with you, it would be great to see! The battles would be hilariously quick. Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
scorchlikeshiswhiskey Cirrius Technologies O X I D E 152	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:02:00 - [654] - Quote Mournful Conciousness wrote: scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: Can we get something other than a BS that can use Rapid Heavies as well? You know, something like a battlecruiser, with a hull bonus allowing the fitting of large type weapons. What would you even call something like that? Oh! I know. How about a Tier 3 Battlecruiser. On a serious note, missiles are the only weapon that can't be fitted on a Tier 3 BC. Any type of missiles. There are no Tier 3 BC's with cruise missiles, or torps (although SBs fit torps so I'll let that go for now), or rapid heavies. Why is this? And why does it seem so hard for CCP to actually finish what they start? A naga hosting 8 cruise missile launchers would be OP on toast! It would make for some interesting battles I'll admit, since the it could destroy a ship like itself with its own alpha strike. ... so I agree with you, it would be great to see! The battles would be hilariously quick. Actually, since this is the Rapid Missile thread, I was going more for a Naga that can fit Rapid Heavies. I'm not even going to argue, since I don't have the numbers in front of me, that it should be a full 8 rack. The whole point is that large missiles are the only large weapon system that can't be fitted onto a Tier 3 BC and I think it is severely lacking. Why? Because a "Naga" with Rapid Heavies would be an interesting ship to run sleeper sites in with a group, or an interesting addition when running NCN sites in an incursion fleet. Or for any number of other uses that the Tornado, Talos, and Oracle fulfill.
Capqu Love Squad Pasta Syndicate 448	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:12:00 - [655] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Tulara wrote: Drop the reload time to at least 20 (while all the others weapons systems are at 10 LOL), or this missile launcher will remain unused. Considering that RLMLs are being used more now than at any previous point in their history, I think "remain unused" is a bit of an exaggeration. FYI the last 6 weeks have been the 6 weeks with the highest ever amount of PVP damage dealt by RLMLs, and the other metrics are all backing this up. There are obviously still UI and usability tweaks to be made but overall I am extremely happy with the current state of RLMLs. how are the heavy missile numbers, how about rapid heavies? i bet they're not great. the main reason for the RLML usage increase is they are the only real viable medium-long range cruiser missile platform ever since the huge over-nerf of HMLs if you buffed HMLs back to where they should be, i'm sure all the RLML complainers would disappear too - all the complaints exist because there is no alternative to the 35 second reload frontloaded RLMLs. if heavies were viable, people would use RLMLs when they want frontloaded damage that applies to frigates+ and people would use HMLs when they want consistent damage against cruisers+ also might result in the first person ever fitting RHMLs since heavies would be usable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
Mournful Conciousness Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate 705	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:25:00 - [656] - Quote this again (sigh). If you run the numbers you will find that over the complete envelope of range, target speed and transverse velocity, heavy missiles are actually on a par with medium long range guns. When you simply plug the fits into EFT you get theoretical maximum damage numbers. These have nothing to do with the actual numbers that people experience with guns in a skirmish where opposing ships are doing their best to move across your guns. Heavy missiles were way OP. They got nerfed down to where they are equal to guns. Let's get over that. When looking at the performance of rapid lights and rapid heavies, try to think of them in the context of a squad of ships using them to erase opponents quickly through coordinated fire. It's unreasonable to think of them as a solo weapons system. That's what assault missiles and rockets are for. Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Capqu Love Squad Pasta Syndicate 448	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:33:00 - [657] - Quote Mournful Conciousness wrote: this again (sigh). If you run the numbers you will find that over the complete envelope of range, target speed and transverse velocity, heavy missiles are actually on a par with medium long range guns. When you simply plug the fits into EFT you get theoretical maximum damage numbers. These have nothing to do with the actual numbers that people experience with guns in a skirmish where opposing ships are doing their best to move across your guns. Heavy missiles were way OP. They got nerfed down to where they are equal to guns. Let's get over that. When looking at the performance of rapid lights and rapid heavies, try to think of them in the context of a squad of ships using them to erase opponents quickly through coordinated fire. It's unreasonable to think of them as a solo weapons system. That's what assault missiles and rockets are for. if you think a heavy missile launcher is anywhere near a 250mm railgun i have nothing to say to you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
Arsine Mayhem Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 175	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:45:00 - [658] - Quote Set fire rate and reload times back to the way it was. Fixt
Sgt Ocker Last Bastion of Freedom 151	Posted - 2014.04.09 00:46:00 - [659] - Quote Capqu wrote: Mournful Conciousness wrote: this again (sigh). If you run the numbers you will find that over the complete envelope of range, target speed and transverse velocity, heavy missiles are actually on a par with medium long range guns. When you simply plug the fits into EFT you get theoretical maximum damage numbers. These have nothing to do with the actual numbers that people experience with guns in a skirmish where opposing ships are doing their best to move across your guns. Heavy missiles were way OP. They got nerfed down to where they are equal to guns. Let's get over that. When looking at the performance of rapid lights and rapid heavies, try to think of them in the context of a squad of ships using them to erase opponents quickly through coordinated fire. It's unreasonable to think of them as a solo weapons system. That's what assault missiles and rockets are for. if you think a heavy missile launcher is anywhere near a 250mm railgun i have nothing to say to you If you look at the whole heavy missile thing. Since the great Drake fix heavy missiles have seen no attention at all. While in the same period all classes of guns have been balanced several times, through either ship balancing bonuses or direct buffs. There is technically nothing wrong with heavy missiles that appropriate ship bonuses wouldn't fix. Take the humble Drake; 4% to resists, 10% to Kinetic damage. Give it a damage application bonus so it is not forced to use all 3 rig slots to get 'close' to decent application. or Give it a Range bonus so it can be used as a sniper - navy missiles, all 5's - 68k range is not sniping. Yes I picked the drake to use as an example and yes it is possibly the 'worst' example I could use BUT that is the point. An appropriate bonus on medium missile platform can make them usable and able to compete with other ships in class. A 2.5% per level explosion radius or explosion velocity bonus to heavy missiles - sound silly? Lastly - Replace ROF bonuses for Rapid Launchers Give Relevant bonuses to RHML - - they would work - if the issue of damage application for heavy missiles were addressed. 2.5% Explosion Radius bonus for heavy missiles on the Caracal , no Velocity bonus to heavy missiles. I would gladly give up range for better application.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 4700	Posted - 2014.04.09 03:00:00 - [660] - Quote Vinyl 41 wrote: having the option to insta swap ammo will only be beneficial when you are over 50% of the magazine under it you risk of running out of ammo and being force to run the normal reload - this would be a sub optimal fix since only preselecting the ammo type would be fixed but we would still be stuck with the super long reload mid fight CCP if you want to switch the meta to burst weapons maybe it would be good to rethink how OH works with weapons Maybe the best compromise would be to let us top off the launchers at will when not firing on a sliding scale relative to the present magazine capacity. If you are half-empty it would take half the time to top it off, for example. Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: 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.