EVE Search - Should system security status be dynamic?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Should system security status be dynamic?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Charax Bouclier Emerald Drama Theatrics 35	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:18:00 - [1] - Quote I really like that EVE is so dynamic, but one thing I noticed is that system security status is static. Would it be more compelling if system security status was more dynamic where: 1. # of ganks in a system might encourage CONCORD to invest more (or less) security to the system? 2. Allow corporations to bribe officials to lower security impact for them? (More skills to invest in and also an ISK sinkhole) 3. System security changes wouldn't impact the original security status in terms of what the system offers (e.g., asteroid quality) Philosophically, what I like about this is that it reduces the noise between gankers and carebears. For example, if miners are in a position where they are hard to gank profitably, then over time, security status will start dropping to a point where miners become more and more at risk (and it works the other way). Dynamic system security would also make people not get too comfortable in their particular neck of the woods if things gradually get more risky. 10 year game, so I assume this is definitely not a new discussion. I am curious where the current opinions lie on this.
Belt Scout Thread Lockaholics Anonymous 695	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:23:00 - [2] - Quote First is always good. I like getting in early on these. . They say most of your brain shuts down on the EvE forums. All but the impatient side, and the sarcastic side. No wonder I'm still awake.
Ramona McCandless The McCandless Clan 6864	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:25:00 - [3] - Quote Charax Bouclier wrote: I really like that EVE is so dynamic, but one thing I noticed is that system security status is static. Would it be more compelling if system security status was more dynamic where: 1. # of ganks in a system might encourage CONCORD to invest more (or less) security to the system? So... the more ganks that occur the HIGHER the sec rating for the system? And it follows that systems where no ganking occurs eventually become 0.5s? Charax Bouclier wrote: 2. Allow corporations to bribe officials to lower security impact for them? (More skills to invest in and also an ISK sinkhole) No, not until they make High Sec invadable by Sov Entities Charax Bouclier wrote: 3. System security changes wouldn't impact the original security status in terms of what the system offers (e.g., asteroid quality) I dont mind that either way. But bear in mind that players would attempt to manipule this to the point where it would become pretty pointless in the long run. Charax Bouclier wrote: Philosophically, what I like about this is that it reduces the noise between gankers and carebears. For example, if miners are in a position where they are hard to gank profitably, then over time, security status will start dropping to a point where miners become more and more at risk (and it works the other way). Dynamic system security would also make people not get too comfortable in their particular neck of the woods if things gradually get more risky. The problem wiht that is, it assumes that CONCORD exists to protect the miners through threat of consequence. This is not inherently true. "Many have joined the battle, many have survived the tests and trials, but countless have fallen because they weren't the sharpest, the fastest thinking, the most devious, the most ruthless or most intelligent. -áLog in and Compete!"-á- CCP Falcon
TigerXtrm Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance 866	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:27:00 - [4] - Quote The idea has merrit, but only if a high sec system can't actually be lowered into low sec or anything like that. Low should always be low, high should always be high. But within those boundries it could work... My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 202	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:31:00 - [5] - Quote Charax Bouclier wrote: Philosophically, what I like about this is that it reduces the noise between gankers and carebears. It's never about ganker v.s carebear, it's more about "player who cares about game mechanics" v.s. "player who is not interested in game mechanics and plays EVE like a solo game". With this in mind, who do you think will profit most from your idea, no matter what the rules for this mechanic are? the Code ALWAYS wins
Absolutely Not Analt Caldari Provisions Caldari State 37	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:33:00 - [6] - Quote Your basic assumption (that all space should be equally fair to all playstyles) is flawed. It doesn't need to be that way, and shouldn't be - there are areas where people are more at risk, and areas that pro0vide more "protection". THis is actually a fairly decent model of how most modern societies operate. We can all acknowledge that there are "bad parts of town" in pretty much any city above a certain threshhold population (probably 2). If we implemented your proposal, we would probably end up with is one of two situations: 1. The older, larger, richer entities in Eve pay gobs of cash to reduce all of highsec to 0.4 and kill everything that moves. 2. All of highsec averages out somewhere around .7 security space and the average ganker actually has a harder time while miners/haulers are (in general) safer Neither of these outcomes are at all desireable with regards to the longterm viability of the game. Lastly, you haven't really presented any arguments why a static security status on systems is necessarily a bad thing - stability in certain aspects of the game is good, long term, as it encourages people in their efforts to learn the game. If the rookie systems were suddenly three jumps deep into lowsec, Eve's new playerbase would dry up before they really figured out what the game is all about. Eve is a multi player game.-áAnd you are the content. - Ralph King-Griffin
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 4438	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:33:00 - [7] - Quote Apparently I'm just following Ramona around tonight like a lost puppy because here I am. I'm not trying to, it's just kinda happening. I had something to say on this but Ramona beat me to that too, because she took all the words I wanted to say and used them for me. Instead, I'll just post something random. I'm not a very sexual individual and I'm not interested in relationships/flings/etc with one sex or the other - you could call me 'indifferent' to sexuality in general. However, I do occasionally derive a guilty pleasure from flirting with people that show an attraction towards me. I try not to lead them on, and I'm not interested in going further than the flirting, but the flirting is definitely fun. This story was brought to you by the sleep deprived mind of Remiel Pollard, Space Cowboy, Mini-Merc and general all round outstanding New Eden Citizen. Please ignore the -3 security status, it's the result of a few accidental poddings I committed on purpose. I really am a good guy. /me sits in the corner and mutters about strange reptiles following him around. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Christopher AET hirr Northern Coalition. 807	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:38:00 - [8] - Quote I would say yes and have it tied to system activity. Ie the more people mining or missioning in a system the more CONCORD invests in a system and the higher the sec status. This should be balanced with the mission rewards and asteroid belts reflecting that also, even more so than now. I think there should be a much steeper gradient of reward between 0.5 and 1.0 with 0.5 about right where it is but with rewards trailing off dramatically as you go up through 0.7 with 0.9 and 1.0 systems being almost worthless to people more than a few months old. It also means that the underutilised systems would increase in reward...and probably gankers too, which is a marvellous thing as to get the better rewards you get more player interaction. I drain ducks of their moisture for sustenance.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 205	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:38:00 - [9] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Apparently I'm just following Ramona around tonight like a lost puppy because here I am. I'm not trying to, it's just kinda happening. I had something to say on this but Ramona beat me to that too, because she took all the words I wanted to say and used them for me. Instead, I'll just post something random. I'm not a very sexual individual and I'm not interested in relationships/flings/etc with one sex or the other - you could call me 'indifferent' to sexuality in general. However, I do occasionally derive a guilty pleasure from flirting with people that show an attraction towards me. I try not to lead them on, and I'm not interested in going further than the flirting, but the flirting is definitely fun. This story was brought to you by the sleep deprived mind of Remiel Pollard, Space Cowboy, Mini-Merc and general all round outstanding New Eden Citizen. Please ignore the -3 security status, it's the result of a few accidental poddings I committed on purpose. I really am a good guy. /me sits in the corner and mutters about strange reptiles following him around. Quoting to protect this drug induced posting from certain deletion in a few hours the Code ALWAYS wins
Christopher AET hirr Northern Coalition. 807	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:40:00 - [10] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Instead, I'll just post something random. I'm not a very sexual individual and I'm not interested in relationships/flings/etc with one sex or the other - you could call me 'indifferent' to sexuality in general. However, I do occasionally derive a guilty pleasure from flirting with people that show an attraction towards me. I try not to lead them on, and I'm not interested in going further than the flirting, but the flirting is definitely fun. I however will poke anything that moves.....if it does not move I'll just poke it harder til it does. I drain ducks of their moisture for sustenance.
Charax Bouclier Emerald Drama Theatrics 35	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:40:00 - [11] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Charax Bouclier wrote: Philosophically, what I like about this is that it reduces the noise between gankers and carebears. It's never about ganker v.s carebear, it's more about "player who cares about game mechanics" v.s. "player who is not interested in game mechanics and plays EVE like a solo game". With this in mind, who do you think will profit most from your idea, no matter what the rules for this mechanic are? You can label EVE however you want but if the actual game mechanics allow players to play EVE solo with success, then it is the fault of the game mechanics for not maintaining the game philosophy. Who would benefit from dynamic security ratings? Not sure. Let's say that X number of ganks per month is a healthy amount to maintain some risk to carebears and fun for gankers. If that quota isn't being met (i.e., things are too safe for whatever reason - mining tankability, sec status roo high), then perhaps a generaly decline is in order.
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 4440	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:40:00 - [12] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Apparently I'm just following Ramona around tonight like a lost puppy because here I am. I'm not trying to, it's just kinda happening. I had something to say on this but Ramona beat me to that too, because she took all the words I wanted to say and used them for me. Instead, I'll just post something random. I'm not a very sexual individual and I'm not interested in relationships/flings/etc with one sex or the other - you could call me 'indifferent' to sexuality in general. However, I do occasionally derive a guilty pleasure from flirting with people that show an attraction towards me. I try not to lead them on, and I'm not interested in going further than the flirting, but the flirting is definitely fun. This story was brought to you by the sleep deprived mind of Remiel Pollard, Space Cowboy, Mini-Merc and general all round outstanding New Eden Citizen. Please ignore the -3 security status, it's the result of a few accidental poddings I committed on purpose. I really am a good guy. /me sits in the corner and mutters about strange reptiles following him around. Quoting to protect this drug induced posting from certain deletion in a few hours It's mostly just caffeine I swear. Mostly. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Ramona McCandless The McCandless Clan 6865	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:40:00 - [13] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: I'm not a very sexual individual and I'm not interested in relationships/flings/etc with one sex or the other - you could call me 'indifferent' to sexuality in general. However, I do occasionally derive a guilty pleasure from flirting with people that show an attraction towards me. I try not to lead them on, and I'm not interested in going further than the flirting, but the flirting is definitely fun. I bet you say that to all the clones x "Many have joined the battle, many have survived the tests and trials, but countless have fallen because they weren't the sharpest, the fastest thinking, the most devious, the most ruthless or most intelligent. -áLog in and Compete!"-á- CCP Falcon
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 4440	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:45:00 - [14] - Quote Ramona McCandless wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: I'm not a very sexual individual and I'm not interested in relationships/flings/etc with one sex or the other - you could call me 'indifferent' to sexuality in general. However, I do occasionally derive a guilty pleasure from flirting with people that show an attraction towards me. I try not to lead them on, and I'm not interested in going further than the flirting, but the flirting is definitely fun. I bet you say that to all the clones x Just the ones that haven't been activated yet. #allyourclonesarebelongtome I know... that didn't make much sense to me, either. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Ramona McCandless The McCandless Clan 6865	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:45:00 - [15] - Quote Charax Bouclier wrote: Who would benefit from dynamic security ratings? Not sure. Let's say that X number of ganks per month is a healthy amount to maintain some risk to carebears and fun for gankers. If that quota isn't being met (i.e., things are too safe for whatever reason - mining tankability, sec status roo high), then perhaps a generaly decline is in order. Im inclined to infer from that that you think ganking is in a period of steep increase, and that it is impossible to defend yourself against? Im happy to be corrected if I have picked this up wrong, but if not, can you supply some figures to back this assumption? "Many have joined the battle, many have survived the tests and trials, but countless have fallen because they weren't the sharpest, the fastest thinking, the most devious, the most ruthless or most intelligent. -áLog in and Compete!"-á- CCP Falcon
Charax Bouclier Emerald Drama Theatrics 36	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:46:00 - [16] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Apparently I'm just following Ramona around tonight like a lost puppy because here I am. I'm not trying to, it's just kinda happening. I had something to say on this but Ramona beat me to that too, because she took all the words I wanted to say and used them for me. Instead, I'll just post something random. I'm not a very sexual individual and I'm not interested in relationships/flings/etc with one sex or the other - you could call me 'indifferent' to sexuality in general. However, I do occasionally derive a guilty pleasure from flirting with people that show an attraction towards me. I try not to lead them on, and I'm not interested in going further than the flirting, but the flirting is definitely fun. This story was brought to you by the sleep deprived mind of Remiel Pollard, Space Cowboy, Mini-Merc and general all round outstanding New Eden Citizen. Please ignore the -3 security status, it's the result of a few accidental poddings I committed on purpose. I really am a good guy. /me sits in the corner and mutters about strange reptiles following him around. I am happy to allow this thread to be derailed by Remiel. Please continue. /popcorn
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 4444	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:48:00 - [17] - Quote While we're on the topic of derailment... Doesn't anyone else pee on the side of the toilet bowl to dislodge 'stains' and/or reduce the sound of their peeing? I mean... those of us that can aim it, anyway. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Ramona McCandless The McCandless Clan 6868	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:49:00 - [18] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: While we're on the topic of derailment... Doesn't anyone else pee on the side of the toilet bowl to dislodge 'stains' and/or reduce the sound of their peeing? I mean... those of us that can aim it, anyway. Yeah but its an awkward squat in a small cubicle "Many have joined the battle, many have survived the tests and trials, but countless have fallen because they weren't the sharpest, the fastest thinking, the most devious, the most ruthless or most intelligent. -áLog in and Compete!"-á- CCP Falcon
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8039	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:50:00 - [19] - Quote Charax Bouclier wrote: I really like that EVE is so dynamic, but one thing I noticed is that system security status is static. Would it be more compelling if system security status was more dynamic where: 1. # of ganks in a system might encourage CONCORD to invest more (or less) security to the system? 2. Allow corporations to bribe officials to lower security impact for them? (More skills to invest in and also an ISK sinkhole) 3. System security changes wouldn't impact the original security status in terms of what the system offers (e.g., asteroid quality) Philosophically, what I like about this is that it reduces the noise between gankers and carebears. For example, if miners are in a position where they are hard to gank profitably, then over time, security status will start dropping to a point where miners become more and more at risk (and it works the other way). Dynamic system security would also make people not get too comfortable in their particular neck of the woods if things gradually get more risky. 10 year game, so I assume this is definitely not a new discussion. I am curious where the current opinions lie on this. Kind of a tangent here, but I think that this principle applies. people always say they want a more dynamic environment but when you give them one, they tend to retreat to a more comfortable/LESS dynamic environment. This is as true in a game as it is in real life, people THINK they want dynamism and spontaneity the react like they'[ve been shot when something interrupts their comfortable routine. That's why i think a lot of the talk about null sec SOV issues on this forum are naive , so many people claiming that they'd love to see a "non-blue donut situation" where "small groups have a chance" and they actually may believe that, but the actual most likely outcome of any such system is people saying 'screw it' and going to empire where they don't have to deal with the headache of having to adjust to changes very often lol. Also, I think you may have it backwards, making the situation 'dynamic' would vastly increase the noise coming from carebears (carebears or notorious for being 'comfort-seekers', they love routine which is why saving the same Damsel 18,000 times in a row doesn't phase them). The FIRST time a dude undocks a mining ship to mine in his usual system (not bothering to even glance at the system sec indicator) and gets blown up because now it's an 0.5 instead of the 0.8 he was expecting, you can expect a seriously ticked off forum post lol.
Yarda Black Militaris Industries Northern Coalition. 409	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:50:00 - [20] - Quote I find this dynamic interesting. I notice something VERY VERY wrong here tho: The entire idea is restricted to 0.5 to 1.0 systems. Where EVE currently ranges between -1.0 to +1.0 Security being based on the distance away from 1.0 systems. Or actually, that's what I came up with going through maps. So.... Whats up with this limited scope? Security is either dynamic in EVE or its not right?
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge 16725	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:50:00 - [21] - Quote Ramona McCandless wrote: Charax Bouclier wrote: Who would benefit from dynamic security ratings? Not sure. Let's say that X number of ganks per month is a healthy amount to maintain some risk to carebears and fun for gankers. If that quota isn't being met (i.e., things are too safe for whatever reason - mining tankability, sec status roo high), then perhaps a generaly decline is in order. Im inclined to infer from that that you think ganking is in a period of steep increase, and that it is impossible to defend yourself against? Im happy to be corrected if I have picked this up wrong, but if not, can you supply some figures to back this assumption? Oh.. official numbers? Errrr.. um... Well, I think she is just under the assumption that ganking is on the increase because of the recent thread activities that claim that is happening. Everyone knows the best wagon to jump on.. is the bandwagon. *Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?*
Charax Bouclier Emerald Drama Theatrics 38	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:55:00 - [22] - Quote Ramona McCandless wrote: Charax Bouclier wrote: Who would benefit from dynamic security ratings? Not sure. Let's say that X number of ganks per month is a healthy amount to maintain some risk to carebears and fun for gankers. If that quota isn't being met (i.e., things are too safe for whatever reason - mining tankability, sec status roo high), then perhaps a generaly decline is in order. Im inclined to infer from that that you think ganking is in a period of steep increase, and that it is impossible to defend yourself against? Im happy to be corrected if I have picked this up wrong, but if not, can you supply some figures to back this assumption? I simply like more things dynamic and subject to manipulation by player actions. FYI, I am only a month into the game and haven't been ganked nor attempted to gank anyone. I am not speaking from a vested interest other than liking dynamic systems.
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 4633	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:55:00 - [23] - Quote one line bad ideas thread is here. beaten to it by CCP Rise. =][=
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 207	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:57:00 - [24] - Quote Charax Bouclier wrote: Who would benefit from dynamic security ratings? Not sure. Let's say that X number of ganks per month is a healthy amount to maintain some risk to carebears and fun for gankers. If that quota isn't being met (i.e., things are too safe for whatever reason - mining tankability, sec status roo high), then perhaps a generaly decline is in order. That's not what I mean. You have one player group who cares about how the mechanic works and one who's majority probably does not even know that this can be changed. Who is more likely to find a way to use that game mechanic against the other type of player? And if it is in some way balanced then there will be a way, otherwise you are just proposing another nerf to ganking.. the Code ALWAYS wins
Ramona McCandless The McCandless Clan 6869	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:57:00 - [25] - Quote Charax Bouclier wrote: I simply like more things dynamic and subject to manipulation by player actions. FYI, I am only a month into the game and haven't been ganked nor attempted to gank anyone. I am not speaking from a vested interest other than liking dynamic systems. Oh ok cool In that case, I support your intention I too would like more things dynamic and subject to manipulation by player actions. *Hands you pamphlets entitled "Why the Donut Is Good" and "Free Highsec: Allow Sov To Be Challenged Here" "Many have joined the battle, many have survived the tests and trials, but countless have fallen because they weren't the sharpest, the fastest thinking, the most devious, the most ruthless or most intelligent. -áLog in and Compete!"-á- CCP Falcon
Charax Bouclier Emerald Drama Theatrics 38	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:57:00 - [26] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: While we're on the topic of derailment... Doesn't anyone else pee on the side of the toilet bowl to dislodge 'stains' and/or reduce the sound of their peeing? I mean... those of us that can aim it, anyway. Yes to the first part. Yes to the second part when I was on a second date at her place.
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 4446	Posted - 2014.09.04 16:59:00 - [27] - Quote Personally, I'm a huge fan of procedural generation rather than dynamics but, it would be difficult to implement that in EVE, and probably not necessary. There's enough content I can create myself for my randomised entertainment purposes. Just yesterday, I stole someone's corp. Remember that? That was fun. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8039	Posted - 2014.09.04 17:00:00 - [28] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: I'm not a very sexual individual and I'm not interested in relationships/flings/etc with one sex or the other - you could call me 'indifferent' to sexuality in general. However, I do occasionally derive a guilty pleasure from flirting with people that show an attraction towards me. I try not to lead them on, and I'm not interested in going further than the flirting, but the flirting is definitely fun. Good for you, I'm totally different. it doesn't take much to turn me on, I once experienced a boner after watching a Thorax come out of warp and land square in the Gap at the front of a Megathron. For some strange reason the name "Baltec" took on new menaing.....
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 4446	Posted - 2014.09.04 17:03:00 - [29] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: I'm not a very sexual individual and I'm not interested in relationships/flings/etc with one sex or the other - you could call me 'indifferent' to sexuality in general. However, I do occasionally derive a guilty pleasure from flirting with people that show an attraction towards me. I try not to lead them on, and I'm not interested in going further than the flirting, but the flirting is definitely fun. Good for you, I'm totally different. it doesn't take much to turn me on, I once experienced a boner after watching a Thorax come out of warp and land square in the Gap at the front of a Megathron. For some strange reason the name "Baltec" took on new menaing..... mmmm Sexy Megathron Thigh Gap. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Ramona McCandless The McCandless Clan 6869	Posted - 2014.09.04 17:03:00 - [30] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Personally, I'm a huge fan of procedural generation rather than dynamics THATS WHAT SHE SAID "Many have joined the battle, many have survived the tests and trials, but countless have fallen because they weren't the sharpest, the fastest thinking, the most devious, the most ruthless or most intelligent. -áLog in and Compete!"-á- CCP Falcon

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.