EVE Search - Sticky:[Rhea] Introducing the Bowhead

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Rhea] Introducing the Bowhead

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24672	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:54:25 - [1] - Quote Just over 400k EHP with full tank and enough space to carry 4 BS should hit the sweet spot. That way, you can carry a lot of cheap ships quickly (speed fit) or a couple of expensive ships somewhat safely (tank fit) and not have the whole thing be absurd. If the agility bonus can push it down to below the standard 10s for and MWD fit, then that's the bonus it should have, if not, it's pretty pointless GÇö give it warp speed instead. Hideously expensive meta-bajillion mods should travel separately in a BR regardless, so that's not even a factor. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24675	Posted - 2014.11.11 11:51:28 - [2] - Quote BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: I happen to agree with this. Three machariels come out to 1,785,000, so it would be nice if this ship could hit 1.8m m3 with maxed skills. Its really hard to justify using this instead of making two trips. Perhaps a base cargo of 1,200,000m3 with a 10% capacity per level bonus on the skill would be better. How about a max hold of 1,985,000m-¦ GÇö that way you get the three Machs and your choice of blockade runner so you can quickly go back and pick up the expensive modules in a separate trip? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24676	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:51:25 - [3] - Quote Odithia wrote: Be realistic, considering how paper thin it is, nobody in their right mind will ever use this ship to transport 3 faction BS. Ok, let's be realistic. It is only paper thin if you in every way, utterly and completely ** up the fit by being a ***. If you avoid that, it is among the sturdiest ships you will ever come across in highsec. It will trivially* keep 3 faction BS safe from any kind of profitable ganking, especially if you have the wherewithal to carry the actually valuable parts separately. It is also faster, meaning you are far less exposed to ganks to begin with, should you somehow miraculously fail at not ***** up and not being a ****. Thus: not more HP, but more cargo space is the solution to increasing your transportation safety. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24676	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:52:32 - [4] - Quote Master Apollyon wrote: Alt forum activated.... Ganking level is way over the top (for whatever reasons). It stops new players from getting into the game. Its a fact (know several personally). No, and no, in that order. Ganking levels are pathetically low since ganking has recevied nohting but nerf after nerf after nerf. It could stand to see a significant increase so it became possible to do without the silly amounts of organisation and effort that the two ganking groups operating in the game put into it. New players are not affected in any way by ganking, other than if they believe the ignorant claims of those who scare them away. No new player flies the ships that are being targeted by ganks, nor do they have anything worth stealing. Quote: On topic... if this ship is fairly easy gankable no one is going to use it specially for its supposed task. It is, by far, the least gankable ship in its class and among the most difficult to gank in all of highsec. So that is one hell of a silly claim to make. In fact, if these new calculations are correct, the Bowhead now needs a significant HP nerf to become reasonable again. Sullen Decimus wrote: I would like to iterate that I am not in favor of a 100% safe highsec. however, please bring the the last loss mail from a ganker where they failed a gank and the ship they lost was of any sort of serious risk whatsoever.... go ahead I'll wait You understand that the mechanisms behind the result you're asking for is the exact opposite to what you want them to be, right? You have trouble finding expensive gank losses exactly because the risks have been ratcheted up to such unreasonable levels that no-one sane will ever attempt one without being almost assured that he'll end up in the black. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24677	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:57:30 - [5] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: @Warr Akini From what I understand, suicide ganking boils down to a no or yes if you do it. The numbers are ran, very rapidly due to 3rd party programs, and you do it (profit) or you do nothing and nothing is risked. There doesn't seem like much grey area. I mean sure there is the whole 50/50 loot drop that can screw you over, but that is factored in because it can obviously go the other way as well. Again, all calculated into the formula to pull the trigger or not. Am I wrong? Yes. You are effectively saying that just because you can mitigate a risk, it is zero. This is not the case. Everything put into the calculation is a risk. Just because you choose not to act on it does not mean the risk is removed GÇö quite the opposite. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24677	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:00:47 - [6] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: because criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career. That is probably the most nonsensical thing I have ever seen on these forums. Not only should it be a possible permanent career GÇö it must be a possible permanent career, or the game is broken on a fundamental level and in dire need of a redesign to make the destruction/production/trade cycle work again. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:06:15 - [7] - Quote Lickem Lolly wrote: MMOs die for a number of reasons. The main reason is lack of new players. Highsec ganking, in general, is killing Eve; whether it is killing newbs or killing slightly more experienced carebears in freighters. How is it in any way killing EVE? Quote: Highsec is not the place for non-consensual PVP. This is 100% incorrect. Highsec, like all space (and, indeed, a lot of in-station activities as well), is entirely designed for non-consensual PvP. Quote: CCP, the real problem is not making the old players happy - it is attracting and keeping the new players. You don't attract new players by offering them a watered down version of what they've read about that only feebly replicates an experience they can have in a bajillion other games. Sullen Decimus wrote: Or the fact that risking anything for a gank is completely unnecessary so why bother in anything than a destroyer that outputs more dps than most cruisers? Neither of these assertions have any connection to reality. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:10:35 - [8] - Quote Master Apollyon wrote: Dont put words in my text. Good thing that I didn't then. Quote: I never wrote that it was happening. I wrote that "It stops new players from getting into the game. Its a fact (know several personally)". So is it happening or isn't it? Quote: They knowing that this is possible is enough to think twice about playing Eve... and thats a fact. They only GÇ£knowGÇ£ this because people who should know better keep perpetuating this very nonsensical myth, rather than teach them the hilariously and trivially easy methods that can be employed by anyone to make themselves 100% safe from ganks. Quote: About my comment to the Bowhead again youre too fast criticizing my phrase. I was just pointing the obvious. No, you made up a completely nonsensical claim that goes directly against the facts and history of the game, not to mention the explicit mention of those who are already planning to use it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:28:57 - [9] - Quote Master Apollyon wrote: You obviously dont know/play other MMO-¦s You mean those other games that consistently fail almost instantly because they offer nothing new and only ape whatever is already on the market? No, I don't play those and neither do most new players for the very reason I listed. Trying to join that crowd is not a particularly intelligent way to goGÇª EVE did the impossible and survived for a over a decade by deliberately and specifically not doing that. There is absolutely no reason why it should start now, especially given the ample evidence that it will kill the game in a heartbeat. Valterra Craven wrote: Your flare for exaggeration aside, what is your supporting evidence/argument to make that work? I'm pretty sure that if you compared the destruction amounts from hi sec ganking to low sec and null sec destruction that the numbers would be laughably far apart. If you are going to make that claim then by all means prove it. It has nothing to do with what is destroyed where (and incidentally, highsec systems sit at the top of the list of destroyed capital, see the FF2012 economy presentation) GÇö it has to do with how you cannot allow one part of the game that level of safety without breaking the industrial-economical balance or the core design principle of letting players dictate how they play and where. We have only very recently made strides towards letting players actually make that choice, free of moronic and damaging restrictions that have long proven to suffocate the game. What you are suggesting is that they not only return, but are made worse than ever. Quote: Then on the flip, why shouldn't it be that way? No. Answer his question: why? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:38:21 - [10] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Sorry, but that's not how debates work. I've offered an argument with supporting evidence as to why something shouldn't be a certain way. No, you didn't. That's why he asked you why it should be the way you're suggesting. But you're quite right: what you attempted is now how debates work. When someone asks you GÇ¥whyGÇ¥, returning with a GÇ£why notGÇ¥ means you lost the debate. You have no argument. If you want the debate to end in a different way, you answer the question with an explanation of why the massive and fundamental change you're suggesting is a good one. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:44:59 - [11] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: The tank needs to be enough to incentivize incursion runners to use this ship instead of 100% safe highsec travel with cloak + mwd + travel fit. To the extent that this ship is vulnerable to the Uedama/Niarja gank folks it's not going to be used regularly, and will serve little purpose. The ship already fulfils that prerequisite before we even take the 450k EHP it has into account. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:54:03 - [12] - Quote War Kitten wrote: That's not data, those are anecdotes. Also, medical technology has seen a few improvements in the Eve world of piracy compared to the 18th century. Not to mention that EVE is not real life, nor would it be improved by being like real life. Presumably, we should remove space ships and stations as wellGÇª Valterra Craven wrote: So my argument was that hi sec ganking should not be a permanent career. Your counter was that if it wasn't that it would destroy the game because it would imbalance the cycle needed for things to work out properly, aka things created need to be destroyed. But the problem is that this argument is nonsensical because GÇªyou have decided to not look up the facts of the matter and are just guessing and hoping for the best. More than that, you also skipped over a significant portion of my actual argument GÇö the one concerning the need for everything to be destructible everywhere, or the game breaks from the imbalance. Oh, and you still didn't answer the question GÇ£why?GÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:04:45 - [13] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Facts of what matter? The one we're discussing. Keep up, or stop trying to dance around the creeping realisation you're having that your assertions are thoroughly uninformed. Quote: Oh and I did answer the question. No, you didn't, nor did you provide any evidence for your (non-existing) argument. You made an irrelevant comparison with a completely unrelated topic GÇö you have yet to answer why the game should be massively changed in that way. You are still just trying to dance around the fact that you have nothing even remotely resembling a coherent argument. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:18:48 - [14] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: See above. Not my problem you can't follow my simple post. There is no answer to the question GÇ£whyGÇ¥ above. I take it to mean that this lack is supposed to be your answer, then. So to conclude: you can't think of a single solid reason why the game should change at a very fundamental level, effectively wiping out entire play styles. You could have just said so rather than do this whole silly song and dance number. Fruckton Haulalot wrote: PVP is all good, pirate play is fun.... but most of the time PVP in eve is a one sided deal... your either getting alphaed off the feild in seconds ... or your getting bumped around till the gankers can finish you off before concord shows up in highsec. It's only one-sided if you believe that the PvP happens when someone decides to press F1. In actuality, it starts looooong before that. The actual fight is a pretty minute part of the equation. If it's one-sided, it's because you made it so. If you took the same time to plan and execute as the gankers did, you'd quickly realise that, if anything, the whole thing is heavily weighted in favour of the supposed victim. Quote: the hull on the Bowhead should be about half.. or at lease 1/3 that of the Rorqual.... as this ship is about half the size of the Rorq.... the sheils should be about 30,000 and the armor should be about where it is now.... Why on earth should it have something even remotely like that amount of HP? Why do you even think that size is remotely relevant to a question of balance between safety and ease of destruction? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:27:37 - [15] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: So its my fault you lack reading comprehension when the why has been so clearly stated numerous times? No, it's your fault for trying to pass of an irrelevant tangent as an answer to the question of why the game should change so dramatically. Quote: {THE WHY} Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. In this case you can repair your sec an unlimited number of times. How does that make sense?{/THE WHY} None of this explains why the game should change. It only poses further question (viz. how does it make sense, to which the answer always is GÇ£it's a gameGÇ¥). SoGÇª why should the game change? Quote: My arguement is that hi sec ganking should not be a permanent career. My supporting evidence is that in today's world criminals are not given limitless chances to change their ways. The first part is not an argument GÇö it's a baseless and unargued assertion. The second is not evidence GÇö it's an irrelevant sidetrack, and it does not support your assertion even if it was relevant. Quote: So I've made a modified version of what actually took place. A. Made a statement B. Gave supporting arguments C. People argued that this was naive and would break the game. D. I offered more examples as to why this wasn't naive and wouldn't break the game. This is not what happened. A made a statement that something should happen, without supporting argumentation or evidence. B asked why it should happen. A answered by saying why not. B, C, D, and E are now trying to get A to understand that he has yet to provide any kind of relevant support for his initial assertion. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:33:40 - [16] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Well its your opinion that my argument as to why something to change is an irrelevant tangent. GÇªand the reason is because you have yet to make any kind of connection between your irrelevant tangent and you initial assertion. You have yet to explain why the game should change. Quote: Again, it doesn't explain why the game should change Correct. So again, why should the game change? Quote: So... why shouldn't the game change to follow more sensical patterns of thought? GÇ£Why not?GÇ¥ as your only response to the question of why means you can't actually think of a single reason why the game should change, and that is all you're saying here. You are desperately stalling for time so it can appear as if you have an opinion that you're defending, when you have long since made clear that you have no idea on how to support your initial assertion. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:37:38 - [17] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Oh, so we should just let criminals break the law into infinity? How is that not also an abuse of basic morality. Because it relates to internet spaceships, where we should indeed just let criminals break the law into infinity until you can provide a good reason for why this should change. Fruckton Haulalot wrote: and again i point out the fact... that current game machinics allow an ORCA to acheive a little over 450 ehp and still remain a very usefull and talented ship for many aspects not just mining command.. The Orca can also carry far more valuables than the Bowhead can ever hope to. Quote: This Bowhead should be at least 20% TO 40% tougher then the Orca... It already is. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:45:47 - [18] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: No, it just means you haven't made an actual argument for me to disprove beyond what I've already done. There is nothing for you to disprove. There is only the question you have yet to answer properly: why should the game change on such a fundamental level? Quote: The game should change because the risk reward balance is still skewed too favorably toward the attacker. Do you have anything to support this assertion? Quote: I've already done away with your argument that nerfing ganking further would not in anyway mess up the balance in creation and production No, you have just dismissed it by a neat combination of argument from ignorance and strawman argumentation. You have yet to actually adress the facts of the matter or the substance of my argument. Feel free to do that as well once you're done answering the question GÇ£why?GÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:53:36 - [19] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: High sec can't become more dangerous if the tutorials and missions shove players to be unprepared for actual combat with other players Just one problem with this claim: highsec was far more dangerous, especially to newbies, when they had even less guidance and were tossed out into open space even less prepared. Saying that GÇ£it can't becomeGÇ¥ what it has already been is somewhat disingenuous. Quote: You can not expect new players to enter a game with a group already established in the game as the bar to not just survive but enjoy and grow. This is fair enough, but at the same time, it shows that all that is required for new players to enjoy, grow, and thrive is that they are properly educated GÇö not that they are coddled or protected. What's really needed is better ways for new players to make those crucial connections, rather than be the standard scapegoat for established players looking to make their own lives easier. Valterra Craven wrote: Nope. But I would be in favor of people that continually engage in high sec ganking receiving some form of permanent handicap while in high sec. This already exists in numerous incarnations. You are in favour of the game as it already works. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:11:58 - [20] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Because being a permanent criminal means that the risks are not high enough to deter the activity. Why should it be deterred? Quote: Oh, please point out to me where you proved that high sec ganking is a fundamental part of the game as a question of economy? It was in the post where I pointed out your strawman. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:19:19 - [21] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Why shouldn't it? No. Answer the question: why should it be deterred? Quote: The problem is that if I keep answering I'm continually on the offensive having to go down a rabbit hole to infinity That's what happens if you throw out baseless assertions like that. If you're not prepared to defend themGÇöif you feel that it's a problem that you keep being questionedGÇöstop throwing them out. Quote: So the same post you did nothing? No. It was in the post where I pointed out your strawman. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:24:39 - [22] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Tippia wrote: No. Answer the question: why should it be deterred? No. So we can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it should. Again, why didn't you just say so? Quote: No, its what happens when someone isn't actually willing to own an opinion and come up with a relevant reason on why a proposal is a bad idea. GÇªand that is why those bad proposals will always be met with an incessant wall of GÇ£why?GÇ¥ until the originator demonstrates that they can't actually support the baseless and ill-conceived opinion they vomited out for no apparent reason. Much like what keeps happening to you. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:33:50 - [23] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Again, I can safely conclude Nope. You see, there is a very simple reason why it shouldn't that remains true from the very start: because you fail to explain why. Your conclusion is based on a onus probandi fallacyGÇönot only is it not safe, it is fundamentally lacking in any kind of logical cohesion or validity. Quote: It works both ways. No, it doesn't. You made an assertion. Your assertion is incorrect until you provide some supporting argumentation or evidence to prove otherwise. As long as you adamantly refuse to answer the very very very very trivially simple question GÇ£whyGÇ¥, we have every reason ever needed to say that your suggestion should absolutely not happen. You provided the answer to your own question by your refusal to answer mine. I don't have to lift a finger. Quote: Look up the word baseless. It doesn't mean what you think it does. Yes it does, and it perfectly describes the unsupported assertions that you keep vomiting up and then adamantly refuse to support. Quote: Done and Done. Nope. Why should it be deterred? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:59:10 - [24] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: What a shame that I've already explained why. No, you really haven't. Why should it be deterred? Quote: Whereas your argument is just that? Why? "Why" is not an argument. Almost correct. My argument is that your refusal to answer a very simple question is all that is needed to show that what you're asking for should not happen. GÇ£WhyGÇ£ is indeed not an argument, and neither is GÇ£why not?GÇ¥, and yet that is all you have offered so far. Quote: No, I offered an opinion as proven by the phrase "my 2 cents" and then proceeded to detail why I held that opinion. GÇªexcept that you did neither of those. You offered an assertion, with nothing to support it. You said that the risks in being a permanent criminal are not enough to deter the activityGÇöthat is not an opinion, nor is there any two cents attached to it. It's a normative statement with no explanation why it should be deterred. Hence the question: why should it be deterred? Quote: No, I provided neither the answer to my question nor a reason for you not to lift a finger to hold a stance. Yes you did. By failing to answer the question of why, you provided an answer to GÇ£why not?GÇ¥ that is GÇ£because there's no reason to do itGÇ¥. Onus probandi is a nasty fellow GÇö you need to learn to not fall for it every time. The best way is to actually start answering that question you've come to loathe: the question of GÇ£why?GÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:02:54 - [25] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: You are when you demand nerfs to ganking. Except that nerf != wholesale removal. Indeed, but what you're very explicitly asking for is a wholesale removal, for no reason that you can articulate. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.

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.