EVE Search - ORE Freighter: smaller but armored like a real capital ship

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

ORE Freighter: smaller but armored like a real capital ship

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2006	Posted - 2014.11.30 03:25:50 - [1] - Quote A lot of folks are complaining that their freighters aren't durable enough. Of course, people explain that we don't want to have giant cheap cargo ships that are also extremely durable and also allowed into highsec. So I have a proposal for a cargo vessel with significantly reduced carrying capacity over a freighter (but still very large) with capital-level defenses for when you want to haul in dangerous space. Perhaps to balance it out, you can't bring this ship into highsec at all--but it can use stargates in lowsec and nullsec even though it also has a jump drive. It also has several different types of bays, so if you take advantage of several or all of them at once along with cargohold expanders you can net a total amount of storage space similar to a freighter. ORE Freighter 5 High Power Slots, 0 turret hardpoints, 0 launcher hardpoints 7 Medium Power Slots, 4 Low Power Slots Drone bandwidth: 125 Mbit/sec Drone bay space: 25,000m3 Capital Industrial Ships skill bonuses: +5% cargohold and fleet hangar capacity per level -4% shield resistances per level +20% drone damage and hit points per level Role bonuses: 2x Warp Strength from fitting Warp Core Stabilizers 300% bonus to ship scanners range + Can fit Clone Vat Bay 90% reduction to effective distance traveled for jump fatigue Cargohold: 80,000 m3 Fleet Hangar: 150,000 m3 Mineral Hold: 50,000 m3 Planetary Materials Hold: 50,000 m3 Fuel Bay: 50,000 m3 Ship Maintenance Hangar: 250,000 m3 I'm not sure what hit point/powergrid/capacitor values to use but I'm thinking similar to a Thanatos. Its mineral cost should be similar to a Rorqual but probably a bit cheaper. Powergrid should probably be reduced since it'll mostly be for fitting on-board reps. It doesn't need enough to fit capital modules in the high slots. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 680	Posted - 2014.11.30 03:58:24 - [2] - Quote To me it seems like a dumbed down Rorqual... What you're describing isn't a freighter, it's a mid-ship between the Orca and the Rorqual. To much functionality to be considered a freighter
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1727	Posted - 2014.11.30 06:30:46 - [3] - Quote OR....... We could just give freighters a real capital ship layout & fitting allowance. And stop automatically gimping all industrial ships. If someone wants to use their Jump Freighter as a Smart Bomber with it's 6 high slots (as an example), why is this an issue? By deliberately leaving Industrials gimped on slots and fittings we will always have these issues. If we give them a real fitting layout and allowance comparable to other ships of their size, then we actually create a much more interesting Meta when they are capable in their own right.
Gay Pornstar Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling 22	Posted - 2014.11.30 07:51:59 - [4] - Quote Sounds good. The bonus to warp core stabs is silly though, nothing else has that and nothing should. Lowsec is dead as dogshit and seriously needs some reason for you bears to step out of your cave. Maybe having a faux-carrier hauler is what that takes. The dronebay space is also silly. Id be okay with enough space for 10-15 flights of heavies but not infinite WTF space. There is an idea of a Gay Pornstar; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 98	Posted - 2014.11.30 08:51:17 - [5] - Quote If you want a really tanky Bowhead i have EFT warriored a fit up that has well over 500k ehp against void and not alot less against quake... Wait, isnt this more of a carrier type thing with the slots and such?
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2009	Posted - 2014.11.30 10:53:37 - [6] - Quote Gay Pornstar wrote: The dronebay space is also silly. Id be okay with enough space for 10-15 flights of heavies but not infinite WTF space. The combat utility of increased drone bay space has a diminishing return. I don't figure there's a huge difference between 500m3 and 25,000m3 drone bay space because it's not very often a ship loses 4 flights of heavies in one outing. At some point your opponent will stop trying to kill the drones and focus on the ship instead. All the rest of the space is just another hauling bay--one that only hauls drones. Joe Risalo wrote: To me it seems like a dumbed down Rorqual... What you're describing isn't a freighter, it's a mid-ship between the Orca and the Rorqual. To much functionality to be considered a freighter FireFrenzy wrote: If you want a really tanky Bowhead i have EFT warriored a fit up that has well over 500k ehp against void and not alot less against quake... Wait, isnt this more of a carrier type thing with the slots and such? Orca and Rorqual can fit mining foreman links. They both have pretty big ore holds. The Rorqual can fit an industrial core. Carriers can launch fighters and can fit drone control units. Carriers can also fit triage units. The Bowhead is a cheap ship-hauler that only hauls ships and is quite a bit smaller than this ORE Freighter, while also being allowed in highsec. None of these can haul nearly as much general cargo as the ORE Freighter I am proposing. It is similar to carriers and the Rorqual in basic fitting options and attributes alone. How again is it similar to any of these things? Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Gay Pornstar Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling 23	Posted - 2014.11.30 19:46:20 - [7] - Quote I suppose I have an odd perspective on drone bay space because I have been in a fight where I lost 20 sets of heavies. I see your point. I think the issue the others are having with your concept is that you're calling it a freighter, when it has more similarity to a scaled up combat Blockade Runner. You might benefit from giving it a new name and treating it as a heavily ORE modified Obelisk or something, so much so that it takes your new skill instead of just Gallente Freighter. There is an idea of a Gay Pornstar; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2011	Posted - 2014.11.30 23:54:41 - [8] - Quote Gay Pornstar wrote: You might benefit from giving it a new name and treating it as a heavily ORE modified Obelisk or something, so much so that it takes your new skill instead of just Gallente Freighter. I was actually hoping to have it use that already existing skill, Capital Industrial Ships, which only has one ship for it so far. I realized after I made this that the new Bowhead takes a new ORE Freighter skill--I wish all three (Rorqual, Bowhead, my proposed ORE Freighter) all took the Capital Industrial ships skill. Then again, that skill requires mining barge V. Maybe this ship I'm proposing should just use the ORE Freighter skill. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Ceawlin Cobon-Han Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 39	Posted - 2014.12.01 19:16:58 - [9] - Quote I believe the idea would be best handled by the creation of a T3 hauler, which you can fit in any number of ways. Heavier tank, less cargo; and vice versa. Slippery sucker (lots of stabs) or stand your ground (lots of dps). Rather than fix peoples' options, give them the flexibility that T3 offers the combat ships. I think it's about time.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2014	Posted - 2014.12.03 04:58:02 - [10] - Quote That doesn't handle the same problem. A T3 hauler would be great for the small hauling, but while a lot of freighter pilots would be happy to give up cargo space for something durable, they don't want to give up so much as to be using a subcap for hauling or they would already be doing that. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Meyr Destructive Influence Northern Coalition. 365	Posted - 2014.12.03 05:18:47 - [11] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: OR....... We could just give freighters a real capital ship layout & fitting allowance. And stop automatically gimping all industrial ships. If someone wants to use their Jump Freighter as a Smart Bomber with it's 6 high slots (as an example), why is this an issue? By deliberately leaving Industrials gimped on slots and fittings we will always have these issues. If we give them a real fitting layout and allowance comparable to other ships of their size, then we actually create a much more interesting Meta when they are capable in their own right. Love the idea, but, as we can see by the post regarding IS Boxer and command broadcasting across multiple clients, gankers are already sobbing into their glasses, and we can't pile too much more onto them right now. Actually giving hauler pilots truly meaningful fitting options just might cause mass ganker IRL suicide, and we wouldn't want to be guilty of that, would we?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14075	Posted - 2014.12.03 05:30:00 - [12] - Quote Meyr wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: OR....... We could just give freighters a real capital ship layout & fitting allowance. And stop automatically gimping all industrial ships. If someone wants to use their Jump Freighter as a Smart Bomber with it's 6 high slots (as an example), why is this an issue? By deliberately leaving Industrials gimped on slots and fittings we will always have these issues. If we give them a real fitting layout and allowance comparable to other ships of their size, then we actually create a much more interesting Meta when they are capable in their own right. Love the idea, but, as we can see by the post regarding IS Boxer and command broadcasting across multiple clients, gankers are already sobbing into their glasses, and we can't pile too much more onto them right now. Actually giving hauler pilots truly meaningful fitting options just might cause mass ganker IRL suicide, and we wouldn't want to be guilty of that, would we? Theres something like 5 people who use IS Boxer to gank freighters, none of them are losing any sleep over this change. You already have a huge number of options for transporting your cargo around, perhaps you should use them before you demand overpowered monstrosities. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Takashi Jin Cryogenic Consultancy 3	Posted - 2014.12.03 06:57:32 - [13] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Of course, people explain that we don't want to have giant cheap cargo ships that are also extremely durable and also allowed into highsec. I'm not sure why this is even a thing. If we don't want cheap giant freighters for high sec we don't want them for null sec either. I'm sorry but the risk in high sec is still there even for the most durable ...unless you choose rnot to move anything valuable with it... then what would be the point of having it at all?
Ceawlin Cobon-Han Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 40	Posted - 2014.12.03 07:31:11 - [14] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Theres something like 5 people who use IS Boxer to gank freighters, none of them are losing any sleep over this change. You already have a huge number of options for transporting your cargo around, perhaps you should use them before you demand overpowered monstrosities. A Goon being against the idea means it's a good one.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2016	Posted - 2014.12.03 07:41:16 - [15] - Quote Takashi Jin wrote: I'm not sure why this is even a thing. If we don't want cheap giant freighters for high sec we don't want them for null sec either. I'm sorry but the risk in high sec is still there even for the most durable ...unless you choose rnot to move anything valuable with it... then what would be the point of having it at all? The more hit points it has, the more value it can move safely in highsec. Since people only have about 10-20 seconds to shoot a target, it is important to bring enough firepower to finish it off quickly. Freighters are too flimsy to even think about bringing into nullsec because even with a powerful and uncontested support fleet guarding the freighter, it can still get popped in a brief crossfire. Normal capital ships have far more hit points because they are designed to survive a brief engagement. If you want to destroy a capital ship, you had better bring a fleet capable of sustained heavy firepower along with enough support to keep anyone else off your back. You don't just gank a capital with a handful of tornadoes. When I said ships with capital HP aren't wanted in highsec, I didn't mean that they wouldn't be valued; just the opposite, they would be ridiculously overpowered because of CONCORD. Most of us don't want ships like that to be allowed to fly in highsec at all. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3143	Posted - 2014.12.03 07:55:41 - [16] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Since people only have about 10-20 seconds to shoot a target, ... Unless they employ bumping to keep the target locked down and unable to escape while the next wave of attack is prepared.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2016	Posted - 2014.12.03 08:00:03 - [17] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Since people only have about 10-20 seconds to shoot a target, ... Unless they employ bumping to keep the target locked down and unable to escape while the next wave of attack is prepared. I was talking about highsec suicide ganks. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14076	Posted - 2014.12.03 10:57:35 - [18] - Quote Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote: baltec1 wrote: Theres something like 5 people who use IS Boxer to gank freighters, none of them are losing any sleep over this change. You already have a huge number of options for transporting your cargo around, perhaps you should use them before you demand overpowered monstrosities. A Goon being against the idea means it's a good one. So I take it you also think that we should go back to the monopoly on tech moons, bring back 250 carriers worth of sentries assigned to one guy and the ability to grind out several trillion in isk from FW in a weekend. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 325	Posted - 2014.12.03 11:02:06 - [19] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote: baltec1 wrote: Theres something like 5 people who use IS Boxer to gank freighters, none of them are losing any sleep over this change. You already have a huge number of options for transporting your cargo around, perhaps you should use them before you demand overpowered monstrosities. A Goon being against the idea means it's a good one. So I take it you also think that we should go back to the monopoly on tech moons, bring back 250 carriers worth of sentries assigned to one guy and the ability to grind out several trillion in isk from FW in a weekend. Baltech, I admire your ability as a contrarian to fall on the right side of enough issues to slap anyone who calls you on it in a knee-jerk way. BTW, somewhere in goons is someone on each side of EVERY idea. Literally by this definition, everything is both a terrible idea and a good idea. Making battleships worth the warp Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2016	Posted - 2014.12.03 11:07:36 - [20] - Quote There are a lot of Goons agreeing with ideas that are contrary to what most laypeople think is a good idea. This is no conspiracy, however, but merely evidence of the deficit of experience among the general majority. One key element to note is that several of Goonswarms' enemies who have a lot of EVE experience will tend to agree with Goons on these subjects. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 342	Posted - 2014.12.03 11:14:05 - [21] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: There are a lot of Goons agreeing with ideas that are contrary to what most laypeople think is a good idea. This is no conspiracy, however, but merely evidence of the deficit of experience among the general majority. One key element to note is that several of Goonswarms' enemies who have a lot of EVE experience will tend to agree with Goons on these subjects. Or it may mean that the people who are opposing goons play a very similar game to the goons as far as activity set, and thus share the starting point of reality and have similar enough biases to come to the same conclusion. Back to the topic at hand: If the bowhead works out well, creating something similar with more tank but less capacity would be interesting. If it flops entirely, repurposing it to this might be interesting. Doing it now or even before the bowheads can settle to around where they will sit price wise, is premature. Making battleships worth the warp Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
Ceawlin Cobon-Han Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.12.04 19:05:11 - [22] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: That doesn't handle the same problem. A T3 hauler would be great for the small hauling, but while a lot of freighter pilots would be happy to give up cargo space for something durable, they don't want to give up so much as to be using a subcap for hauling or they would already be doing that. The cargo module for this hauler could be 300k m3, for example. 2 of them would give 600k, and there would be a single module for tank. ELSE could fit a single cargo module for 300k m3, and 2 tanks for more defence. It's not as if a T3 hauler would be stuck with using the same modules as a combat ship, or with the same restrictions. It's a new idea, and you can think outside the current constraints.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2025	Posted - 2014.12.04 22:36:02 - [23] - Quote 300k m3 is way too high for a subcap. 600k is basically a freighter. Or maybe I misunderstood and you're talking about a capital T3 hauler? I think this game is a bit early in development for any T3 capital. We don't even have more than one T2 capital just yet. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 192	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:14:34 - [24] - Quote I like the idea overall of freighters being capable of tanking more than they currently can. From a logistics point of view, they are the weakest link to any movement of goods and apart from High Sec use are worthless in Low or Null Sec going gate to gate. Something with more resilience and the ability to withstand a few barrages of fire while a support fleet keeps it alive and destroys the attackers is good. If it is traveling alone, it should die a horrible death, but there is no reason a decent support fleet should be unable to keep it alive. Does it have to be made by ORE? One would think the makers of the Charon, Obelisk, Fenir, and Providence would further update their freighter lines to have something that can reasonably survive gank attacks. Oh, they have so far with the additional lows that allow bulkheads to be added. But the OP is right that something sturdier for non-High Sec should be employed. Something that with cargo expanders falls short of a non-expanded freighter but has a better tank than a tanked freighter even if that something has cargo expanders. Not seeing the need for High Slots. The idea of warp stab bonus is interesting.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 343	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:54:11 - [25] - Quote I would love a line of tanky t2 freighters with capacity between JFs and regular freighters but no jump drives. Say for cargo, drop to 75% of max freighter capacity when fully fit for hauling over align speed or tank, which pushes it comfortably above JFs, but still well below regular freighters. For tank, similar base resists to a JF and around 100k of their primary tank, with a 0/3/3 layout for shield and 0/0/6 layout for armor. Making battleships worth the warp Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Conference Elite CODE. 1174	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:23:15 - [26] - Quote Meyr wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: OR....... We could just give freighters a real capital ship layout & fitting allowance. And stop automatically gimping all industrial ships. If someone wants to use their Jump Freighter as a Smart Bomber with it's 6 high slots (as an example), why is this an issue? By deliberately leaving Industrials gimped on slots and fittings we will always have these issues. If we give them a real fitting layout and allowance comparable to other ships of their size, then we actually create a much more interesting Meta when they are capable in their own right. Love the idea, but, as we can see by the post regarding IS Boxer and command broadcasting across multiple clients, gankers are already sobbing into their glasses, and we can't pile too much more onto them right now. Actually giving hauler pilots truly meaningful fitting options just might cause mass ganker IRL suicide, and we wouldn't want to be guilty of that, would we? Actually we're mostly thanking ccp for nerfing high sec miners. New player resources: Uni Wiki - General Info Eve Altruist - PvP Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2026	Posted - 2014.12.05 05:44:47 - [27] - Quote Petrified wrote: Not seeing the need for High Slots. Capacitor transfers so it can spider tank for improved on-board repping power and neut resistance. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 57	Posted - 2014.12.05 07:13:20 - [28] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: A lot of folks are complaining that their freighters aren't durable enough. Of course, people explain that we don't want to have giant cheap cargo ships that are also extremely durable and also allowed into highsec. So I have a proposal for a cargo vessel with significantly reduced carrying capacity over a freighter (but still very large) with capital-level defenses for when you want to haul in dangerous space. Perhaps to balance it out, you can't bring this ship into highsec at all--but it can use stargates in lowsec and nullsec even though it also has a jump drive. It also has several different types of bays, so if you take advantage of several or all of them at once along with cargohold expanders you can net a total amount of storage space similar to a freighter. ORE Freighter 5 High Power Slots, 0 turret hardpoints, 0 launcher hardpoints 7 Medium Power Slots, 4 Low Power Slots Drone bandwidth: 125 Mbit/sec Drone bay space: 25,000m3 ORE Freighter skill bonuses: +5% cargohold and fleet hangar capacity per level -4% shield resistances per level +20% drone damage and hit points per level Role bonuses: 2x Warp Strength from fitting Warp Core Stabilizers 300% bonus to ship scanners range + Can fit Clone Vat Bay 90% reduction to effective distance traveled for jump fatigue Cargohold: 80,000 m3 Fleet Hangar: 150,000 m3 Mineral Hold: 50,000 m3 Planetary Materials Hold: 50,000 m3 Fuel Bay: 50,000 m3 Ship Maintenance Hangar: 250,000 m3 I'm not sure what hit point/powergrid/capacitor values to use but I'm thinking similar to a Thanatos. Its mineral cost should be similar to a Rorqual but probably a bit cheaper. Powergrid should probably be reduced since it'll mostly be for fitting on-board reps. It doesn't need enough to fit capital modules in the high slots. Use the bowhead and please stop asking for additional ships when something similar is already getting to implemented. -1
Gadget Helmsdottir Gadget's Workshop 91	Posted - 2014.12.05 12:28:28 - [29] - Quote I don't hate this idea, but I think it might be better as a T2 option to JF's. Like Transport Ships have two versions: the cloaky one and the tanky one, Freighters could have 2 versions: the Jumpy one and the tanky one. --Gadget Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2026	Posted - 2014.12.05 16:06:24 - [30] - Quote Tabyll Altol wrote: Use the bowhead and please stop asking for additional ships when something similar is already getting to implemented. -1 How exactly is the Bowhead even remotely similar? Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20251011/0249
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.