EVE Search - Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

» 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 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:45:10 - [4501] - Quote Mags Lets run with that. Its on the list anyway. How exactly does not having local make ratters feel safer? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 823	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:46:02 - [4502] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Mags Lets run with that. Its on the list anyway. How exactly does not having local make ratters feel safer? It doesn't. They just have a spine.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:50:17 - [4503] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Mags Lets run with that. Its on the list anyway. How exactly does not having local make ratters feel safer? It doesn't. They just have a spine. Yes, they do. They have a spine And a lot of mechanisms that protect them and make them feel safer. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Mag's the united 20832	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:50:56 - [4504] - Quote Maybe it's time you started reading those posts you've avoided. But you won't, because they prove you wrong. As they are logical and yours is just lots of mental gymnastics. You as much as admit it. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 823	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:51:23 - [4505] - Quote Except they do not have any such protection. Again you simply fail to understand that certain people have a certain level of risk they'll accept. Half these nullbears would be better served in highsec.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:54:18 - [4506] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Except they do not have any such protection. Again you simply fail to understand that certain people have a certain level of risk they'll accept. Half these nullbears would be better served in highsec. Do wormhole ratters collapse wormholes because they have a spine, or because doing so makes them feel safer? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 823	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:04:14 - [4507] - Quote That would be the primarily the former, given what is involved with it. The way holes work is a double edged sword, completely. But I'm wasting my time. You have no idea how these things work. Frankly you're nothing more than a cast iron troll.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:08:44 - [4508] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: That would be the primarily the former, given what is involved with it. The way holes work is a double edged sword, completely. But I'm wasting my time. You have no idea how these things work. Frankly you're nothing more than a cast iron troll. We are actually looking at how things that reduce implicit threat in wh space might look in null sec. Closing (and opening) gates with entosis links would seem to be an obvious thing that would reduce implicit threat (or in your words be primarily something that shows spine given that it is a double edged sword, completely). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 825	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:11:42 - [4509] - Quote Again your lack of understanding blares loud and clear. Seriously, go learn the mechanics before lecturing others ok?
Mag's the united 20832	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:15:49 - [4510] - Quote Jerghul wrote: We are actually looking at how things that reduce implicit threat in wh space might look in null sec. No, you are. No one else thinks this is relevant. You've yet again ignored posts that prove you wrong. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:22:56 - [4511] - Quote Morrigan and Mags Oh, I think the people that understand my points understand them perfectly well. They are the choir I am preaching to mostly anyway. What I am doing is offering the opportunity to provide meaningful input. 1/8 Wh type rats reduces implicit threat. 2/8 Closing/opening gates reduces implicit threat. Nothing said so far has changed that. You would see this much clearer if you just let go of the conception that some groups of pilots are morally superior to others. It is not particularly convincing and is also pretty unhelpful (future game development emphasis should obviously be weighed heavily towards PvE content and PvE ships if your conception is correct. The morally superior group is simply too small to warrant much attention). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 825	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:26:28 - [4512] - Quote There's nothing "moral" about it, it is reality. Your ideas are 1) wrong and 2) quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever seen. I don't expect you to understand, you're sat there lecturing like you're the oracle of delphi whereas up until I pointed out your folly, you thought wormholes had gates. Your input is worthless as it is ludicrous, worse than putting concord into nullsec levels of bad.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:38:04 - [4513] - Quote 1/8 Wh type rats reduces implicit threat. 2/8 Closing/opening gates reduces implicit threat. 3/8 Natural phenomena 3/8 Wormhole space has system effects that impact significantly on doctrine and tactical efficiency. This allows residents of specific systems to fine tune doctrine, skills, and tactics optimally adapted to their specific ecosystem. Visitors to that system must either fight at a serious disadvantage, or enter with a high degree of planned premeditation. Giving sov holders access to infrastructure modules that allows them to tailor combat environments in systems they control duplicates that effect and could be combined with expanding wormhole star effects to more types of stars (in weaker or different incarnations). Implicit risk is reduced by giving visitors the option of either fighting at a disadvantage, or by preparing sufficiently. In effect reducing the level of opportunistic predation a PvE player need worry about. Any comments to that? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 828	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:47:10 - [4514] - Quote You're still ignoring the fact all your points are fundamentally wrong. But carry on sperging, why not.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:52:29 - [4515] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: You're still ignoring the fact all your points are fundamentally wrong. But carry on sperging, why not. I am giving you the opportunity to indicate why you think each point is wrong Morrigan. It does not presume that you accept the premise, nor that you want wormhole mechanisms mirrored in null sec. It simply is a question of reviewing how you think the point would impact on implicit threat/pretty big psychological effect/feeling of safety. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 828	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:55:31 - [4516] - Quote And you've been told by multiple people, multiple times why they're either mistake/bad/combination of both. Yet you insist on ignoring all of it and charging on regardless. Some of them are SO bad, they should not require explanation as they're nothing short of a 2/10 troll.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 120	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:56:42 - [4517] - Quote We already gave you all those answers. You chose to ignore everything and since we didn't want to repost the lot... reported.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 16:01:47 - [4518] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: And you've been told by multiple people, multiple times why they're either mistake/bad/combination of both. Yet you insist on ignoring all of it and charging on regardless. Some of them are SO bad, they should not require explanation as they're nothing short of a 2/10 troll. They are just mechanisms in wormhole space that reduce Fozie's "pretty big psychological effect" derived from afk cloaky camping and other things. They are neither mistakes, bad, or a combination of both. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 828	Posted - 2015.12.13 16:06:03 - [4519] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: And you've been told by multiple people, multiple times why they're either mistake/bad/combination of both. Yet you insist on ignoring all of it and charging on regardless. Some of them are SO bad, they should not require explanation as they're nothing short of a 2/10 troll. They are just mechanisms in wormhole space that reduce Fozie's "pretty big psychological effect" derived from afk cloaky camping and other things. They are neither mistakes, bad, or a combination of both. Once again completely ignoring the fact what you're stating is inaccurate, in the extreme. You've been told why repeatedly and yet you ignore all of it. You are adding nothing but trolling at this point. The ignorance is downright willful. You've already demonstrated time and again in this thread you have exactly no idea how wormholes work, kinda refrain from lecturing as if you are some sort of authority on them when it is plain to see you know less than nothing about them. The people telling you that you're wrong have likely forgotten more about that area of space then you'll ever know.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 16:12:00 - [4520] - Quote Morrigan You probably should try to address the points, not the man making them for just a little bit. Brokk just asked moderators to review the thread. I think characterizing vast groups of EvE players as "spineless" to be a weak argument (and probably against forum rules since brokk brought that up). There are perfectly good mechanical explanations for why afk cloaky camping is not a worm hole problem. I am trying to identify what they are and what they would look like in null sec. Nothing more and nothing less. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 828	Posted - 2015.12.13 16:26:00 - [4521] - Quote You mean like people did here or here or here? Omni rats would do nothing, for reasons given. That is not why PvP and maxed PvE fits are so different. Eve 101 Shutting gates would break the game. This should require no explanation. Wormhole effects are no big deal and have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on PvP "threat". But you'd know this if you lived there. You see, you've been told time and again why you're wrong. But you don't care, you keep posting the same diatribe seemingly in the hope that if you say it enough, eventually it'll stick. Edit: I predict though that, as usual, you'll ignore all the salient points. Then probably post your list again and crack on as if no-one disagreed or asking people what the think as if the wave of negative (and accurate) feedback didn't happen.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 121	Posted - 2015.12.13 16:41:12 - [4522] - Quote Jerghul wrote: There are perfectly good mechanical explanations for why afk cloaky camping is not a worm hole problem. I am trying to identify what they are and what they would look like in null sec. It's elementary dear Watson: a cloaky camper cannot scare you out of your pants if you can't see him in local chat. You being there 1 hour or 24 days AFK cloaked doesn't make no difference because nobody will know. The "spine" comes from assuming there are hostiles in system and simply assuming you can either deal with them or afford the loss. It's not against forum rules to point out people wormhole dwellers roll with a different attitude -- it is even very much on-topic.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 828	Posted - 2015.12.13 16:46:01 - [4523] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Jerghul wrote: There are perfectly good mechanical explanations for why afk cloaky camping is not a worm hole problem. I am trying to identify what they are and what they would look like in null sec. It's elementary dear Watson: a cloaky camper cannot scare you out of your pants if you can't see him in local chat. You being there 1 hour or 24 days AFK cloaked doesn't make no difference because nobody will know. The "spine" comes from assuming there are hostiles in system and simply assuming you can either deal with them or afford the loss. It's not against forum rules to point out people wormhole dwellers roll with a different attitude -- it is even very much on-topic. That and somehow the lowsec denizens do not have this issue. Remarkable, is it not? It's almost as if it's entirely contained in the minds of people and mechanics be damned. It's not as if WH are the special snowflakes here. The outliers - the sole group of ALL eve players scared of a neut in local - are nullbears.
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 104	Posted - 2015.12.13 17:18:07 - [4524] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: And you've been told by multiple people, multiple times why they're either mistake/bad/combination of both. Yet you insist on ignoring all of it and charging on regardless. Some of them are SO bad, they should not require explanation as they're nothing short of a 2/10 troll. They are just mechanisms in wormhole space that reduce Fozie's "pretty big psychological effect" derived from afk cloaky camping and other things. They are neither mistakes, bad, or a combination of both. Firstly: AFK-cloaking IS NOT an issue in anywhere else, besides sov-null. It has nothing to do with any in-game mechanic or "limiting risk" If it was a real problem, we'd hear more whine about it from other parts of space as well. Since we don't, we can pretty much conclude, that somehow a name in local is enough to drive sov-null ratters into safety and stay there, until they don't have a "threat" visible Secondly: The reason why I compared how PVE is done in w-space and in null was to show that both have their OWN versions to make it safer. Not safe, only safer. Those mechanics are tied to the landscape they are in and cannot be copied to the other without either being ineffective or breaking things in horrible ways. Some things are common in both places, but trying to make wormhole-mechanics work in nullsec is just complete lunacy. Thirdly: The pilots that live and PVE in wormhole-space know that there is always a chance to get screwed over by the randomness of the space they are in. No matter how much you try to diminish the chance of getting ganked, it is still there. They accept that danger and are willing to risk it. Sov-null is about the safest place in New Eden to make your isk in. You have intel-channels feeding you information 10-20 jumps away and warning you if anything dangerous appears. Even if a wormhole spawned in the system, local will tell you there is someone new in the system. The warning-time you get in unparalelled in eve. Basically if you are awake and at your keyboard, you cannot get killed. Those who complain about one dude in system with a cloak is stopping them from doing anything aren't really getting the idea of a sandbox, not to mention their risk-aversion is through the roof. AFK-cloaker is one of the few ways there is to exploit the perfect intel. If you still keep on insisting that wormhole-pilots somehow have better ways to reduce the danger of getting killed, then you are nuts. You can see, predict and reduce the chances of getting killed in all cases EXCEPT ONE and that is too much? Yes nullbears are even more risk averse than people living in highsec.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 1076	Posted - 2015.12.13 18:03:05 - [4525] - Quote You contradict yourself. NS isn't safe. If it was there would be no need to dock to avoid hostiles, and no one would care about cloaked campers. NS has no protections against hostiles but those you create for yourself. That the majority of those measures are rendered irrelevant by cloaks is unfortunate. You certainly can die if you are awake and at the keyboard, it's your decision to get to safety that protects you. The ratters in wormholes aren't braver or anything. They have better support. The same delayed chat that makes someone able to sneak in also protects the ratter. The system entrances are better watched. Dangerous entrances can be closed. The scale of wormholes creates an entirely different dynamic. None of that matters as to what makes cloaks OP. It is really very simple. They provide too much safety. Do the afk explosion test.... Get outside of a dock or pos shields, and tell me how many places you can go afk without a cloak where can be assured your ship will not explode. Now turn a cloak on and ask the same question. No one should have that level of security, especially while also being effective in their chosen activity, or while putting any kind of pressure or forcing actions on other players.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 6564	Posted - 2015.12.13 18:22:45 - [4526] - Quote Hey guys, please keep it on topic and civil. I don't want to have to go thread cleaning. Thanks! ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 19:09:02 - [4527] - Quote Quote: Premise Afk cloaky camping is not a problem. Implicit threat/quite a big psychological effect derived from afk cloaky camping is something the developers are looking at. Implicit threat/quite a big psychological effect derived from afk cloaky camping is not a problem in wormhole space. There are good reasons for that. Argument The good reasons for why implicit threat/quite a big psychological effect from afk cloaky camping are mechanical. Goal Find the mechanical good wormhole reasons and apply them to null-sec to see what they look like there. 1/8 Wormhole style rats reduces the implicit threat/quite a big psychological effect stemming from afk cloaky camping. 2/8 Closing/opening gates reduces implicit threat/quite a big psychological effect. stemming from afk cloaky camping 3/8 Natural phenomena 3/8 Wormhole space has system effects that impact significantly on doctrine and tactical efficiency. This allows residents of specific systems to fine tune doctrine, skills, and tactics optimally adapted to their specific ecosystem. Visitors to that system must either fight at a serious disadvantage, or enter with a high degree of planned premeditation. Giving sov holders access to infrastructure modules that allows them to tailor combat environments in systems they control duplicates that effect and could be combined with expanding wormhole star effects to more types of stars (in weaker or different incarnations). Implicit threat is reduced by giving visitors the option of either fighting at a disadvantage, or by preparing sufficiently. In effect reducing the level of opportunistic predation a PvE player need worry about. Morrigan I am systematically going through the points. Comments like "you are wrong, that is stupid, you are a troll" are not really constructive and merely serve to fill up the thread with chaff. Consider using phrasing like "I disagree because" or similar. Please point out any pertinent points I may have missed in the clutter as we move forward. Brokk The ignorance is bliss argument is not very convincing. No local looks is more afk cloaky camping on speed than a solution to the implicit risk/big psychological effect stemming from afk cloaky camping. See point 3. under Wander for details. Wander 1. Afk cloaky camping is not a problem in null-sec or anywhere for that matter (Fozielaw). The problem is implicit threat/big psychological effect that stems from afk cloaky camping that the devs are looking into (Fozielaw). The devs think there are good reasons for why implicit risk/big psychological effect does not occur in wormhole space (Fozielaw), and that we may be surprised by how they decide to address the issue (Fozielaw). 2. Absolute security is a bit beside the point. I am just looking for mechanical reasons that makes implicit risk/big psychological effect stemming from afk cloaky camping not a problem in wormhole space. I am not trying to make them work in null-sec either. I am just examining what they might look like. 3. I am just saying that the game mechanics that lower implicit risk/big psychological effect stemming from AFK camping are likely the same game mechanics that lower implicit threat/big psychological effect you might expect would stem from no local. So yah, the game mechanics that reduce implicit threat/big psychological effect are probably very powerful (you used the term lunacy to describe what their mirror image looked like in 0-sec did you not?). It follows that no local is an option for null-sec that could easily be introduced along with other compensating mechanisms that reduce implicit threat/big psychological effect stemming from AFK cloaky camping. Mike The man has said afk cloaky camping is ok (Fozielaw). Not much point in flogging that horse. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Ashtaroth Drakin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.12.13 19:15:26 - [4528] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Mags Lets run with that. Its on the list anyway. How exactly does not having local make ratters feel safer? It doesn't. They just have a spine. Yes, they do. They have a spine And a lot of mechanisms that protect them and make them feel safer. I can actually give a pretty detail reason why. The reason why the lack of local makes ratters feel safer, the answer it doesn't. Here what it does. Wormholes is universally accepted that if you go into one, there a likely chance there could be three or four hostiles waiting on the other side really to murder bone the living gajooie out of you, and whats you make it in, with all of your gajooie intact, you start to set up camp and attempt to earn isk. Your ship is (normally) already fully fitted to live there, or at the very least survive till you make enough money to leave and go some where else.. This is infact very much just like null sec when you travel from one gate to another, and then setting up camp to live there till you make enough money to bring back to high sec and sell what you found mined or killed. The difference between the two is starked by local, Local provides a safety net if someone moves into the system, everyone gets a nice big warning that says. "OH HEY THERE A NEW GUY HERE!" and if that new guy is not blue, then everyone scatters and safes up so that they don't lose the ship they just spent 300 million isk on, it doesn't matter what this guy in. It freakes people out because they see this big bad name on local that could potentially be a hotdropo-clock alt. The difference is actually rather simple. Local allows for those that are not potentially ready to join nullsec to join null sec. While wormhole space, you better be ready to go through that wormhole because you get ZERO hand holding in there. The difference it creates is the mindset of the players, you remove local, you start to force people's mindsets to change on how they perceive that section of space. Simply put, those that are ready for that section of space will join that space, those that are not, will stay in High sec. (Which also means you might see a increase cost of minerals and other such materials.)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4038	Posted - 2015.12.13 19:16:07 - [4529] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Wander Prian wrote: The only consensus we've reached is that your ideas are bad for multitude of reasons, which you choose to ignore. It doesn't matter what kind of a change you make, the only thing that would satisfy the people who have an issue with a neutral in local sitting cloaked somewhere, is a magic wand that would make the rattimg risk free surrounded by Intel-channels and the early warning system that is local Geeze, Get a real life McJob for 500 mill/isk hr equivalent (or whatever) after you plexed it into Eve if you want to maximize your isk/hr. People like to optimize in Eve is all. And like to feel there is optimizing balance. We seem to have reached a consensus that wh space omni rat types reduce implicit risk. I have seen no feedback that suggest disagreement on that point that has not been discussed sufficiently. Yes people like to optimize...and that is one reason why they are vulnerable. They optimize against a class of rats and leave big glaring resist holes. And here is the kicker, they don't have to. These are choices, and choices should have consequences in this game. In another thread a guy was posted he was ganked in a mackinaw while mining semi-AFK. The response was, fly a procurer/skiff and tank it. You will not make as much ISK, but chances are the gankers will go looking for a mackinaw. That was, ultimately, the point of the now locked freighter bumping thread. If you undock a freighter, a capital ship, and fill it with yummy loot and fly without a scout...your choices are increasing your risk. Here in this thread there are choices. If one decides to not use the choices offered that is on them. Changing the game so they don't have to make these choices is antithetical to the nature of the game. We shouldn't be implementing changes to the mechanics to hold players hands and eliminate the choices they face. My guess is CCP will be changing mechanics to cloaking and intel...to give us more choices, not less. My guess is that while the Observatory Array can be configured to scan down cloaked ships, doing so will close off other options...much like when fitting a ship. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Terminal Insanity Pwn 'N Play SpaceMonkey's Alliance 828	Posted - 2015.12.13 19:19:00 - [4530] - Quote afk cloaking is fine. Heres how you deal with it: 1) dock up your deadspace fit rattlesnake and your gecko carrier alt. 2) cloak a falcon and/or stratios/rapier/whatever you like, right beside an idiot who didnt dock his deadspace fit rattlesnake thats it. If he is the type who attacks, then you'll get to gank him instead. If he's just the kind who sits there afk for days, then rat in another system until he goes away. he will go away eventually. "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2026, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,55s, ref 20260203/1211
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.