EVE Search - Boost Armor Hitpoints Please!!!!!

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Boost Armor Hitpoints Please!!!!!

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.09.20 03:24:00 - [1] Wait wait! Don't flame yet! Hear me out. I don't think that flat boost of hitpoints (similar to the one we just had) is a good idea. It's not. Read that again. I am NOT a proponent of general "+x" hitpoints to all ships. It causes too many issues by nerfing alpha strike ships, NPC balancing, etc. But on the other hand, we need battles to last longer. And tanking in general is weaker than DPS because tanking doesn't kill anyone. But more ship hitpoints does make battles last longer. We can't really boost resistances much more than they already are, because then we start seeing ships that are "unkillable" because thier resistances are so high that, smaller ships in particular, can't generate enough damage to overcome the repairers. That is a problem we don't want to even stray too far towards. Second Problem: Oversizing. Just boosting plates was orginally what I had in mind. After considerable debate on the topic, I had to agree that I was wrong. Lowering plate fitting needs to the point where any ship could "oversize" leads to some tremendous imbalance with specific ship types, droneboats in particular. And, while slapping 3 1600 T2 plates on my Maller makes me go weak in the knees, it's probably not the best for overall ship balance. Good "Yarrrrr" factor though. Side Issue: Lowslots are just less useful than Midslots. In general, low slot mods are less powerful than mid slot mods (ECCM, etc) while generally having a less overall useful mods to utilize. This leaves low slots to be filled with DCs, Warp Core stabbies, and Damage Mods. Fitting mods if you need them. A completely whompass armor tank consists of 5 low slots, assuming double reppers. Any extras are fitted with Damage mods....or dirty stabs. So whats a ship with extra lows to do? Solution:: Boost Energized Regenerative Membranes. Currently an ERM II boosts hitpoints by 15%. Honestly, if you aren't in a capital ship 15% is crap. An Apoc with skills has 7500 Armor. A 1600mm T2 Plate gives 3360 armor. Boosting ERM I's to 40% means that it would grant 3000 armor. Boosting an ERM II to 50% means that it would grant an Apoc 3750 armor. Slightly better than the 1600mm plate, but not overpowered on an Apoc. As carriers have shown, even large amounts of HP pop so easily that it's hard to overpower anything via straight HP. This boost would provide a low fitting alternative to fitting a stabby or another Damage Mod. The % keeps the amount boosted appropriate to the size it's fitted on (no oversizing issues). The amount 50% boost would have enough impact on survivability to make this a useful mod. It would provide a decent choice to fill a low slot. Complaint 1: OMG plates are useless!!!! Not really. On smaller ships it would make more sense to use plates still. It also still allows for oversizing if one so chooses. Complaint 2 OMG what about shieldtankers!! Something like this would completely overpower passive tankers. This would further differentiate armor and shield tanks. Shield is quicker and can be passive, Armor is slower and can have more in general to "chew" through. And capital ships have shown us that it's still really easy to kill things even with large hitpoints. Make battles last longer. Make lowslots more useful. Boost ERMs. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Audri Fisher Caldari The Keep THE R0CK	Posted - 2006.09.20 03:44:00 - [2] 50% hell no with skills that is an easily *****ble no cap usage 60% to all resist in one mod. That is better than the best officer invuln field, by 10%. Also, you aren't comparing fairly. yes, on first look, ean II's give less total hp than a plate. However, it takes cap to repair. It is much better to have 500 hp at 50% resist than 1k at 0%. why? it takes 1/2 the cap to fully rep the 500 hp with 50% resist. This would also totaly overpower ships like the raven and cerberus. Why you ask? becuase armor tanking on these birds would be so much better than shield tanking that it isn't funny. That means they have ALL of there mids for EW, rather than what it is currently, where they can fit a weak armor tank and EW, or a very strong shield tank, and fitting mods/ damage mods in lows. This is a case of the grass is always greener on the other side buddy.
Kyguard Our Brothers Five 3rd Front Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.20 03:49:00 - [3] Audri may be right on the point he is throwing across, but tbh from what I have read (12:00 am really tired though so not putting too much thought into it) it all sounds really good. Atm, with the insane void ammo (just one example.. like torps), we really need ships to have more hp. Even with plates, cruisers just melt === God is on the side with the best artillery.
baroness kitsune	Posted - 2006.09.20 03:51:00 - [4] ERM's have nothing to do with resistances...
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.09.20 03:57:00 - [5] Audri.........no one is talking about resistances. Boosting resistances any more than they are is BAD. Energized Regenerative Membranes boost armor by a % amount. By setting the T2 to +50% it gives a battleship slightly more HP than a T2 1600mm plate. And no one thinks T2 1600mm plates are overpowered. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Vaslav Tchitcherine Swag Co.	Posted - 2006.09.20 03:59:00 - [6] He thinks you mean Energized Reactive Membranes, because he didn't really read your post. Maybe if ERMs were made active, and took cap. Or something. Passive it seems too strong: better than plates, but without the mass penalty and way easier fitting? Where's the tradeoff? v. swag
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.09.20 04:04:00 - [7] Edited by: Nyxus on 20/09/2006 04:04:50 Originally by: Vaslav Tchitcherine He thinks you mean Energized Reactive Membranes, because he didn't really read your post. Maybe if ERMs were made active, and took cap. Or something. Passive it seems too strong: better than plates, but without the mass penalty and way easier fitting? Where's the tradeoff? I think making them similar to a Damage Control in activation and power use would be fine if they really needed it. And TBH there is no tradeoff. 1600mm plates for example are WAY underpowered in what they do for the fitting cost. And tanking needs some love. Badly. So no real downside, and keeping them with the same fitting reqs as a WCS or Damage mod makes it a viable choice for impacting PVP in a positive fashion so that battles last longer and those that fit for tanking are actually slightly better off than fitting with all stabs and damage mods in the lows. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Toaster Oven	Posted - 2006.09.20 04:29:00 - [8] I do like this idea. Regenerative membranes have needed a boost for quite some time. Originally by: Nyxus Boosting an ERM II to 50% means that it would grant an Apoc 3750 armor. Slightly better than the 1600mm plate, but not overpowered on an Apoc. As carriers have shown, even large amounts of HP pop so easily that it's hard to overpower anything via straight HP. Actually, that's not true. A 1600mm tungsten plate would still provide more HP than a 50% ERM II on an Apoc which has the most armor HP of any non capital/non faction ship. Apoc with 1600mm Tungsten plate and Hull Upgrades V = 11,700 HP Apoc with ERM II and Hull Upgrades V = 11,250 HP It would get out of hand with multiple ERMs so they would need to be affected by stacking penalty or limited to max 1 fitted per ship. But 50% for ERM IIs seems like a very reasonable number.
Ephemeron	Posted - 2006.09.20 04:36:00 - [9] As experienced battleship armor tank user I am completely against boosting armor. Armor tanking is already the prefered tanking in EVE. It's useful and effective, and pretty much everyone uses it (PvP), so people are on same playing level.
Murukan Minmatar The Priory	Posted - 2006.09.20 04:45:00 - [10] personalyl i don't think it would be a good idea, because the forums would be filled with even more amarr ***ing about how their lasers aren't good on armor. In rust we trust!!!**
Tor Anasa	Posted - 2006.09.20 04:48:00 - [11] The comment about mids being more useful then low slots is more then slightly biased. The reason that low slots are generally less powerful is becuase they are passive modules, they don't require cap to run (Having said this, yes med slots are more valuable then low slots...)All your solution does is create yet another "Must have" module for armour tanking. And believe me, armour tanking needs no boosting. On your point that "We need battles to last longer.' There are several answers to this: FLeet combat- In fleet combat the main aim is insta-popping, increasing hitpoints by a small amount will not change this. 1 on 1 - Since when did you here of this happening outside of duels? Normally setup ships will have a fight of reasonable length if the odds are even. Gang Combat - Even in small gangs (In my experience) a primary is still called and all damage is applied to it. The main point out of all this is that increasing hp's won't make any real difference to the battle length. If you really wanted to increase the time battles take then reduce the damage output... Tor
Fred 104 1st Royal Marines	Posted - 2006.09.20 04:51:00 - [12] A mod that gives you a 50% bonus to armor hp? Hrmm... let's stack 5 of those on my Megathron... That'll put me at what with skills? 40k armor even with stacking penalties? Who even cares about resists at that point? Seriously, good intentions dude, but bad realization.
Ituralde Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2006.09.20 04:58:00 - [13] Boosting Regen plates is a bad idea simply because it covers the same role as the 1600mms but without the fitting reqs of the plate. At the very least there needs to be some other sort of penalty to balance it if you boost the armor increace percentage. I do think that they should have a role, but I don't think that is it. Here are some stupid ideas I felt like throwing out there... Regenerative plates could be gasp regenerative - maybe add a passive regeneration rate to armor? Possibly not too useful but might make passive armor tanking feasible - I am thinking 1x Energized Regen Plate 2, 2x 1600mm Plate II, 1x Active Explosive Hardener II, 2x EANM II, 1x Damage Control to match up with the sort of Shield Extender II/EM Hardener II/2x Invul field II/Damage Control II that shield tankers can get away with pretty well - and be sustainable without having to cram in a repper. Does however kill the whole point of there being differences between Armor and Shield in any way save slot use. Perhaps turn them into the Armor Repair equivalent of Shield boost Amplifiers? after all, if the plating is nautrally regenerative then it has to make life easier somehow... Frankly though, were I building the two tanking styles from the ground up, I would design shields to be based more on constant maintenance from the ship's reactor compared to armor which would be less based on repping and more on strength and resistance. That just seems to make more sense to me from a tech aspect and a post-midnight logic sense. I would have armor be really easy to boost resists on and also relatively easy (i.e. easier than now)to boost Max HP but make repping more difficult, and shield make hardening more difficult but make insane HP increases alot more simple to do, as well as increase the ability to throw cap into shields for a greater result in terms of shield HP recovered. I guess it is that way to a significant extent now, but I would draw out the two extremes more to greater separate the two roles. Just two cents or so worth of half-awake rambling. Fear is the mind-killer.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.20 05:02:00 - [14] While I agree that battles need to last longer... I am not sure that boosting armor hit points is the proper/only solution. However, the entire problem with low slots is the fact that there are far fewer compelling choices among low slot modules than there are mid slot modules. And that statement right there is 99% of the problem with Amarr. It's not ship balance, or lasers, or other nonsense... it's the fact that valuable low slot modules are far more difficult to come by than mid slot mods. All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise.
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.09.20 05:12:00 - [15] @ Toaster: Bah you are right, I forgot to apply the plate before skills. Still, 50% seems about right to me. @Ephemeron: Everyone is playing on the same level. But they shouldn't be. Some ships should be able to armor tank BETTER because they have more low slots. This would allow it. It would also allow dedicated tanking ships with lots of lows like a Maller to be significantly boosted as well. Murukan: Ironic that I am Amarr and suggesting it eh? TBH if they boosted the mod it would help all tanking ships like the Maller and Prophecy a lot. And the Maller REALLY needs help. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.09.20 05:29:00 - [16] Originally by: Tor Anasa The comment about mids being more useful then low slots is more then slightly biased. Its not biased, its the truth. Propulsion, webbing, ECM, scrambling, cap injection: these are all mods that are midslot only. And you would like to have all of them for pvp. WCS, Damage Control, Damage mods, fitting mods. Thats all there is for low slots. This would give an alternative to just stacking another WCS or DMod. And pvp needs less WCS and Dmods. Quote: The main point out of all this is that increasing hp's won't make any real difference to the battle length. So there is no difference in the time it takes to kill between a shooting a carrier and shooting an Apoc? Riiiiiggghhhtttt...... Originally by: Fred 104 Hrmm... let's stack 5 of those on my Megathron... That'll put me at what with skills? 40k armor even with stacking penalties? Who even cares about resists at that point? 4 50% ERM IIs would give you 38k armor if they applied after armor bonuses. A simple stacking penalty would nerf that. But, let me ask you.....how many Dreadnaughts have you killed? How many Carriers? I have killed a LOT and will be happy to certify that without siege mode, even WITH resists 40k armor goes down easy. Put on the stacking penalty, 3 ERM IIs would give an Apoc roughly 16k armor, and it would sacrifice 3 lows to do that. That's not overpowered. If you think it is, I suggest you train up T2 guns. Originally by: Ituralde Boosting Regen plates is a bad idea simply because it covers the same role as the 1600mms but without the fitting reqs of the plate. + some other good tanking ideas Thats pretty much the idea. 1600plates are WAY too hard to fit considering the benefit they give. This boosts tanking by tweaking a mod % already ingame. Easy to test on Sisi, easy to implement. With a stacking mod, using plates AND ERMs could provide a substatial defense and a boost to tanking, which is needed. I would, however, be VERY interested to see if passive armor tanking could be implemented in such a way as you suggested. If its good enough for shields, its good enough for armor. An amp would be GREAT as well, since its easy to fit an amp in comparison to another armor repper. Posting after midnight is fun! Although I guess it is morning if you live in Turkey... Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Ephemeron	Posted - 2006.09.20 05:39:00 - [17] This whole arguement is silly. Ships with more low slots can make better armor tanks without any 50% ERM II mods. There are many issues with PvP balance that should be addressed, changing armor tanking in any way is certainly not one of them.
Deathbarrage	Posted - 2006.09.20 05:40:00 - [18] this is only balanced if the Regenerative platings take 200% of the cpu of a 1600m plate
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.09.20 05:50:00 - [19] Originally by: Ephemeron This whole arguement is silly. Ships with more low slots can make better armor tanks without any 50% ERM II mods. There are many issues with PvP balance that should be addressed, changing armor tanking in any way is certainly not one of them. In theory, yes. But can you distinguish between a Domi Dual Rep tank and an Apoc? A Mega and a Tempest? There isn't much, and fitting reqs keeps any differences fairly minor. In theory extra lows could be fit with plates, but they cost so much to fit they normally just aren't worth it. So we fit another stab or WCS. This provides a balanced alternative at low fitting cost. Works for Cruisers as well as BS. Putting em on Dreads actually gives the Dreads a bit more survivability versus a Deathstar as well. And if you consider that the Devs have been considering boosting ALL hp again, and how completely unbalanced that would be, I think you will agree that this is a MUCH better answer to slowing combat, and providing more alternatives to fitting out low slots. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Nikolai Nuvolari Caldari Gilead's Bullet Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.20 05:58:00 - [20] Before I decide whether I think this is a good idea or not, there are a few issues: 1: If armor tankers get this, then we need XL Shield Extenders. 2: Medslots are not universally more valuable than lowslots. Damage mods and fitting mods are pretty damned important...and for sniping purposes, I prefer Tracking Enhancers to Tracking Computers because they give me the exact same optimal bonus with no cap use. 3: If you want ERMs to work this way, then they really should be active modules. The problem with this is that you can't just turn a massive armor HP boost on and off at the flip of the switch, and if you do, then once you turn it on, you'll have to rep it up, which makes it kinda useless, especially when you consider that modules switch off every time you jump through a stargate. My solution would be to have it a passive module, functionally, which means that it's "always-on", but give it a capacitor recharge rate penalty to simulate constant cap use. --------------------- Originally by: Herko Kerghans Nik = win. Period. Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108! byahahahahaha!11 Sig Pwnt - Immy
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.20 06:34:00 - [21] Originally by: Fred 104 A mod that gives you a 50% bonus to armor hp? Hrmm... let's stack 5 of those on my Megathron... That'll put me at what with skills? 40k armor even with stacking penalties? Who even cares about resists at that point? Seriously, good intentions dude, but bad realization. You also get no pentaly to mass and agility. However, make it so you can only fit one of these mods? honestly thouhg, CCP just might wanrt to go aheadl and create X-large/capital shield extenders (maybe 5k and 10k shields repsectively), and 3200mm/10m plating (7500, 17500 armor or so?) and let battleships go supersized, as well as allow capships to tank up some. Ofcourse, there's alot of broken mods, like micro shield extenders, which just need a total reworking, because ATM, they suck. I think regenerative plating should just slowly repair armor. Given its tiny fitting reqs, perhaps it should be by some small amount. Sorry you can't afford a dev so you get me instead ^^ - Xorus I hear Xorus is only 50 isk an hour - Immy Oooh that could get Suvetar for the day! - Cathath For 50, you can have my goat:P- Tirg
Testicular Testes	Posted - 2006.09.20 06:59:00 - [22] Edited by: Testicular Testes on 20/09/2006 07:00:31 Although pretty much every single point the OP makes is completely off-base (40k HP do not "go down quickly" unless you totally ignore the concept of linear damage stacking, nor is the raw hitpoint number a useful metric for anything, nor are 5 lows a "beefy armor tank" in any way, shape or form and plates definitely do not have difficult fitting reqs), having Energized Regenerative Membranes be useful would be a reasonable boost to battleship specific tanking. 50% however is perfectly fine. That means an ERM II will outdo the second 1600mm RT on most battleship hulls without a mass addition, whereas for the first one the 1600mm will win out. With 3 slots dedicated to buffer tanking, that would move your battleship from approximately ~18k to ~21k (3x 1600mm before, 1x 1600mm and 2x ERM II now - presuing the exact same stacking penalty as every other penalized module). A minor but not insignificant boost. Just to repeat : I still disagree with everything the OP has said. Somehow he still stumbled onto a good possibility for a change. And it's not even a dramatic movement at all.
Copine Callmeknau The Splinter Syndicate SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.20 08:31:00 - [23] Wolf with 2700 hp? (1 ERM II, 400mm plate) Maller with 15K HP and average resists of 74%? (2x 1600mm plate, ERM II. exp/kin/therm hardeners) Muninn with 9.4K HP, and 675 dps? (ERM II, 1600 plate) Dual rep Revelation with 115K HP and average resists of 74%? (2x ERM II, exp/kin/therm hardener) Hmm, maybe, just maybe, a module that essentially gives you a full grade Slave implant set is a tad overpowered. ------- See the idiot walk, see the idiot talk
Testicular Testes	Posted - 2006.09.20 09:03:00 - [24] Originally by: Copine Callmeknau Hmm, maybe, just maybe, a module that essentially gives you a full grade Slave implant set is a tad overpowered. Lets remove plates already then, they outdo FG slaves with ease. Yes, your point is that the two working in conjunction are problematic. But it seems a fairly elegant solution towards increasing hitpoint buffers on extremely large and small ships. Infact, you do make a valid point - being unbalanced on small ships, high power ERMs (the hypothetical 50% version) should have higher fitting requirements than a 1600mm. That way we apply the boost where it's reasonable (The large improvement to capitals and the minor one to battleships), while not really touching cruisers/frigates.
KillerLU X1 Industries	Posted - 2006.09.20 09:28:00 - [25] Does anybody use the currently ERM? Not me. I think they could use a little boost, but 50% might be a bit to much imo, especially for ships like the Maller. As someone already posted, 2 plates + ERM and we have a little BS, hehe not really the way to go. -------------- Recruiting: Check our Recruitement thread or our HP
Jhenda	Posted - 2006.09.20 09:29:00 - [26] Yes nerf amarr even more by adding more armor hitpoints good job :).
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.09.20 09:53:00 - [27] The problem really is that a)ERM have unlike plating no downsides and, more importantly, b) they boost each other. Stacking penalities are NOT enough to counter that. With them 3 +50% ERM would give you 3.4 times your original armor, with the standard SPs it's 2.77 times. The only real solution there would be to make them a module you can fit only once, like damage controls. Also, effeciently a ERM boost of such proportions (it could use a boost, it's basically not used atm, but 50% is way way way too much) would in the end be a "flat boost of hitpoints". Exept only for armortankers. Because it would become an required module for all armortanks. Well, not all. Frigs would not use it - but the main defence of frigs is not armor, it's speed. They could get a 500% hp boost, the alpha strike from a sniper pest would still kill them quite nicely.
Wild Rho Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2006.09.20 10:07:00 - [28] The OP idea isn't bad. A simple approach to give each it's own niche roll. Plates - No stacking penatlies. - Reduces Agility - Very low fitting requirements. - Fixed # hitpoints added. ERM - Stacking penalties - No agility penalty - Significant fitting requirements. - % hit points added. Taking this approach both mods have their pros and cons that would create a balance between choosing which to use with plates slowing the ship down and giving fewer hitpoints but being very easy to fit and so gives more room for offensive options etc. ERMs on the other hand can provide more hit points (on larger ships at least) with no agility penalties but at the cost of tougher fitting which may compromise your offensive options. This may be useful for countering focused fire situations to a certain degree. While the ship can't tank any better (worse infact given it is giving over low slots of Hitpoints instead of resistances) it can survive longer promoting longer fights within which commanders have breathing room to make tactical decisions beyond calling primaries. WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your ass will be laminated. - Jennie Marlboro
Ryoka Infinite Opportunities Inc.	Posted - 2006.09.20 10:25:00 - [29] well, interesting issue indeed, but boosting regenerative plating to give 50% more armor hp is plain stupid (yeah on an apoc, 1600 rabble) yes, but 3 of them would really get things out of hand. Especially without any repercussions. this said, two people here had really great ideas imo: 1. 3200mm / 10.000mm Plates, seems like a logical way to increase armor hps on battleships the way 1600 boost cruisers (while giving strong repercussions like the cruisers face em). 2. turn regenerative armor plating into a passive armor regen module! (doesnt have to be great or something, it just has to be a viable alternative to an armor repairer) not in effectivness ofc, but the alternative could simply be: a. very high resistances, medium hp and high regeneration (with the armor reppers) A lasting tank so to say... b. still good resistances, very high hp but very low regenarative (plates / very slow regen) Will last for a long while and is less dependant on cap, but your hp will go down steady, so youre just buying some time to kill your opponent, but if you dont succeed killing him, he WILL kill you. the passive regeneration is only there to well, make it possible not to waiste a low slot for an repper that you wont need anyway...
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.09.20 10:34:00 - [30] Edited by: Aramendel on 20/09/2006 10:34:49 Originally by: Wild Rho Plates - No stacking penatlies. .. - Very low fitting requirements. ERM - Stacking penalties ... - Significant fitting requirements. Wrong. For up to 4 ERM the stacking penalities are overcompensated by ERMs boosting each other. 4 50% ERM would give you with stacking penalities 3.15 times your original armor. If they would simply add to each other without stacking penalities (like plates basically) it would be 3 times the original armor. And "Significant fitting requirements"..what? ERMII needs 30 cpu, 2 PG; 1600mm rolled thungsten needs 28 CPU, 500 PG.

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.