EVE Search - Address no-force field POS cynos (aka; the "Garage Door Cyno&qu...

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Address no-force field POS cynos (aka; the "Garage Door Cyno&qu...

» 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)
Tarsas Phage Freight Club 365	Posted - 2015.02.19 19:52:39 - [1] - Quote BACKGROUND: Last year with the Oceanus release, a change was implemented in the way cynosural fields are spawned by a player who is in close proximity (< 25km) of the force field of a POS. The change made it so that when a cyno was lit inside of a 25km distance from a POS force field, the cyno beacon itself would appear at a 25km distance from it, regardless. This change was enacted to address a form of well-documented "Titan Bowling." This of course had a knock-on effect outside of the form of Titan Bowling this change aimed to address. It altered how people move Supercarriers and Titans specifically, where instead of cyno'ing on the force field and slow-boating a very short distance into the safety of it (typically < 10km), people were now confronted with the decision of doing the same and possibly having to slow-boat a much farther 20-30km, or light their cyno elsewhere in system and then warping into the POS once arriving, completely removed from any safety a POS and its automated defenses might afford. Either of the two options outlined above can be quite unpalatable to a pilot in many cases, and since the aforementioned cyno change patch, and especially since Phoebe, we are witnessing the greatly increased popularity of a third method, and it is a method that, I believe, takes things "beyond intent" as well as to circumvent the 25km cyno exclusion zone around an active POS force field. This third method is what's referred to as the "Garage Door POS Cyno." WHAT THIS IS: The "Garage Door POS Cyno" is a straight-forward method of using a online tower that has not yet had a force field password set. A pilot in a cynosural field-equipped ship pulls up next to the tower and lights. Because there is no force field, the server does not artificially alter where the cyno beacon itself spawns. It will in this case be spawned next to the ship lighting it, per the norm when lighting a cyno anywhere else. The capital ship(s) then jump to this cyno, and once all have jumped, a password is immediately set on the tower which then creates the impermeable force field. The result is near-instant safety without having the slow-boat or warp, and anyone present but not allowed to be inside the force field are immediately and automatically ejected. Now, this method has always existed since both POSes and cynos themselves have existed. It's just that it has gone from being an obscure and very rare occurrence to, seemingly, an every-day and routine one. SO WHAT'S YOUR BEEF WITH THIS TACTIC?: I will say straight up that I'm all for the use of clever and out-of-the-box tactics in Eve. However, I am not for a tactic to which there is flat-out no counter to it. In this case, there isn't even an impractical counter. There is absolutely no tool in Eve's toolbox of mechanics or skills to counter a POS force field used in this manner, and I further posit that it is employed to circumvent the aforementioned 25km cyno exclusion zone with the further side-benefit of obviating the need to warp. CRY ABOUT IT, OR PROPOSE A SOLUTION?: I'd much rather propose a solution. When CCP implemented the 25km Cyno Exclusion Zone around a POS force field in Oceanus, I think they did it from the wrong point of reference. The Cyno Exclusion Zone should use the Tower itself as the central point of referent, plus the tower's forcefield radius, plus 25km: (Large Tower) + 30km Force Field Radius + 25km This would ensure that, no matter if there is a force field or not, a cyno that is lit within the Cyno Exclusion zone always spawns the same distance from the tower (force field radius + 25km.) Exceptions to this can (and should) be made for Anchored (not online) towers.
Jassmin Joy Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 306	Posted - 2015.02.19 19:55:11 - [2] - Quote Yet another issue with POS' being used in a way that isn't intended, This one is seriously annoying though so +1
JSSix CRY.NET Nihilists Social Club 9	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:02:39 - [3] - Quote I asked once a GM to clarify such as method, just to get a response from them to show others, and this is what I got :) Quote: It is an exploit if at any time a ship with an active cyno module is unable to be targeted. It is not currently an exploit if a ship lights a cyno next to a POS that does not have a force field. If a force field is generated before the cyno module ends its cycle, thus providing invulnerability to the cyno ship, then that is an exploit and any player who benefits from it will be subject to disciplinary action. Hopefully that clears things up but if any further clarification is required then please reply . Best regards, xxxx CCP Customer Support \| EVE Online \| DUST 514
Hyun-a AGMAR MONEY TEAM PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS 0	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:03:30 - [4] - Quote +1 Would be great if CCP could look into this for an upcoming release. It kind of makes a mockery of the Cyno and Jump changes that any capital ship or black ops can move 100% safely with 0% risk, anywhere across eve by simply jumping to online, shield-less towers.
Niding CRY.NET Nihilists Social Club 51	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:08:18 - [5] - Quote Since the original poster said all that needed to be said, I'll just add; +1
Marketing Chairman Stalin Space Marketing Department GoonSwarm 52	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:16:35 - [6] - Quote +1 I've seen too many pubbies safe their ratting supers this way
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 116	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:46:54 - [7] - Quote +1 from me. Not that I fly many capitals these days, but still, this one is pretty obvious. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
RoCkEt X Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 101	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:49:39 - [8] - Quote Ofcourse, +1 I'm tired of petitioning people who get a slap on the wrist for keeping their supers safe via use of an exploit.
Eveli Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 20	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:55:40 - [9] - Quote +1 Beyond a joke now Follow me on the Twitters : @ThisIsEveli
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 216	Posted - 2015.02.19 21:31:53 - [10] - Quote Typical double standard - If PL does it, there would be 50 videos of it and 5000 petitions calling for PL to be banished Some random scrub does it, nothing happens and the videos posted are of them thumbing their noses at someone and all is well cause the "Little Guy" won Once enough little guys win, it is no longer an exploit if the GM's keep allowing it to happen with no intervention or punishment
Andy Koraka Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 50	Posted - 2015.02.19 21:49:40 - [11] - Quote JSSix wrote: I asked once a GM to clarify such as method, just to get a response from them to show others, and this is what I got :) Quote: It is an exploit if at any time a ship with an active cyno module is unable to be targeted. It is not currently an exploit if a ship lights a cyno next to a POS that does not have a force field. If a force field is generated before the cyno module ends its cycle, thus providing invulnerability to the cyno ship, then that is an exploit and any player who benefits from it will be subject to disciplinary action. Hopefully that clears things up but if any further clarification is required then please reply . Best regards, xxxx CCP Customer Support \| EVE Online \| DUST 514 So if they jump in, smartbomb the cyno noobship to death, then raise the shield it's a legitimate tactic? Smells like bullshit, CCPlease take the OP's suggestion on just making the exclusion zone based on the stick.
Doomhammar FinFleet Northern Coalition. 23	Posted - 2015.02.19 22:02:53 - [12] - Quote +1 Hopefully this catch CCP's attention.
Bobmon Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 131	Posted - 2015.02.19 22:13:09 - [13] - Quote this is a point noted on my CSM thread! I Hope this gets fixed soon! GÖ¢GÖ¢Bobmon for CSM10 GÖ¢GÖ¢ #Third Party And #Loan Service GÖ¢GÖ¢ @BobmonEve
phalanx III Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 41	Posted - 2015.02.19 23:01:32 - [14] - Quote What an interesting tactic.
Gheyna Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion 133	Posted - 2015.02.19 23:02:07 - [15] - Quote valid tactic for movin supers
Tbone Jackson Locust Deepspace Mining and Industry 0	Posted - 2015.02.19 23:05:05 - [16] - Quote JSSix wrote: I asked once a GM to clarify such as method, just to get a response from them to show others, and this is what I got :) Quote: It is an exploit if at any time a ship with an active cyno module is unable to be targeted. It is not currently an exploit if a ship lights a cyno next to a POS that does not have a force field. If a force field is generated before the cyno module ends its cycle, thus providing invulnerability to the cyno ship, then that is an exploit and any player who benefits from it will be subject to disciplinary action. Hopefully that clears things up but if any further clarification is required then please reply . Best regards, xxxx CCP Customer Support \| EVE Online \| DUST 514 Posting GM conversations gets your posted edited, I always wondered why, and now I know why - no two petitions get the same answer on things of this nature.
Archeras Umangiar Delian Legion Legion's. 4	Posted - 2015.02.20 00:10:02 - [17] - Quote Gheyna wrote: valid tactic for movin supers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZOywn1qArI and +1!
Justitia McKingston 7	Posted - 2015.02.20 00:11:55 - [18] - Quote +1
Bluemelon Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 90	Posted - 2015.02.20 01:13:58 - [19] - Quote This mechanic is pretty ridiculous and needs to go. For all your 3rd party needs join my ingame channel Blue's 3rd Party! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=365230&find=unread
Swiftstrike1 Swiftstrike Incorporated 869	Posted - 2015.02.20 01:17:52 - [20] - Quote An alternative, somewhat blunter, solution would be to simply have the force field activate automatically with no password when the tower comes online. Corp members would have access by default to prevent the tower owner getting bounced. This would however kill such tactics as "starbursting" and baiting people with a newly onlined tower and a HIC. I'd be OK with that... Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
Lugh Crow-Slave 768	Posted - 2015.02.20 01:30:42 - [21] - Quote Andy Koraka wrote: JSSix wrote: I asked once a GM to clarify such as method, just to get a response from them to show others, and this is what I got :) Quote: It is an exploit if at any time a ship with an active cyno module is unable to be targeted. It is not currently an exploit if a ship lights a cyno next to a POS that does not have a force field. If a force field is generated before the cyno module ends its cycle, thus providing invulnerability to the cyno ship, then that is an exploit and any player who benefits from it will be subject to disciplinary action. Hopefully that clears things up but if any further clarification is required then please reply . Best regards, xxxx CCP Customer Support \| EVE Online \| DUST 514 So if they jump in, smartbomb the cyno noobship to death, then raise the shield it's a legitimate tactic? Smells like bullshit, CCPlease take the OP's suggestion on just making the exclusion zone based on the stick. Why go through the effort of smart bombing it just make sure the cyno ship doesn't have the ff password and he'll be flung out Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
theelusiveyoda Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 44	Posted - 2015.02.20 01:47:13 - [22] - Quote I personally have encountered 11 supers, 12 carriers, 5 dreads and 4 jump freighters pilots who have used this. Everytime i have a petitioned the issue with screenshots and recieved a replies saying the issue would be investigated but the characters have still logged in and no action appears to be have taken against them. This should be clear cut, and ccp needs to change it so that cynos spawn outside of the forcefield radius at all times on online towers.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 224	Posted - 2015.02.20 04:41:27 - [23] - Quote Personally, I have no issue with it (I like the term you apply to it, by the way). I was wondering if this was a possibility and this thread confirms it is. I would like to point out something however: There is nothing preventing a cyno ship from being 2km from the force field, start to travel towards the tower, and just before crossing the force field boundary lighting the Cyno. The Cyno does not appear next to the force field but is forced 25KM off. The cyno ship is then safe inside the force field while the cyno is the legal distance. I recall the fix adding the 25 KM from the force field was to prevent cynoing a ship to bump another out of the force field. Perhaps we need a dev to chime in and answer, concretely, whether or not a cyno ship should have any protection what so ever. In which case, if the issue is the cyno ship being attackable, then if the cyno is lit the lighting ship cannot enter a force field or, if the force field is raised, the cyno ship is ejected, regardless of permissions and maybe the cyno moved outside the 25 KM range of the force field.
Telefishopolis Parental Control 5	Posted - 2015.02.20 05:48:43 - [24] - Quote +1 from me
Tarsas Phage Freight Club 377	Posted - 2015.02.20 06:07:36 - [25] - Quote Petrified wrote: Personally, I have no issue with it (I like the term you apply to it, by the way). I was wondering if this was a possibility and this thread confirms it is. I would like to point out something however: There is nothing preventing a cyno ship from being 2km from the force field, start to travel towards the tower, and just before crossing the force field boundary lighting the Cyno. The Cyno does not appear next to the force field but is forced 25KM off. The cyno ship is then safe inside the force field while the cyno is the legal distance. I recall the fix adding the 25 KM from the force field was to prevent cynoing a ship to bump another out of the force field. Perhaps we need a dev to chime in and answer, concretely, whether or not a cyno ship should have any protection what so ever. In which case, if the issue is the cyno ship being attackable, then if the cyno is lit the lighting ship cannot enter a force field or, if the force field is raised, the cyno ship is ejected, regardless of permissions and maybe the cyno moved outside the 25 KM range of the force field. Yes, true, however it's not the cyno ship that's the issue here. It's what the cyno ship is beaconing for is the matter at hand.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 670	Posted - 2015.02.20 06:16:13 - [26] - Quote Tarsas you can do the same thing with deadspace and cynos. PM me if you want details. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 224	Posted - 2015.02.20 06:20:45 - [27] - Quote Tarsas Phage wrote: Yes, true, however it's not the cyno ship that's the issue here. It's what the cyno ship is beaconing for is the matter at hand. In which case the fate of the cyno ship is inconsequential and thus should not enter into the discussion. So... whats wrong with a garage door if the cyno itself gets displaced or even destroyed if the force field goes back up? If exposing the incoming ship is that big of a deal, then the a Cyno on station should also be considered an exploit and forced 25km away from station. If that is allowed, then allowing the cyno within the confines of an unraised force field should be fine so long as the beacon is moved or disrupted should the force field come up. - remember the 25KM distance was to prevent bumping ships (like Titans) out of a POS.
socos Parental Control 1	Posted - 2015.02.20 06:29:07 - [28] - Quote This is something CCP need to clear it up. Tarsas proposal is in a good way. +1
Tarsas Phage Freight Club 377	Posted - 2015.02.20 06:41:57 - [29] - Quote Petrified wrote: If that is allowed, then allowing the cyno within the confines of an unraised force field should be fine so long as the beacon is moved or disrupted should the force field come up. You need to recognize the context of why people use this tactic. The most typical use of this tactic is to do no-risk cyno'ing of a super or titan into a safe POS. Yes, lighting a cyno is not an exploit. By itself, lighting a cyno next to anything is not an exploit. But the combination of lighting a cyno next to a Online/no-FF Tower only to immediately raise the force field once the super/titan hits grid is questionable, as the intent of this whole chain of events is to move a capital using method that has no reasonable counter. Say you're the super/titan pilot. You jump to your Garage-Door cyno and you land on grid next to the Tower. While you still have post-jump invuln, you right-click the tower, select Manage, paste in a pre-set password from your clipboard in the two fields, and hit Apply. Bam. Force field goes up before both your post-jump invulnerability and session change expires. Fully zero-risk. While you wait for your jump fatigue to tick down, you're on your alt setting up your next tower, and you can go from one end of Eve to the other like this.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 224	Posted - 2015.02.20 06:57:31 - [30] - Quote Tarsas Phage wrote: Petrified wrote: If that is allowed, then allowing the cyno within the confines of an unraised force field should be fine so long as the beacon is moved or disrupted should the force field come up. You need to recognize the context of why people use this tactic. The most typical use of this tactic is to do no-risk cyno'ing of a super or titan into a safe POS. Yes, lighting a cyno is not an exploit. By itself, lighting a cyno next to anything is not an exploit. But the combination of lighting a cyno next to a Online/no-FF Tower only to immediately raise the force field once the super/titan hits grid is questionable, as the intent of this whole chain of events is to move a capital using method that has no reasonable counter. Say you're the super/titan pilot. You jump to your Garage-Door cyno and you land on grid next to the Tower. While you still have post-jump invuln, you right-click the tower, select Manage, paste in a pre-set password from your clipboard in the two fields, and hit Apply. Bam. Force field goes up before both your post-jump invulnerability and session change expires. Fully zero-risk. While you wait for your jump fatigue to tick down, you're on your alt setting up your next tower, and you can go from one end of Eve to the other like this. The context is very important. The reasoning behind the context is equally important... well... since it is part of the context. If your desire is to expose a ship (does not matter what kind of jump capable ship) to danger, then the same reason you would disallow the Garage Door Tactic is the same reason you would disallow a cyno withing 25 km of a Station. But that is not why the 25 KM displacement was added on top of POS force fields. It was added in response to using jump capable ships to bump Supers out of a POS. Tarsas Phage wrote: ...you can go from one end of Eve to the other like this. You can go from one end of EVE to Another jumping to zero on any station you can dock at (I've done it) so this argument is not very compelling.
Tarsas Phage Freight Club 377	Posted - 2015.02.20 07:53:36 - [31] - Quote Petrified wrote: Tarsas Phage wrote: ...you can go from one end of Eve to the other like this. You can go from one end of EVE to Another jumping to zero on any station you can dock at (I've done it) so this argument is not very compelling. I don't think you're familiar with my group. Over the past 3 years we've killed trillions of ISK in JFs and Carriers on stations, and often well-within docking range. That's no problem. Even there, at least, are opportunities for the watchful and patient. Besides, I'm not talking about stations. I'm talking about POSes. Unlike a POS, you can't light a cyno and up a station around it. You need to be a supercap/titan pilot, as well as one who hunts them as their day job, to really understand this sort of thing rather than conjecture around about it.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 224	Posted - 2015.02.20 08:33:19 - [32] - Quote Tarsas Phage wrote: Petrified wrote: Tarsas Phage wrote: ...you can go from one end of Eve to the other like this. You can go from one end of EVE to Another jumping to zero on any station you can dock at (I've done it) so this argument is not very compelling. I don't think you're familiar with my group. Over the past 3 years we've killed trillions of ISK in JFs and Carriers on stations, and often well-within docking range. That's no problem. Even there, at least, are opportunities for the watchful and patient. Besides, I'm not talking about stations. I'm talking about POSes. Unlike a POS, you can't light a cyno and up a station around it. You need to be a supercap/titan pilot, as well as one who hunts them as their day job, to really understand this sort of thing rather than conjecture around about it. Fair enough. So the underlying argument against Garage Door Cynos is the near instant protection that can be provided to the incoming ship. So, why, exactly, is this an issue? As in: why shouldn't this be an allowed mechanic to exist in the game?
JSSix CRY.NET Nihilists Social Club 13	Posted - 2015.02.20 09:04:40 - [33] - Quote Petrified wrote: Tarsas Phage wrote: Petrified wrote: Tarsas Phage wrote: ...you can go from one end of Eve to the other like this. You can go from one end of EVE to Another jumping to zero on any station you can dock at (I've done it) so this argument is not very compelling. I don't think you're familiar with my group. Over the past 3 years we've killed trillions of ISK in JFs and Carriers on stations, and often well-within docking range. That's no problem. Even there, at least, are opportunities for the watchful and patient. Besides, I'm not talking about stations. I'm talking about POSes. Unlike a POS, you can't light a cyno and up a station around it. You need to be a supercap/titan pilot, as well as one who hunts them as their day job, to really understand this sort of thing rather than conjecture around about it. Fair enough. So the underlying argument against Garage Door Cynos is the near instant protection that can be provided to the incoming ship. So, why, exactly, is this an issue? As in: why shouldn't this be an allowed mechanic to exist in the game? See heres the thing with Station cyno against a POS cyno.. doesnt matter when or where you do your cyno around station and that you have the ability to dock whatever ship you cyno in, but the cyno ship it self has now way of exploiting this... as in the cyno will always be exposed and therefore you can kill it to either prevent more things from coming in and what not. Also the intent of cynoing onto a station is pretty normal, its your destination and also you could dock. I guess you could argue as well that there is now counter to someone cynoing onto a station and staying invul till able to dock. but remember not all stations are created equally, some have a trickyness into them that you have to know where to cyno so u dont get your self bump, meaning if stupidity is involved chances are you might die :p as for the topic on POS's there is just no way in hell to counter it. also you can tell it all you want... once cyno is lit u can eject the ship out of POS and have it expose, sure, problem is this method is exploitable and its up to the user to decide how they do it. meaning intent is clear for the user to use this method cuz they know theres no known counter to it. sure you can do it in a non exploited manner, but that isnt always the case unlike cyno on station theres just NO WAY for you to do it differently. a Possible counter you can think of? well I guess you could cyno ur fleet of ships onto the cyno of the pos owner and hope your ships gets on grid first before the FF goes up and pray your ships gets ejected and hope that you bounce the target off... the 25km rule to counter the Titan Bowling... is kinda a work around and less thought fix from CCP end... they could have done better but doing better means it will take more time and resources to recode the pos mechanics. why cant they just rewrite the POS & Cyno code to like, all ships cannot land on the FF range, or why cant they just change the collission detection on FF so that regardless of what it is, nothing can bump inside of it? theres alot of things CCP could have done but they chose the easier method and because of it, alot of users are forced to do the Garage trick cause they know its easy and safe. although what if you do the following? you have your POS Online with no FF, you cyno next to it... you wait your cyno timer, timer is done and now you put ur FF up... its kinda the same but this is totally not consider an exploit or an intent to exploit the matter. but its not the same when, someone does the same and knowing theres a threat in system, you immediately put your bubble up to keep you safe, sure you can have your cyno ship ejected and therefor have it vulnerable, but the intent is clear you use a method with an advantage of knowing theres nothing they can do. if and ever in a real world application I would consider this a valid tactic, but since this is a game, that mechanic is not intended to be used, or maybe it is, but thats for CCP to clarify.
RoCkEt X Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 101	Posted - 2015.02.20 10:07:14 - [34] - Quote I'll just point out at this point that CCP has already declared this mechanic to be an exploit. That's not what is being discussed here. The request is that a reasonable solution is found to prevent the exploit being used, rather than simply giving a 'slap on the wrist' to people who use the illegal mechanic. LINK: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Exploit_notifications#Cynosural_Field_activation_inside_forcefields Quote: "There have been some cases where players have been able to place a cynosural field inside their Starbase forcefield and thus gaining certain advantages for themselves and their cyno-jumping allies. It should not be possible to deploy a cyno-field inside a Starbase forcefield, this is therefore classed as an exploit and we will take action against anyone found using it. Lighting a cyno in space next to a POS tower, before activating a force field surrounding the cyno beacon, is also an exploit and falls under this." I would probably add this to the OP
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15041	Posted - 2015.02.20 10:17:46 - [35] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Typical double standard - If PL does it, there would be 50 videos of it and 5000 petitions calling for PL to be banished Some random scrub does it, nothing happens and the videos posted are of them thumbing their noses at someone and all is well cause the "Little Guy" won Once enough little guys win, it is no longer an exploit if the GM's keep allowing it to happen with no intervention or punishment You should know by know that things don't get fixed until GSF abuse the ever loving ** out of it. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**
ISD Decoy ISD Community Communications Liaisons 390	Posted - 2015.02.20 11:27:53 - [36] - Quote Quote: 10. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited. The posting of private communication between the Game Masters, EVE Team members, Moderators, Administrators of the forums and forum users is prohibited. CCP respect the right of our players to privacy and as such you are not permitted to publicize private correspondence (including support ticket responses and emails) received from any member of CCP staff. I have removed replies violating this rule, and those discussing it. If you have a particular issue in game please feel free to create a Support Ticket on your own. ISD Decoy Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
W0wbagger Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 103	Posted - 2015.02.20 13:39:26 - [37] - Quote oh man +1
Buhhdust Princess Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 9092	Posted - 2015.02.20 14:42:33 - [38] - Quote Im surprised this wasnt fixed earlier.. +1
Iain Cariaba 1072	Posted - 2015.02.20 16:36:35 - [39] - Quote My question is, why does this even matter? I notice this didn't seem to be a problem before people started using it, or at least no one had bothered to post in forums about it. Oh, but now that more people are starting to find out they can use this to protect their giant space cocks, it's suddenly so horrible and has to be nerfed into extinction yesterday!!!! Of course, I don't fly giant space cocks, will never fly giant space cocks, and could not care less about giant space cocks. I just think it's kind of pathetic that a tactic no one ever complained publicly about is now suddenly such a terrible exploit. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. "This reminds me - I must complain to my local butcher about him not catering to vegitarians." - admiral root responding to someone whining about too much PvP in Eve Online.
Bobby Artrald Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn 2	Posted - 2015.02.20 16:55:07 - [40] - Quote Add an online timer for the shields after the password is set and be done with it.
Hyun-a AGMAR MONEY TEAM PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS 1	Posted - 2015.02.20 17:51:12 - [41] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: I just think it's kind of pathetic that a tactic no one ever complained publicly about is now suddenly such a terrible exploit. There were two main groups of people aware of this tactic before the changes to the distance from forcefield/cyno mechanic came in: Those who used it, knowing it to be an exploit, to move capitals in a 100% risk free environment despite the so called 'punishments' from CCP. Those who hunted other people jumping capitals to POS cyno's. Neither group would have benefit from having this issue drawn to wider attention until recently when it's use has become so widespread, and what seems to be apathy on CCPs part to take action against people using it, that it's time for CCP to actually fix it.
RoCkEt X Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 101	Posted - 2015.02.20 17:52:35 - [42] - Quote Bobby Artrald wrote: Add an online timer for the shields after the password is set and be done with it. That works, you'd also need to stop cyno's being lit within the tower's range whilst the timer is active. Iain Cariaba wrote: My question is, why does this even matter? I notice this didn't seem to be a problem before people started using it, or at least no one had bothered to post in forums about it. Oh, but now that more people are starting to find out they can use this to protect their giant space cocks, it's suddenly so horrible and has to be nerfed into extinction yesterday!!!! Of course, I don't fly giant space cocks, will never fly giant space cocks, and could not care less about giant space cocks. I just think it's kind of pathetic that a tactic no one ever complained publicly about is now suddenly such a terrible exploit. Complaints were made before, both via ingame support tickets and: HERE AND HERE There are countless other examples. But as to why you're seeing it now? The odd person/small group used to use it every now and again, and thus it annoyed a small minority of people. Now it's becoming more commonplace, more people care - and thus we may finally see long overdue change.
Tarsas Phage Freight Club 379	Posted - 2015.02.20 17:53:46 - [43] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: My question is, why does this even matter? I notice this didn't seem to be a problem before people started using it, or at least no one had bothered to post in forums about it. Oh, but now that more people are starting to find out they can use this to protect their giant space cocks, it's suddenly so horrible and has to be nerfed into extinction yesterday!!!! Of course, I don't fly giant space cocks, will never fly giant space cocks, and could not care less about giant space cocks. I just think it's kind of pathetic that a tactic no one ever complained publicly about is now suddenly such a terrible exploit. When this tactic was rarely used, you could either report it or not; depending how you feel that day. CCP has already tacitly said this is illegal, however since there really isn't no reasonable way to tell if they take any action against the perp (even if it's just a warning), the fact that it was a then-rare occurrence kinda meant that you could just ignore it. Now, however, its use has exploded, and with it petitions from me and my group of hunters (at least us; likely others too) every time we see it. Yet we see the offending chars who ware reported continue to log in for weeks afterwards. This could mean they got a warning, or if this is worth of a temp ban, the temp ban isn't being handed down. So for all we know, CCP is doing nothing, despite having already rule this an illegal move. My OP is an attempt to get CCP to finally confront this and back up their own rules. If they (the GMs) cannot or refuse to do this via the petition system, then they (the Devs) should finally get down and enforce it via the game itself, thereby obviating the need for any petitions and complaints about this in the future.
Iain Cariaba 1072	Posted - 2015.02.20 18:08:41 - [44] - Quote Tarsas Phage wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: My question is, why does this even matter? I notice this didn't seem to be a problem before people started using it, or at least no one had bothered to post in forums about it. Oh, but now that more people are starting to find out they can use this to protect their giant space cocks, it's suddenly so horrible and has to be nerfed into extinction yesterday!!!! Of course, I don't fly giant space cocks, will never fly giant space cocks, and could not care less about giant space cocks. I just think it's kind of pathetic that a tactic no one ever complained publicly about is now suddenly such a terrible exploit. When this tactic was rarely used, you could either report it or not; depending how you feel that day. CCP has already tacitly said this is illegal, however since there really isn't no reasonable way to tell if they take any action against the perp (even if it's just a warning), the fact that it was a then-rare occurrence kinda meant that you could just ignore it. Now, however, its use has exploded, and with it petitions from me and my group of hunters (at least us; likely others too) every time we see it. Yet we see the offending chars who are reported continue to log in for weeks afterwards. This could mean they got a warning, or if this is worthy of a temp ban, the temp ban isn't being handed down. So for all we know, CCP is doing nothing, despite having already ruled this an illegal move. My OP is an attempt to get CCP to finally confront this and back up their own rules. If they (the GMs) cannot or refuse to do this via the petition system, then they (the Devs) should finally get down and enforce it via the game itself, thereby obviating the need for any petitions and complaints about this in the future. So basically, you started this thread because you're mad no one got banned for breaking a rule when no one told them ahead of time that they were breaking the rule? You understand the concept of "warnings," right? CCP: Hey, you're not supposed to do that, even though we never made it public that you shouldn't. Titan Pilot: Opps, didn't know that, won't do it again. CCP: See that you don't. That is a warning, and as long as the Titan pilot stops doing what he shouldn't be doing, then all is good, and they will continue to log on, as you've experienced. Honestly, your better bet to get CCP to do something about this is to continue filing petitions. If they're jumping in, waiting for the cyno to run out, then raising the shield, they're not breaking any rules. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. "This reminds me - I must complain to my local butcher about him not catering to vegitarians." - admiral root responding to someone whining about too much PvP in Eve Online.
Emizeko Chai Freight Club The Marmite Collective 35	Posted - 2015.02.20 18:48:54 - [45] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Honestly, your better bet to get CCP to do something about this is to continue filing petitions. No, it really isn't. But it's refreshing that you're new enough to EVE to think that.
Tarsas Phage Freight Club 383	Posted - 2015.02.20 18:50:50 - [46] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: So basically, you started this thread because you're mad no one got banned for breaking a rule when no one told them ahead of time that they were breaking the rule? You understand the concept of "warnings," right? Warnings to pilots for a type of occasional transgression is fine. However, as a very regular and avid hunter of all things Jump Drive, I assure you that this tactic is no-longer as very occasional as it once was. Because it's no-longer occasional and now happens very often, it's time for CCP to take action in the form of hard enforcement - change the behavior of cynos around a online POS. In the end, this means that CCP GMs get fewer petitions on the subject; and pilots are forced to obey the rule rather than being kindly asked to. I mean, Fozzie & Co saw fit to change fighter and fighter bomber scan res to address a DPS exploit that practically no one in their right mind would use (yes, I'm going to sit my super on top of this structure at 0ms, unaligned, just to up my DPS a trivial amount), so maybe they'll expend the energy addressing an actual problem.
Estella Osoka Perkone Caldari State 533	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:22:42 - [47] - Quote Not only is this method used as the OP states, but people also use the same online FF method to "Skynet". Basically a carrier or super sits by a online tower with no password, assigns fighters to a fleet member in local for more DPS, and when someone shows up at the tower, they put in the password and the shield comes up. I say you can easily fix this by putting a timer on how long it takes for the FF to come up. I think 1 minute would do.
Nashh Kadavr The Bastards 95	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:26:00 - [48] - Quote +1 #EVE_NT website; www.eve-nt.uk Blog; http://nashh-blog.pvp101.net
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 226	Posted - 2015.02.20 23:01:47 - [49] - Quote Bobby Artrald wrote: Add an online timer for the shields after the password is set and be done with it. So I activate the Force field and before the timer expires light the cyno. You've just delayed activation, not resolved the issue: having a Cyno within the confines of a potentially active force field.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 226	Posted - 2015.02.20 23:12:19 - [50] - Quote Estella Osoka wrote: Not only is this method used as the OP states, but people also use the same online FF method to "Skynet". Basically a carrier or super sits by a online tower with no password, assigns fighters to a fleet member in local for more DPS, and when someone shows up at the tower, they put in the password and the shield comes up. I say you can easily fix this by putting a timer on how long it takes for the FF to come up. I think 1 minute would do. Unlike having an active Cyno within the force field, any advantage or benefit provided by the carrier is lost when the force field goes up.
Doomchinchilla Collapsed Out Overload Everything 49	Posted - 2015.02.21 03:20:19 - [51] - Quote This method is one of the most annoying methods of cynoing supers and titans around. If CCP has declared this an exploit they need to start clamping down and enforcing it.
Jassmin Joy Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 307	Posted - 2015.02.21 19:02:13 - [52] - Quote Petrified wrote: Estella Osoka wrote: Not only is this method used as the OP states, but people also use the same online FF method to "Skynet". Basically a carrier or super sits by a online tower with no password, assigns fighters to a fleet member in local for more DPS, and when someone shows up at the tower, they put in the password and the shield comes up. I say you can easily fix this by putting a timer on how long it takes for the FF to come up. I think 1 minute would do. Unlike having an active Cyno within the force field, any advantage or benefit provided by the carrier is lost when the force field goes up. I think the point he is trying to make is that the current mechanics allow for Pos' to be used in multiple ways that are questionable, Two of these would be the garage door and skynet, yes?
Wren Der Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 2	Posted - 2015.02.21 19:11:39 - [53] - Quote Simply not allowing the forcefield to be put up if there is a cyno next to it (25km + forcefield radius) is a fix to the garage door exploit and makes it a whole lot dangerous to use the skynet thing (assign fighters from a online pos w/ no forcefield)
Tarsas Phage Freight Club 387	Posted - 2015.02.21 23:33:17 - [54] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: So basically, you started this thread because you're mad no one got banned for breaking a rule when no one told them ahead of time that they were breaking the rule? You understand the concept of "warnings," right? CCP: Hey, you're not supposed to do that, even though we never made it public that you shouldn't. Titan Pilot: Opps, didn't know that, won't do it again. CCP: See that you don't. That is a warning, and as long as the Titan pilot stops doing what he shouldn't be doing, then all is good, and they will continue to log on, as you've experienced. Honestly, your better bet to get CCP to do something about this is to continue filing petitions. If they're jumping in, waiting for the cyno to run out, then raising the shield, they're not breaking any rules. But it is publicly stated on the Eve Wiki. Claiming ignorance doesn't get you far. The fact is, we have been filing petitions on this maneuver for years. With the gross increase in this happening over the past year alone, we feel that it's time for CCP to mechanically back up their own rule. And yes, I am a bit peeved. When you go through the (sometimes days-long) time and effort to research a target, track it, move alts and marshal people into position only to have your quarry o7 illegally into a garage door pos, you would be lying through your teeth if you weren't even the slightest bit frustrated. Like I said earlier, once in a while is once in a while. Everyday, however, changes the picture.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 227	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:13:41 - [55] - Quote Jassmin Joy wrote: Petrified wrote: Estella Osoka wrote: Not only is this method used as the OP states, but people also use the same online FF method to "Skynet". Basically a carrier or super sits by a online tower with no password, assigns fighters to a fleet member in local for more DPS, and when someone shows up at the tower, they put in the password and the shield comes up. I say you can easily fix this by putting a timer on how long it takes for the FF to come up. I think 1 minute would do. Unlike having an active Cyno within the force field, any advantage or benefit provided by the carrier is lost when the force field goes up. I think the point he is trying to make is that the current mechanics allow for Pos' to be used in multiple ways that are questionable, Two of these would be the garage door and skynet, yes? I'll agree that the Garage door is questionable. Skynet, on the other hand, I do not believe questionable at all since any benefit derived is lost once the POS field covers the ship. The issue people have with the Garage Door tactic is that the benefit does not vanish when the force field covers the ship and cyno.
Tarsas Phage Freight Club 387	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:29:31 - [56] - Quote Petrified wrote: I'll agree that the Garage door is questionable. Skynet, on the other hand, I do not believe questionable at all since any benefit derived is lost once the POS field covers the ship. The issue people have with the Garage Door tactic is that the benefit does not vanish when the force field covers the ship and cyno. And we've gotten around skynet with a little distracting hand and a big hammer.
Discomanco We pooped on your lawn Resonance. 103	Posted - 2015.02.22 13:21:27 - [57] - Quote I do have a feeling though, that if this gets fixed it will just be taken to the next level with onlining towers. Tower online in 10 seconds, cyno up and jump. Your session timer wont be over before the POS is ready to get a bubble up. So where do we draw the line? Cynos can't be activated within [range] of onlining/online towers? As much as I disagree with this method of cynos, a lot restrictions has to be made
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 121	Posted - 2015.02.22 14:09:10 - [58] - Quote I'm linking this post so no one will actually take the idea seriously, it is where it belongs. It would **** off everyone with a jump capable ship, but that is the FOTM apparently. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5512608#post5512608
Aqriue Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 735	Posted - 2015.02.22 16:44:04 - [59] - Quote Tarsas Phage wrote: But the combination of lighting a cyno next to a Online/no-FF Tower only to immediately raise the force field once the super/titan hits grid is questionable, as the intent of this whole chain of events is to move a capital using method that has no reasonable counter or exposure to any danger. Dreads, siege mode, offline tower, problem solved. Not sure why you cannot see that as a solution, if you are not flying a dread to knock down an offline tower before its used then you really have nothing to stand on and whine about an "exploit" that can be prevented before it starts. Don't want to shoot towers, don't want to fly caps....but want the killmails, stop whining and be proactive while the players you are hunting are off line, obviously you found their towers/systems/character names . The method to counter the exploit if you didn't figure it out is knock over their tower and ** on their sandbox Hyun-a wrote: There were two main groups of people aware of this tactic before the changes to the distance from forcefield/cyno mechanic came in: Those who used it, knowing it to be an exploit, to move capitals in a 100% risk free environment despite the so called 'punishments' from CCP. Those who hunted other people jumping capitals to POS cyno's. lol risk free. Must be playing on the test server. On the live server, you can be shot at anywhere, anytime, by anyone. Get off you butt, fly a dread, and knockdown the tower before the shield is up. I explained as a counter method in the previous paragraph, you can be proactive and take it out before the ship jumps in or whine about it on the forums cause you lack the ability to do so. If shields go up to fast right now, that is a simple fix for CCP to make it a few minutes with zero resists or something on the tower even if the tower is anchored but the shields are in active (to make the tower easier to kill, problem solved). Estella Osoka wrote:** Not only is this method used as the OP states, but people also use the same online FF method to "Skynet". Basically a carrier or super sits by a online tower with no password, assigns fighters to a fleet member in local for more DPS, and when someone shows up at the tower, they put in the password and the shield comes up. I say you can easily fix this by putting a timer on how long it takes for the FF to come up. I think 1 minute would do. Would agree with this, if a drone ship is sitting on a POS an aggression timer should be implemented that lasts longer from fighters/bombers and if the shield goes up it kicks the ship away from the tower, as well as a slower shield activation. I see the problem as the shields activate too fast and some players (the whiners in this thread) lack the ability to destroy things unless its not in an actual fight (aka moving cap is probably not set up for combat or escorted, easy kill for scrubs...where is the risk for you? ).
Tarsas Phage Freight Club 387	Posted - 2015.02.22 18:39:28 - [60] - Quote Aqriue wrote: Dreads, siege mode, offline tower, problem solved. Not sure why you cannot see that as a solution, if you are not flying a dread to knock down an offline tower before its used then you really have nothing to stand on and whine about an "exploit" that can be prevented before it starts. Don't want to shoot towers, don't want to fly caps....but want the killmails, stop whining and be proactive while the players you are hunting are off line, obviously you found their towers/systems/character names . The method to counter the exploit if you didn't figure it out is knock over their tower and **** on their sandbox I take it you've never really hunted supers before, and aren't familiar with the time-sensitive and random nature of it. I also don't believe that you're familiar with he subtlety it demands. Suppose you DID know that the guy was going to garage door, and you DID know in advance where, down to the moon, it would happen, and you DID have enough time to to blap a tower that probably has stront in it (a online tower with no FF still goes into RF you know) and the target DOESN'T get spooked at all by a bunch of dreads landing on a tower he's about to cyno his super/titan to, then yes, that would work. But you ideal vision isn't what really happens in practice.
Wren Der Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 2	Posted - 2015.02.23 20:22:15 - [61] - Quote Aqriue wrote: lol risk free. Must be playing on the test server. On the live server, you can be shot at anywhere, anytime, by anyone. That's where you are terribly wrong. Using this method you can avoid being so much as targeted, let alone shot. You jump to the cyno and have a invulnerability timer, during that timer you enter in the POS password and you are home safe, every other ship that isn't you gets booted out of the forcefield.
RoCkEt X Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 109	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:11:19 - [62] - Quote bumping. Fix this sh!t
Aimel Parental Control 2	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:13:39 - [63] - Quote +1
Lory Whole Volatile Instability Resonance. 2	Posted - 2015.03.04 13:21:12 - [64] - Quote +1 aswell
Casper24 Hax. 1	Posted - 2015.03.04 23:22:30 - [65] - Quote +1 smack allowed in english only
Matroska Hax. 1	Posted - 2015.03.04 23:32:01 - [66] - Quote +1 fix this rubbish.
Steppa Musana Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 25	Posted - 2015.03.04 23:32:26 - [67] - Quote Emizeko Chai wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Honestly, your better bet to get CCP to do something about this is to continue filing petitions. No, it really isn't. But it's refreshing that you're new enough to EVE to think that. He's not new, just bad +1
The-Wife Republic University Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.04 23:38:42 - [68] - Quote +1
Alexis Nightwish 112	Posted - 2015.03.05 00:30:46 - [69] - Quote +1 here. Of course I'm of the opinion that cynos shouldn't even be lightable on the same grid as a station/POS/gate/other celestial, so anything to chip away at the bullshit special treatment capital ships have been receiving since RMR is a win in my book really. CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
Reina Xyaer Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 29	Posted - 2015.03.05 01:20:47 - [70] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: +1 here. Of course I'm of the opinion that cynos shouldn't even be lightable on the same grid as a station/POS/gate/other celestial, so anything to chip away at the bullshit special treatment capital ships have been receiving since RMR is a win in my book really. WTF? Really? So the only location Cyno's should be lightable, according to you, are safe spots? Is that seriously your opinion? -1 I don't know how POS shields work now, but I think you should be able to turn them off, light a cyno, jump a titan in right next to tower, and power the shields back up. Repeat as many times as you want, but put a cooldown delay on POS shield on/off.
RoCkEt X Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 109	Posted - 2015.03.09 10:09:03 - [71] - Quote Up again nerds.
DeviloftheHell Hell's Courtyard PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:24:26 - [72] - Quote +1
socos Parental Control 1	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:12:22 - [73] - Quote Just read the new patch notes for Scylla. I was very disappointing that there was no word on this issue. Please fix this annoying mechanic.
Sadr Dillinger Nulli-Secundus 0	Posted - 2015.03.19 22:45:10 - [74] - Quote I don't think the exam question has been addressed by anyone here, which is: what drives this behaviour in the first place?... To which the answer is simple, and most of you know but might prefer not admit... ....POS defences are total, utter, complete garbage, and even if using a 'Deathstar' to cyno into, all the risk is really on the 'lone scrub' pilot, rather than there being risk spread between all parties, including the attackers-in-waiting... Make large turret batteries a genuine threat to Dreadnoughts (and, if managed and setup correctly, supers...) Add an infini-point scrambling battery (75km or 150km range) Prevent Cyno's within 50km (+/- a bit) of the Control Tower itself to prevent "Garage Door" Do those and you could potentially change behaviours/have interesting possibilities for counter escalations ("oh **** we dropped in and we're all now tackled on an actual Deathstar... HALP!!"). Otherwise, all it is about is "moohaha, dropping 'fishing' fleet on poor scrub in 3, 2...." (In reality though, it is likely nothing will change, and therefore this thread is redundant, as why would CCP spend any time on the legacy system, now the new one is being developed....)
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 871	Posted - 2015.03.20 07:01:47 - [75] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: Typical double standard - If PL does it, there would be 50 videos of it and 5000 petitions calling for PL to be banished Some random scrub does it, nothing happens and the videos posted are of them thumbing their noses at someone and all is well cause the "Little Guy" won Once enough little guys win, it is no longer an exploit if the GM's keep allowing it to happen with no intervention or punishment You should know by know that things don't get fixed until GSF abuse the ever loving **** out of it. You should actually provide a list of all the things you've fixed over the years by abusing the boinkboinkboinkboink out of it. I think many folks would then begin to understand and adore the work you do for them. A lot of folks just don't get it.
Alex Quintane Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 0	Posted - 2015.03.23 19:24:37 - [76] - Quote +1 This needs attention, Supers and Titans should come with risk, these methods completely rule out the risk involved for moving such ships.
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1182	Posted - 2015.03.23 20:06:57 - [77] - Quote POS shields are going away. /thread. But, if they weren't, I would say extend the exclusion zone to 50-75km from the POS itself. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3238	Posted - 2015.03.23 20:28:14 - [78] - Quote Swiftstrike1 wrote: An alternative, somewhat blunter, solution would be to simply have the force field activate automatically with no password when the tower comes online. Corp members would have access by default to prevent the tower owner getting bounced. This would however kill such tactics as "starbursting" and baiting people with a newly onlined tower and a HIC. I'd be OK with that... Would not stop the method. What you do is cyno in the super, then place fuel in the tower. +1 to the OP. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Alex Quintane Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 0	Posted - 2015.03.23 22:07:06 - [79] - Quote Soldarius wrote: POS shields are going away. /thread. But, if they weren't, I would say extend the exclusion zone to 50-75km from the POS itself. Lets just allow people to run along exploiting this for another year then
Ionsei Kubarick State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.06.14 12:06:57 - [80] - Quote This is an exploit, and "Star Bursting" isn't? Take them both away, or leave it alone.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1091	Posted - 2015.06.14 13:43:29 - [81] - Quote Ionsei Kubarick wrote: This is an exploit, and "Star Bursting" isn't? Take them both away, or leave it alone. This is already gone... As for "Star Bursting" - POS's are also going away. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." So, why do I post here? Because of this: http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
Myth Shor SAM-CR0 0	Posted - 2015.06.18 03:37:00 - [82] - Quote So what your saying is that there should not be a system that makes something completely safe. Now where have i seen this befor.......thats right clokey campers but you dont have any problems with that do you. You gankbears are all the same.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.