EVE Search - A bit more changes

All Channels

Ships and Modules

A bit more changes

» 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 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Sweriskaka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2006.10.22 23:41:00 - [451] Originally by: c0rn1 just FYI, Tux. With the new boosted armor & plates. You can easily push a BS to armor strength of the amount of a dreadnaught. 5000hp base @ tempest = 7500hp after patch 3350ho for 1600mm steel plate II = 5000hp after patch 6x 1600mm steelplate in the lows = 30,000 hp + base hp = 37,500 hp ... without taken any skills/implants/gang assist into account. Why, I question you, did I skill for dreadnaught/carrier if I can now have the same HP with a BS which is a more agile and versatile ship? Naglfar has 34375hp base just for comparison. regards c0rn1 Are you completely retarded? The Naglfar's base HP will be increased The Naglfar can fit an armor repairer, your setup doesn't 37500 HP will help you a hell of a lot when you have a base armor resistance of 10% More on that, a Tempest using Quake that has a competent fitting could kill you in about a minute. With 6 plates, you probably have about the same agility of a dreadnought. Also, you don't have any damage mods so you don't do any damage.
Naal Morno ECP Rogues Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.23 02:38:00 - [452] The 50% increase across the board...is overboard! Whatever happened to idea of "dimishing return" of focused fire? I always envisioned some sort of shield or armor hardening modifier on each ship which would multiply incoming damage by some less than 1.00 number for each additional ship actively shooting the target. If the ship had 0.95 "Focused Fire Resistance" (this could be split into four basic resitance stats) and three ships would shoot the target, it would effectively receive standard damage * 0.95^3 * resistance modifier... Which would mean 0.857 damage before applying resistances. Problem of focused fire solved especially if the number was significantly less than 1.00... Not hard to do yet would not require global overhaul (well, maybe that's not entirely true). This would ensure there are no insta-pops due to focus fire. Thank you. _________________________________________ The cloaky orchestrator
Jenjuan Gallente	Posted - 2006.10.23 03:35:00 - [453] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 19/10/2006 10:41:01 Still disappointed by lack of Khanid changes, but OMG WCS NERF - me love :) Definitely a good thing, are you on Offense or on Defense?? This will Force you to decide. hehe, should REALLY make things intersting. [url=http://profile.xfire.com/jenjuan][/url]
Archimedes Plato	Posted - 2006.10.23 03:51:00 - [454] Originally by: Tuxford I've been replying to the forums today. I'm just gonna list some of the smaller tweaks and changes here. Ships Agility of battlecruisers and command ships boosted by 20% Ship hitpoint increase, about 50% for tech 1 and about 25% on tech 2. A bit more on battlecruises/command ships and destroyers/interdictors Thank God and it's about time. Everyone's been complaining that BC's more like an overpriced Cruiser and it's about time that they've been properly "Pumped Up"
Serj Darek Minmatar Mentally Unstable Enterprises	Posted - 2006.10.23 05:52:00 - [455] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 20/10/2006 15:28:26 Originally by: Serj Darek As a side note, you wonder why Minmatars get angry about stuff like this? Consider the Money and time I have invested in EVE? I have had 2 accounts since December 2003, which means I have paid roughly $13 USD per account per month. So $26 * 34 months = 884 USD. So why would I be dissapointed and frustrated as a Minmatar specialized player? Gee I don't know. Oh, right. You, unlike everyone else in the game, have actually paid money to play it. And on two accounts, no less. Yes, I suppose that does give you the unique right to be angry at random stuff as a kneejerk reaction. "Wonder why Gallente get angy about stuff like this? Consider all the money I have invested in beer since 2003... and now they nerf my railguns! Rabble rabble rabble!" I'm starting to become convinced that no matter what changes are ever made to the game, someone will scream "it's a Minmatar nerf!" from the sidelines. I guess it's a reflex, or something. This is in no way or form a "minmatar nerf" -- unless by "minmatar nerf" you actually mean "minmatar, gallente, amarr and railgun-using caldari nerf". The +50% hp thing hits pretty much all gun users; it could be argued that it doesn't even hit Minmatar all that hard since their weapons don't use cap. Ever look at the cap use of Gallente and Amarr weapons? Sigh. Ever looked at the Minmatar Shield/Armor/Structure/Cap ? Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content - Cortes It contains my ingame name and corp ticker - Serj
Roshan longshot Gallente Order of the Arrow	Posted - 2006.10.23 10:56:00 - [456] humm 16 pages............... NERF low slot stacking! Dont increase hitpoints! And this 'we luv you tux' is only comming from that 'fellow'(?) in the tight leather chaps with no seat. The rest of us are still wondering why your doing this change? Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter *pirate* or mixture of them all. [i]As read from the original box.
Exiled One Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2006.10.23 11:00:00 - [457] Fix EANM, switch crystal EM for thermal and vice versa, boost artillery dmg mod by x percent => decrease artillery rate of fire x percent -- boost autocannon dmg mod by x percent => decrase autocannon rate of fire x percent, projectile ammo should be 0.001 m3 per unit -- ALL THIS BEFORE APPLYING THE IDIOTIC 50% HP BOOST PATCH -- and if you do all these changes: amarr will be FIXED, minmatar won't have alpha strike problems post-patch as well as autocannons running out of ammo. Or i will blow up myself !!
Soraya Silvermoon Never'where	Posted - 2006.10.23 11:06:00 - [458] Edited by: Soraya Silvermoon on 23/10/2006 11:08:01 Originally by: Naal Morno The 50% increase across the board...is overboard! Whatever happened to idea of "dimishing return" of focused fire? I always envisioned some sort of shield or armor hardening modifier on each ship which would multiply incoming damage by some less than 1.00 number for each additional ship actively shooting the target. If the ship had 0.95 "Focused Fire Resistance" (this could be split into four basic resitance stats) and three ships would shoot the target, it would effectively receive standard damage * 0.95^3 * resistance modifier... Which would mean 0.857 damage before applying resistances. Problem of focused fire solved especially if the number was significantly less than 1.00... Not hard to do yet would not require global overhaul (well, maybe that's not entirely true). This would ensure there are no insta-pops due to focus fire. Thank you. Sorry but.. it will create a lot of problems.. How do you plan on killing a dread? say you get the hardest hitting ships. 3 dreads fireing at one. A dread can tank 3 other dreads. ofc you have nos but is this game going to be about nos only? Allso in my opinion the only ships that need hp increase is capital ships and they need something like 4x.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.23 11:23:00 - [459] Originally by: Sweriskaka Originally by: c0rn1 just FYI, Tux. With the new boosted armor & plates. You can easily push a BS to armor strength of the amount of a dreadnaught. 5000hp base @ tempest = 7500hp after patch 3350ho for 1600mm steel plate II = 5000hp after patch 6x 1600mm steelplate in the lows = 30,000 hp + base hp = 37,500 hp ... without taken any skills/implants/gang assist into account. Why, I question you, did I skill for dreadnaught/carrier if I can now have the same HP with a BS which is a more agile and versatile ship? Naglfar has 34375hp base just for comparison. regards c0rn1 Are you completely retarded? The Naglfar's base HP will be increased The Naglfar can fit an armor repairer, your setup doesn't 37500 HP will help you a hell of a lot when you have a base armor resistance of 10% More on that, a Tempest using Quake that has a competent fitting could kill you in about a minute. With 6 plates, you probably have about the same agility of a dreadnought. Also, you don't have any damage mods so you don't do any damage. Exactly. Plus, can a 6 plate BS enter seige? Its a ridiculous comparison.
Glarion Garnier Solar Wind	Posted - 2006.10.23 13:34:00 - [460] I would give straight 25% all types of hp of all ships . and boost BC's + definatelly interdictors + destroyers say 40% racial based hps for those say +25% to all ships to all types of HP 35% to BC's 40% to destroyers / interdictors then would fix the shield regen rate acordingly This fix would not unbalance too many aspects at once. t2 ammo needing fix: -Tech 2 rockets -hail ammo
Galen Silas Gallente Digital assassins	Posted - 2006.10.23 14:08:00 - [461] wow these changes are sweet, i am really liking the whole destroyer hitpoint thing as well, should make it a definately better ship and that warp core stab will helppeople not to snipeall the damn time on gates
Kiyirari	Posted - 2006.10.23 16:01:00 - [462] Originally by: Tuxford Warp Core Stabilizers now give penalty to targeting range and scan resolution, about 50% for tech 1 Is this a stacking penalty to each WCS fitted or a one off penalty Revenge is my god and my guns are her angels
Popsikle Caffeine Commodities Company Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.23 16:10:00 - [463] Originally by: Kiyirari Originally by: Tuxford Warp Core Stabilizers now give penalty to targeting range and scan resolution, about 50% for tech 1 Is this a stacking penalty to each WCS fitted or a one off penalty Lets hope its stacking. __________________________________________ -= We Fly for our people =- -= I fly for Blood =-
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.23 18:13:00 - [464] Originally by: Master OlavPancrazio Tell me, do you think before you post? What is work considered to you, relative to now. Have you ever pirated? DO you even know how much work it currently takes? Let's put it into context shall we? I have no problem with REAL PVPers...those who go out there and look for people of roughly equal skills and intent to themselves, and fight over territory, honour, or just the fun of being involved in a large butt-kicking. That is probably quite hard work, yes, but since both sides were effectively equal, the nerf to warp core stabs is a "no-change" event. This therefore excludes gatecampers and those who hunt mission runners in 0.4 space. These are people who are looking for targets that they are damned sure will not be equipped to fight back. In this case the sides were NOT equal, and the WCS gave the mission runners some small assistance in being able to take their only option...to run away. The "pirates" (and I don't use the term in a good sense here) have thus whined like babies to have it removed, using the argument that it affects group ONE as mentioned above, when really, all they want to achieve is a 100% encounter:kill ratio. Gatecamping takes no brains, no skill, but some patience. Finding mission runners takes a little brains, probably less patience than gatecamping, but no real SKILL when it comes to the combat. If you think you can make a case that I am wrong on any of these points, I'd like to hear it. --- Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once."
Popsikle Caffeine Commodities Company Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.23 18:56:00 - [465] Originally by: Grey Area Originally by: Master OlavPancrazio Tell me, do you think before you post? What is work considered to you, relative to now. Have you ever pirated? DO you even know how much work it currently takes? Let's put it into context shall we? I have no problem with REAL PVPers...those who go out there and look for people of roughly equal skills and intent to themselves, and fight over territory, honour, or just the fun of being involved in a large butt-kicking. That is probably quite hard work, yes, but since both sides were effectively equal, the nerf to warp core stabs is a "no-change" event. This therefore excludes gatecampers and those who hunt mission runners in 0.4 space. These are people who are looking for targets that they are damned sure will not be equipped to fight back. In this case the sides were NOT equal, and the WCS gave the mission runners some small assistance in being able to take their only option...to run away. The "pirates" (and I don't use the term in a good sense here) have thus whined like babies to have it removed, using the argument that it affects group ONE as mentioned above, when really, all they want to achieve is a 100% encounter:kill ratio. Gatecamping takes no brains, no skill, but some patience. Finding mission runners takes a little brains, probably less patience than gatecamping, but no real SKILL when it comes to the combat. If you think you can make a case that I am wrong on any of these points, I'd like to hear it. 1.) I hunt pirates, pirates use stabs, stabs make it hell to actually get pirates. 2.) If someone doesnt like the risk of low-sec, dont go there. Eve is not a game about being protected from combat all the time. Its a game based on risks, and the rewards that come with it. If you dont want to risk your ship, just down fly anywhere you can lose it. No need for stabs in .5+ right? 3.) Fitting a stab to escape from combat takes brains, and skill? How about avoiding the gatecamps, or using safe spots to ignore the pirates, ect. That takes some skill, not putting on stabs. __________________________________________ -= We Fly for our people =- -= I fly for Blood =-
murder one Gallente CRICE Corporation Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.23 19:13:00 - [466] Originally by: Popsikle Originally by: Grey Area Originally by: Master OlavPancrazio Tell me, do you think before you post? What is work considered to you, relative to now. Have you ever pirated? DO you even know how much work it currently takes? Let's put it into context shall we? I have no problem with REAL PVPers...those who go out there and look for people of roughly equal skills and intent to themselves, and fight over territory, honour, or just the fun of being involved in a large butt-kicking. That is probably quite hard work, yes, but since both sides were effectively equal, the nerf to warp core stabs is a "no-change" event. This therefore excludes gatecampers and those who hunt mission runners in 0.4 space. These are people who are looking for targets that they are damned sure will not be equipped to fight back. In this case the sides were NOT equal, and the WCS gave the mission runners some small assistance in being able to take their only option...to run away. The "pirates" (and I don't use the term in a good sense here) have thus whined like babies to have it removed, using the argument that it affects group ONE as mentioned above, when really, all they want to achieve is a 100% encounter:kill ratio. Gatecamping takes no brains, no skill, but some patience. Finding mission runners takes a little brains, probably less patience than gatecamping, but no real SKILL when it comes to the combat. If you think you can make a case that I am wrong on any of these points, I'd like to hear it. 1.) I hunt pirates, pirates use stabs, stabs make it hell to actually get pirates. 2.) If someone doesnt like the risk of low-sec, dont go there. Eve is not a game about being protected from combat all the time. Its a game based on risks, and the rewards that come with it. If you dont want to risk your ship, just down fly anywhere you can lose it. No need for stabs in .5+ right? 3.) Fitting a stab to escape from combat takes brains, and skill? How about avoiding the gatecamps, or using safe spots to ignore the pirates, ect. That takes some skill, not putting on stabs. I hunt carebears. Carebears use stabs. I think the stab nerf is something that for once both carebears and pirates can agree is a good thing. :p Because I said so...
Drazys	Posted - 2006.10.23 19:40:00 - [467] Hunting carebears ? Ah, then you must love the upcoming change since it allows people to go after REAL carebears like those gate gankers who warp out at first sign of danger and similar. Despite what many people want to think and want others to think, "carebear" and "pirate" are not opposites :) - Zeta
Elianidd Farseeker	Posted - 2006.10.23 20:21:00 - [468] The WCS nerf scares me. One of my first times out into < 0.5 (ratting), I lost my ship because I had no WCS and got scrambled. (And yes, I do "research" systems before I jump into them, etc. but that only tells you what's ALREADY happened, not what's GOING to happen.) So I put some WCS on my ship so that I can at least go into < 0.5 on occasion and have a good chance of getting away if it's only 1 or 2 player pirates that attack. Also, I've heard that there are NPC pirates that use scramblers as well. So now for me to have ANY chance of getting away from ANY kind of scrambler (player OR NPC), I have to sacrifice at LEAST 50% of my range to do so?!? (I'd expect it to be 75% for 2 WCS, etc.) That'd make it awfully tough to fight the oncoming horde of NPC mobs in tougher missions, wouldn't it? For any mission with any chance that I could get scrambled, I'd have to wait until the mobs were right on top of me before I even STARTED shooting at them, wouldn't it? Sounds to me like yet another game where PvE (and people who want to play it safe, or not focus solely on PvP) gets a big nerf whack because of PvPers who abused the mechanic ("sniping warpers" or some such from the sound of it.) Great way to discourage me EVEN MORE from going out and risking 0.4 or lower. Once more, PvP whiners screw up the game for PvE. Oh, and some handy cut-and-paste quotes for some anticipated responses: "If you don't want to PvP, then EVE isn't for you." "Cry more, n00b." "You deserve to die." "lern2play" etc. It was already ridiculous that there were no WCS modules that did more than 1, since there were scramblers, etc. that did up to 3, so you had to sacrifice MULTIPLE slots just to counter a SINGLE scrambler/disrupter. Might as well just put code in that locks you in place once you're in combat period. I understand that there might've been a problem with people sniping from very far away, then running if they were approached, but couldn't there have been some OTHER solution to the abuse problem without making it even HARDER for those of us who prefer to play by trying our best to AVOID combat with player pirates, etc. EVE - the online game where they're determined to remove the 'L' from "fight or flight"
Granth Roden	Posted - 2006.10.23 21:20:00 - [469] This argument seems to be missing the point. What the devs seems to want is: 1 - Reducing focused-fire and insta-kill of main targets. 2 - Reducing the long-range sniper uber-supremacy How to fix this? 1 - Use a law of decreasing results. Rationalize it by saying that each ship targetting the "prime" (which implies active radar-like "pinging") makes it harder to target, and causing a % of auto-misses due to that. So 5 ships have the effect (in total hps destroyed) of 4, and 10 have effect of 7, and 50 have effect of 20 or some such thing. 2 - Use range-dependent deviation. All real guns have this effect. In eve there is a rough model of this, the "gun signature". But it is a constant and range-independent, so a cruiser's gun misses by 125 meters EVEN IF THE TARGET IS 50 meters away and 50 meters long. Meaning the gun must actually turn 45¦ away from the target to fail. A more real signature would be say 50 m for each 10km - at 30 its 150m, at 50 its 250m and so on. Tracking would keep it balanced at close range. Apply this to sniper guns and you have in-built range control, with decreasing damage with range even within optimal, plus protection for smaller ships. Comments?
Jones Maloy Minmatar	Posted - 2006.10.24 00:19:00 - [470] offense is now the only choice you can make to fit your ship. with the wcs nerf (nerfs are bad) there is no way to counter scrams without crippling your ship at the same time. a 11.25km max targeting range on my rupture really irks me. and that's only fit to counter one (1) warp scrambler. to get my range back i would have to fit three (3) sensor boosters. they don't stack remember? i now have a choice of damage mods or tank and almost all of my cpu is gone and no mid slots are left. that's one gimped piece of ship. i don't understand how anyone can see this as a good thing. oh, wait, gankers see it as a good thing. --- WCS Nerf boycott low-sec
Naal Morno ECP Rogues Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.24 00:38:00 - [471] Originally by: Soraya Silvermoon Edited by: Soraya Silvermoon on 23/10/2006 11:08:01 Originally by: Naal Morno The 50% increase across the board...is overboard! Whatever happened to idea of "dimishing return" of focused fire? I always envisioned some sort of shield or armor hardening modifier on each ship which would multiply incoming damage by some less than 1.00 number for each additional ship actively shooting the target. If the ship had 0.95 "Focused Fire Resistance" (this could be split into four basic resitance stats) and three ships would shoot the target, it would effectively receive standard damage * 0.95^3 * resistance modifier... Which would mean 0.857 damage before applying resistances. Problem of focused fire solved especially if the number was significantly less than 1.00... Not hard to do yet would not require global overhaul (well, maybe that's not entirely true). This would ensure there are no insta-pops due to focus fire. Thank you. Sorry but.. it will create a lot of problems.. How do you plan on killing a dread? say you get the hardest hitting ships. 3 dreads fireing at one. A dread can tank 3 other dreads. ofc you have nos but is this game going to be about nos only? Allso in my opinion the only ships that need hp increase is capital ships and they need something like 4x. By applying modifier of 1.00 to capitals and therefore skipping focused fire nerf. _________________________________________ The cloaky orchestrator
Jones Maloy Minmatar	Posted - 2006.10.24 01:09:00 - [472] what's wrong with having every ship fire on one to take it out fast? that's the smart thing to do. --- WCS Nerf boycott low-sec
Mjnari Empyreum	Posted - 2006.10.24 01:44:00 - [473] Originally by: Jones Maloy what's wrong with having every ship fire on one to take it out fast? that's the smart thing to do. Smart != fun ? ------------------------ Minmatar, It should be like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair shooting an Uzi.
Cheese999	Posted - 2006.10.24 03:05:00 - [474] Winning = Fun Therefore I propose that if Smart = Winning Then Smart = Fun QED
Mjnari Empyreum	Posted - 2006.10.24 05:13:00 - [475] Fallacy! Winning != Fun Look at WoW. ------------------------ Minmatar, It should be like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair shooting an Uzi.
Jin Masaru Sanguine Legion Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2006.10.24 05:50:00 - [476] Don't you see that this hp boost only encourages blobbing? PvP in eve becomes more one dimensional every day. ---- "There comes a time when a man must spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats." - H. L. Mencken
H Zub Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.10.24 08:09:00 - [477] I manage to post this in wrong thread before, anyway here goes.. More hitpoints and far longer fights. Have you thought about small gangs and solo pvp? The hit point changes will mean death to smaller pvp groups. Wich is a shame if you ask me. Not to mention all the problems with lag, whats going to happend with more and larger blobs (to be able to finish off targets)? I will wait and see, but if it means you need to be in a blob to kill a battleship or 2. Then I am out for good. o/ The Hunter Hypnotized
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.10.24 08:13:00 - [478] Oh, FRACK. I almost forgot! Superweapon damage is fine, Tuxford! Just reduce the time-to-damage by 50% instead! The problem with Superweapons is not that it can't kill the heavily buffered battleships and command ships in one shot (this is actually a rather ridiculous idea!), the problem is that the non-buffered ships sized battlecruiser and larger has time to get away from the blast! Of course, neither the damage nor the time-to-damage change is going to alter the fact that it's useless against an aligned ship, but a non-aligned still battleship takes about 12 seconds to align and warp away. I believe the current Superweapon build-up time is 15 seconds - change this to 7 seconds. - What am I listening to?
Gyro DuAquin1 Tri Optimum Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.24 09:03:00 - [479] Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: Sweriskaka Originally by: c0rn1 just FYI, Tux. With the new boosted armor & plates. You can easily push a BS to armor strength of the amount of a dreadnaught. 5000hp base @ tempest = 7500hp after patch 3350ho for 1600mm steel plate II = 5000hp after patch 6x 1600mm steelplate in the lows = 30,000 hp + base hp = 37,500 hp ... without taken any skills/implants/gang assist into account. Why, I question you, did I skill for dreadnaught/carrier if I can now have the same HP with a BS which is a more agile and versatile ship? Naglfar has 34375hp base just for comparison. regards c0rn1 Are you completely retarded? The Naglfar's base HP will be increased The Naglfar can fit an armor repairer, your setup doesn't 37500 HP will help you a hell of a lot when you have a base armor resistance of 10% More on that, a Tempest using Quake that has a competent fitting could kill you in about a minute. With 6 plates, you probably have about the same agility of a dreadnought. Also, you don't have any damage mods so you don't do any damage. Exactly. Plus, can a 6 plate BS enter seige? Its a ridiculous comparison. /me closes his eyes "now my little raven ull go into siege mode and we will tank those damn apoc over there" boom ok didnt work Anyhow iam looking forward to most of these changes, cause they are going to change things and thats fine so anyone out there has to learn again, thats fun.
Skeltek Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.24 09:40:00 - [480] Edited by: Skeltek on 24/10/2006 09:42:31 I can already feel the whine-threads coming: Nerf NightHawk ^^ Caldari got Raven, Cerberus and now even a deathbringing missionmachine, usable only for missions and nothing else: Nighthawk ; P Now to be totaly serious... this doesn¦t seem to have been a decision for balancing reasons but rather to make most of the empirecarebears satisfied and shutting up I guess... One race having all the missionships and the others getting more and more unable to do missions in turretships. All LvL4 missions are soloable in a Raven/Cerb, almost none are doable in another shiptype. Aren¦t they meant for being made in teams only like it was intended back then so long ago... ? = / I guess only time will tell, if this playerwanted change will just induce more flaming, remove the Nighthawk completely from PvP(due to priceincrease) or make the most interesting missiondesigns a tank-all-run-through. And to take something in advance: I do not want to sabotage the ship being boosted(Cald. CmdSh are the only ones I can fly), I just think it might be a step in exactly the most worse direction with consequences that weren¦t intended. Keeping the ship highly specialized would have been the better choice in my opinion. kindest regards, Skel

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 .. 19 :: 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.