EVE Search - Highsec Wars. Are they broken? If so how do we fix it. Discuss

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Highsec Wars. Are they broken? If so how do we fix it. Discuss

» 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 .. 12 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12855	Posted - 2015.05.01 10:17:17 - [241] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: The end result is the same No, it's not. You can still shoot at the gankers if you are fast enough, or they are slow, or if they are attacking something. You can overcome their actions through skill at the game. But no matter how fast I am at hitting CTRL click on the overview, or how many sebos I fit, I can't beat dec dodging. It is the perfect, un counterable tactic. Nevermind that you're also ignoring the basic point, that being that dec dodging requires no effort or expenditure of assets for such a huge benefit. Both arguments are equally damning, but you cannot say that they have the same effect, because they don't. As for the rest, since you wandered off into yet another off topic tangent about alts, I'll say this. If you want CCP to get rid of scanning alts for whatever carebear crusade you have in mind, make your own thread about it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1125	Posted - 2015.05.01 10:36:16 - [242] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: The end result is the same No, it's not. You can still shoot at the gankers if you are fast enough, or they are slow, or if they are attacking something. You can overcome their actions through skill at the game. But no matter how fast I am at hitting CTRL click on the overview, or how many sebos I fit, I can't beat dec dodging. It is the perfect, un counterable tactic. Nevermind that you're also ignoring the basic point, that being that dec dodging requires no effort or expenditure of assets for such a huge benefit. Both arguments are equally damning, but you cannot say that they have the same effect, because they don't. As for the rest, since you wandered off into yet another off topic tangent about alts, I'll say this. If you want CCP to get rid of scanning alts for whatever carebear crusade you have in mind, make your own thread about it. Being able to dec dodge means not running any job that takes over 24 hours. Pretty hobbling in itself. And if someone dodges a wardec you can always gank them. I also thought that a new corp can't stand up a POS for 7 days which would be most inconvenient for any large producer. Interesting how you see the use of alts to avoid being wardeccable as a tangent, seems to be very relevant to me.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12855	Posted - 2015.05.01 10:38:57 - [243] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Being able to dec dodge means not running any job that takes over 24 hours. There's an "if" there that you're missing. A pretty big one too. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1142	Posted - 2015.05.01 10:44:53 - [244] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Interesting how you see the use of alts to avoid being wardeccable as a tangent, seems to be very relevant to me. That's just is, isn't it? It's entirely relevant. People want war to mean something, to be unavoidable, to have meaningful player impact. But only so long as their gameplay choices to avoid war are well left alone. NPC corps shouldn't lose select access to certain gameplay aspects - if they're losing then they must lose globally. Anything else is not balanced, it's fairly simple. To quote Black Pedro - what is good for the goose..... The argument could be summed up as "Dear CCP, nerf rock, paper is fine - love scissors".
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12855	Posted - 2015.05.01 10:49:28 - [245] - Quote afkalt wrote: People want war to mean something, to be unavoidable, to have meaningful player impact. But only so long as their gameplay choices to avoid war are well left alone. You're trying really hard to ignore the fact that my suggestions revolve around income generation activities. But then, a smokescreen is all you really have. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1394	Posted - 2015.05.01 10:53:08 - [246] - Quote Income generating or ISK generating? Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12855	Posted - 2015.05.01 11:03:38 - [247] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Income generating or ISK generating? Income. Both missions and incursions generate LP as an asset, and mining generates ore. Those are activities that generate something into the game world. Just about everything else in the game, even manufacturing, simply moves assets around, alters them, or destroys them. It's not just "anything you do that can possibly make money", I am, and have been, talking about activities that generate assets into the game. But then, I have said that, what? At least twice now in this thread alone? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1142	Posted - 2015.05.01 11:04:21 - [248] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Income generating or ISK generating? Actually it's completely irrelevant to the thread at hand. This is about wardecs and making them more meaningful, encouraging people to be in player corps and fight back. To do that, all NPC members should feel that any pressure applied equally, what we have is an attempt to only harm aspects of the game certain individuals dislike or are disdainful of. War should be meaningful to all, not just the people you don't like.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12855	Posted - 2015.05.01 11:07:56 - [249] - Quote afkalt wrote: Actually it's completely irrelevant to the thread at hand. Proving that you didn't even read the OP before you jumped right in to trolling. Quote: War should be meaningful to all, not just the people you don't like. Then let's just make the NPC corps at war with each other by default, permanently. Amarr vs Minmatar, Caldari vs Gallente. That'd fit the lore, too. How do you feel about that idea? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1394	Posted - 2015.05.01 11:17:37 - [250] - Quote so, I have an alt who does some market and hauls contracts. He's, by your logic, not generating income and should be excluded from wardecability. Or that other alt in his corp who just helps the first alt move stuff around from contracts. Oh, and then there is that alt who does some ransoming to gain more ISK. Do I understand that correctly? vOv @afkalt I don't know if that is irrelevant to the topic or not. If wardecs are meant to curb income potential, it should apply to each and every form of income. So far, some people like to exclude some forms of income generated in NPC corp safety. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1142	Posted - 2015.05.01 11:22:35 - [251] - Quote I wouldn't really mind, so long as it affects all the people equally and that is key, you don't get to just hit one group whilst protecting another when it comes to war. I hazard it would deliver a wrecking shot to CCPs balance sheet though, but it wouldn't bother me or my gameplay style in the slightest.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1143	Posted - 2015.05.01 11:29:57 - [252] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: @afkalt I don't know if that is irrelevant to the topic or not. If wardecs are meant to curb income potential, it should apply to each and every form of income. So far, some people like to exclude some forms of income generated in NPC corp safety. I agree. I meant that just because player X does activity Y under the cover of NPCs, they should not be punished or pushed "just because" whilst player A does activity B under the cover of NPCs is rolling off freely. My point was more the whole "income" thing is a highly selective viewpoint to preserve the actions of people taking full and complete advantage of NPC corp protection yet punish a subset of players. Whereas if the debate is really about making wars more meaningful and consequential that is thoroughly inappropriate. Wars already disrupt player corp income pretty effectively to be honest, just people don't acknowledge it. Indys get hit hard, mission bears start sucking up NPC taxes or not running at all. The proposition was to make wars better - via a stick. Yet selectively applied. It is hypocritical to take the position of hating on NPC corps and war evasion (I refer not to you here) whilst using and defending those same tools to further their goals in game. The very notion is imbalanced by default. If one suggests punishing mission bears, one must punish haulers/scanners/probers/traders/etc/etc. To do anything else is not about balance or wars but just to have a pop at the affected sub community (which should live in its own thread).
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12856	Posted - 2015.05.01 13:17:18 - [253] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: so, I have an alt who does some market and hauls contracts. He's, by your logic, not generating income and should be excluded from wardecability. Nope. I'm saying that, for a character that does their thing in a station, such as a trader, there is no need to rework their activity to be in line with risk vs reward. They are not part of that equation. Neutral haulers on the other hand, get out of that because the only real solution to stop people from using NPC corps to haul things would be to use the extremely heavy handed approach of barring them the use of certain kinds of ships, which I feel is quite uncalled for. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1763	Posted - 2015.05.01 13:25:54 - [254] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: so, I have an alt who does some market and hauls contracts. He's, by your logic, not generating income and should be excluded from wardecability. Nope. I'm saying that, for a character that does their thing in a station, such as a trader, there is no need to rework their activity to be in line with risk vs reward. They are not part of that equation. Neutral haulers on the other hand, get out of that because the only real solution to stop people from using NPC corps to haul things would be to use the extremely heavy handed approach of barring them the use of certain kinds of ships, which I feel is quite uncalled for. You could go with something hilarious for haulers like intra "empire" import taxes.
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 542	Posted - 2015.05.01 15:34:17 - [255] - Quote OK perhaps my wording is the issue. The idea is to create more localized conflicts over resources while providing a way out for people who don't want to risk conflict. I also intended to make merc corps just that instead of the current alliances that exist. Decs for kills will always happen but the 'juicy' groups will likely also have PvP wings to hold their territory. Anybody not interested in this can make social corps. Also by hard limiting offensive wardecs assist or otherwise it should limit what is being referred to as a grief DEC. So to rework it how does this sound NPC corps 10% tax. SC 0% tax before player tax. PC 0% tax before player tax. PC can anchor the proposed structures. High sec gets 10% less base yields to balance the equations How does this sound? Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Tengu Grib Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 1143	Posted - 2015.05.01 15:41:19 - [256] - Quote Noragen Neirfallas wrote: OK perhaps my wording is the issue. The idea is to create more localized conflicts over resources while providing a way out for people who don't want to risk conflict. I also intended to make merc corps just that instead of the current alliances that exist. Decs for kills will always happen but the 'juicy' groups will likely also have PvP wings to hold their territory. Anybody not interested in this can make social corps. Also by hard limiting offensive wardecs assist or otherwise it should limit what is being referred to as a grief DEC. So to rework it how does this sound NPC corps 10% tax. SC 0% tax before player tax. PC 0% tax before player tax. PC can anchor the proposed structures. High sec gets 10% less base yields to balance the equations How does this sound? What about the situation where I truly despise my war targets and want to crush the very life out of their corporations and their morale? Under your suggested system such a vengeance war would not be possible, or at least it's effects rather easy to avoid. Or depending on how it's setup, some corporations might be vulnerable to it, but others not. But why should I not be allowed to single out an entity which has grieved me in some way, and crush them under my boot? If anything such wars are a more integral part of what Eve's war decs need to be capable of than mundane competition over resources and territory.
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 542	Posted - 2015.05.01 15:50:53 - [257] - Quote Tengu Grib wrote: Noragen Neirfallas wrote: OK perhaps my wording is the issue. The idea is to create more localized conflicts over resources while providing a way out for people who don't want to risk conflict. I also intended to make merc corps just that instead of the current alliances that exist. Decs for kills will always happen but the 'juicy' groups will likely also have PvP wings to hold their territory. Anybody not interested in this can make social corps. Also by hard limiting offensive wardecs assist or otherwise it should limit what is being referred to as a grief DEC. So to rework it how does this sound NPC corps 10% tax. SC 0% tax before player tax. PC 0% tax before player tax. PC can anchor the proposed structures. High sec gets 10% less base yields to balance the equations How does this sound? What about the situation where I truly despise my war targets and want to crush the very life out of their corporations and their morale? Under your suggested system such a vengeance war would not be possible, or at least it's effects rather easy to avoid. Or depending on how it's setup, some corporations might be vulnerable to it, but others not. But why should I not be allowed to single out an entity which has grieved me in some way, and crush them under my boot? If anything such wars are a more integral part of what Eve's war decs need to be capable of than mundane competition over resources and territory. If they are in a PC DEC away just don't have too many such enemies at once . If they stick to a SC/NPC Corp you got all the same options as current NPC/ DEC dodgers. Gank them lol. Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 544	Posted - 2015.05.02 02:18:35 - [258] - Quote I also note this cut off discussion. No more ideas or objections based on reason? Also I don't ever see the Leech structure being a thing I added it cause it sounds interesting without actually adding resources into the game. It would take up a moon anchor spot like a POS so you couldn't have both in one spot. Also @ all the POS discussion. POS's in Highsec take a stupid amount of manpower and man hours to destroy. It's never worth it with how easy it is to take your assets out/deny them so that's why POS's wont drive conflict. As things stand there are what a half dozen dedicated high-sec groups even capable of taking down a properly defended large POS. This is why I proposed entosis link structures because if 2 20 man corps wanna fight over some back end constellation nobody has ever heard of they can. If 2 500 man mega corps wanna brawl it out over Aulari (Osmons Constellation) They also can. However if a 20 man corp wants a Corp Struct in Osmon they only have to compete with the moon spaces available so if they have PvP capabilities they will be able to place one over a group that doesn't. But this doesn't count out the non PvP corps they simply get no 'bonus' for not risking the PvP and staying in a non deccable corp. People will choose a corp based on play style. Perhaps remove corp size restrictions from the OP? Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4411	Posted - 2015.05.02 02:33:47 - [259] - Quote If the intended result of this proposal is to kill small corporations, it will definitely succeed at it. What I see happening is that this will simply drive more players into NPC corporations (where they'll have to just work a little harder to offset the additional tax hit) and you'll see larger mercenary corporations (maybe) attacking each other over the constellation-area structures to gain a +15% boost to their PvE activities. On the other hand, they may just divide up high-sec in a similar fashion as was done for POCOs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 544	Posted - 2015.05.02 02:42:45 - [260] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: If the intended result of this proposal is to kill small corporations, it will definitely succeed at it. What I see happening is that this will simply drive more players into NPC corporations (where they'll have to just work a little harder to offset the additional tax hit) and you'll see larger mercenary corporations (maybe) attacking each other over the constellation-area structures to gain a +15% boost to their PvE activities. On the other hand, they may just divide up high-sec in a similar fashion as was done for POCOs. except for the part where the social corps aren't wardeccable and small corps are currently dead in high sec as is. Infact any time a corp approaches 20-30 members its ground into the dust by the mercenaries. These changes coupled with the limited number of decs will mean that smaller corps are much more likely to thrive and larger corps would need to PvP in order to hold onto valuable constellations. also there are a lot of constellations about the place highsec could hardly be divided up between a few groups... Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12863	Posted - 2015.05.02 03:37:00 - [261] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: If the intended result of this proposal is to kill small corporations, it will definitely succeed at it. One wonders on what merit those small PvE corps that depend on dec dodging exist in the first place. As far as personal income, making player corps worth fighting for would incentivize people to not recruit so one sidedly, and then they'd be capable of fighting back. Would it destroy the current paradigm of highsec corps? Probably, but that's not a bad thing. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1395	Posted - 2015.05.02 05:48:26 - [262] - Quote Noragen Neirfallas wrote: also there are a lot of constellations about the place highsec could hardly be divided up between a few groups... That coming from Marmite, who together with RVB just kicked PIRAT around in the Domain area only to let small corps' pocos fall back to PIRAT is almost comical. Currently, there is no point in small corps holding assets in economical areas unless they do it by the security by obscurity paradigm, neither will it be after such a change. They would, just as now, be forced to go to less and less attractive areas of space, where no one cares to go, and where they have less means to make money and where transportation cost, for instance, eats up a lot of the potential profits of production. I indeed see a lot of strive here. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 546	Posted - 2015.05.02 06:06:17 - [263] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Noragen Neirfallas wrote: also there are a lot of constellations about the place highsec could hardly be divided up between a few groups... That coming from Marmite, who together with RVB just kicked PIRAT around in the Domain area only to let small corps' pocos fall back to PIRAT is almost comical. Currently, there is no point in small corps holding assets in economical areas unless they do it by the security by obscurity paradigm, neither will it be after such a change. They would, just as now, be forced to go to less and less attractive areas of space, where no one cares to go, and where they have less means to make money and where transportation cost, for instance, eats up a lot of the potential profits of production. I indeed see a lot of strive here. How do you propose our groups like PIRAT and Marmite A could continue to exist with these changes and B could/ would hold more then one area at a time Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1395	Posted - 2015.05.02 06:16:40 - [264] - Quote By lack of opposition. You should realize full well that, when you take the past into consideration, no change to encourage more corporation activity and fight for what you want to keep has resulted in any significant change of behavior in players. They always chose the path of least resistance. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4413	Posted - 2015.05.02 06:33:31 - [265] - Quote Noragen Neirfallas wrote: except for the part where the social corps aren't wardeccable and small corps are currently dead in high sec as is. Infact any time a corp approaches 20-30 members its ground into the dust by the mercenaries. These changes coupled with the limited number of decs will mean that smaller corps are much more likely to thrive and larger corps would need to PvP in order to hold onto valuable constellations. also there are a lot of constellations about the place highsec could hardly be divided up between a few groups... Except why pay $50-million for effectively the same benefits of an NPC corporation? As soon as you hit 20 members you have the options of capping membership, disbanding or paying another $200-million to upgrade your corporation - at which point you can be ground into the dust by the mercenaries. You can count the number of alliances that effectively hold the vast majority of high-sec POCOs on one hand. And these are system-specific. How would constellation-wide be any different? With respect to small high-sec corporations, I agree with your assessment. Between AWOX'ing and WarDecs they've been effectively harvested for entertainment. And that's before we even get into things like ganking, off-grid boosting and neutral rep'ing alts. High-sec is the shallow end of the kiddy pool. Maybe it's high-time some of the larger corporations were forced out into low-sec. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 546	Posted - 2015.05.02 06:43:59 - [266] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: By lack of opposition. You should realize full well that, when you take the past into consideration, no change to encourage more corporation activity and fight for what you want to keep has resulted in any significant change of behavior in players. They always chose the path of least resistance. But there are no benefits short a pos for a corp. This gives a significant benefit. As far as a merc group controlling these they may take one for an ALT corp but the current alliances that do this would likely fragment and being mercs wouldn't have any interest in holding a bunch of pave structures on ALT corps. One suggestion to stop this was adding a requirement of activity in the constellation before you could contest a structure. Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 547	Posted - 2015.05.02 06:52:16 - [267] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Noragen Neirfallas wrote: except for the part where the social corps aren't wardeccable and small corps are currently dead in high sec as is. Infact any time a corp approaches 20-30 members its ground into the dust by the mercenaries. These changes coupled with the limited number of decs will mean that smaller corps are much more likely to thrive and larger corps would need to PvP in order to hold onto valuable constellations. also there are a lot of constellations about the place highsec could hardly be divided up between a few groups... Except why pay $50-million for effectively the same benefits of an NPC corporation? As soon as you hit 20 members you have the options of capping membership, disbanding or paying another $200-million to upgrade your corporation - at which point you can be ground into the dust by the mercenaries. You can count the number of alliances that effectively hold the vast majority of high-sec POCOs on one hand. And these are system-specific. How would constellation-wide be any different? With respect to small high-sec corporations, I agree with your assessment. Between AWOX'ing and WarDecs they've been effectively harvested for entertainment. And that's before we even get into things like ganking, off-grid boosting and neutral rep'ing alts. High-sec is the shallow end of the kiddy pool. Maybe it's long overdue for some of the larger corporations to be relocated to low-sec. Please read everything before you proceed to place your foot in your mouth... Noragen Neirfallas wrote: So to rework it how does this sound NPC corps 10% tax. SC 0% tax before player tax. PC 0% tax before player tax. PC can anchor the proposed structures. High sec gets 10% less base yields to balance the equations How does this sound? 10% tax break to social corps. Latest change we are discussing regarding corp differences Also this Noragen Neirfallas wrote: Perhaps remove corp size restrictions from the OP? Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12865	Posted - 2015.05.02 07:15:25 - [268] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: They would, just as now, be forced to go to less and less attractive areas of space, where no one cares to go, and where they have less means to make money and where transportation cost, for instance, eats up a lot of the potential profits of production. I indeed see a lot of strive here. So you're telling me that this would also help break up trade hubs into smaller localized areas? Beautiful. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1395	Posted - 2015.05.02 07:18:28 - [269] - Quote I have profound doubts that this would happen. It is already difficult to sell many things in Amarr, compared to Jita. Even more fragmentation would just lead to even less sales and ultimately and quickly back to concentration. So, if you wanted to try and set up a hub, you'd bind money there, lose money there to taxes/fees and ultimately have to ship to a big hub anyways and lose money on transportation and fees/taxes again. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4414	Posted - 2015.05.02 13:03:35 - [270] - Quote Noragen Neirfallas wrote: Please read everything before you proceed to place your foot in your mouth... NPC - 20% tax (no WarDec), Social - 10% tax ($50m ISK setup, 20 players max, no WarDec), Corporation - 0% tax ($200m ISK setup, 10 players min, WarDec). Unless you updated this somewhere other than the OP(s)? So basically my incentive is to establish my own corporation for $50m ISK and pay a flat 10% CONCORD tax to save the 1% over the cost of remaining in a NPC corporation (which is increasing to 20%). If I'm already fine with paying 11% in a NPC corporation, what would be the possible incentive to get me to spend $200m ISK to setup a 0% taxable corporation that requires a minimum of 10 players and can then be WarDec'd? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: 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.