EVE Search - Carriers still need a boost

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Carriers still need a boost

» 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)
Hellaciouss	Posted - 2006.12.04 20:23:00 - [31] Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen Quote: believe you did have two Lachesis with at least seven damps from just these on you for most of the engagement. I know because I was one of them with 4 damps on you Laughing In the beginning of the fight, there was only the one. Then two came, and my sniper was able to kill it. Unfortunately, it did nothing and I was unable to lock anything at all. Actually, that's not true. If I was not jammed for 3 minutes straight then I might've locked a taranis and blown it away ... but I don't think that would've mattered. I don't mind being blown up but all my effort to bring it to the front lines to support my fleet was taken away by, as you said, just two lachesis (and just the one after the first was killed). A single lachesis with damps shouldn't be shutting down a carrier all by itself. -V So why not have someone use remote sensor boosters on you? They cost way less cap to use then damps. If you're going to go through the trouble to bring it out to help the fleet, don't you think someone should go through the trouble of bringing a ship that will negate dampers? I think one thing that will really help is giving ships that have bonuses to remote damp effectiveness to get bonuses to remote sensor booster effectiveness as well, allowing them to cancel out that damper. An Eye for an Eye so to speak.
Vmir Gallahasen Gallente Omniscient Order The Sani Sabik	Posted - 2006.12.05 00:11:00 - [32] Quote: So why not have someone use remote sensor boosters on you? For the same reason people don't fit the projected eccm, or why it's far more common for a ship to fit for jamming than for not getting jammed. It would be more beneficial to the fleet to have another dampener than another remote sensor booster. Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip New sig coming soonÖ
Hellaciouss	Posted - 2006.12.05 00:24:00 - [33] Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen Quote: So why not have someone use remote sensor boosters on you? For the same reason people don't fit the projected eccm, or why it's far more common for a ship to fit for jamming than for not getting jammed. It would be more beneficial to the fleet to have another dampener than another remote sensor booster. Ok then someone in your fleet is doing something wrong if you have a damp machine damping you if you've got a damper in your fleet as well. If the enemy damper damps the carrier then have your friendly damper damp him which still gives no reason to make carriers immune to EW. There are counters to damps, use them, don't ask for immune to EW because no one uses the counters. If no one wants to use them, well, I don't know what to say.
Davlin Lotze Raging Destruction	Posted - 2006.12.05 00:27:00 - [34] Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 05/12/2006 00:29:50 Originally by: Hellaciouss Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen Quote: So why not have someone use remote sensor boosters on you? For the same reason people don't fit the projected eccm, or why it's far more common for a ship to fit for jamming than for not getting jammed. It would be more beneficial to the fleet to have another dampener than another remote sensor booster. Ok then someone in your fleet is doing something wrong if you have a damp machine damping you if you've got a damper in your fleet as well. If the enemy damper damps the carrier then have your friendly damper damp him which still gives no reason to make carriers immune to EW. There are counters to damps, use them, don't ask for immune to EW because no one uses the counters. If no one wants to use them, well, I don't know what to say. You're being ridiculous. This entire thread isn't about carriers. It's about EW STILL being waaaay overpowered.
Hellaciouss	Posted - 2006.12.05 01:01:00 - [35] Edited by: Hellaciouss on 05/12/2006 01:03:25 Originally by: Davlin Lotze Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 05/12/2006 00:29:50 Originally by: Hellaciouss Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen Quote: So why not have someone use remote sensor boosters on you? For the same reason people don't fit the projected eccm, or why it's far more common for a ship to fit for jamming than for not getting jammed. It would be more beneficial to the fleet to have another dampener than another remote sensor booster. Ok then someone in your fleet is doing something wrong if you have a damp machine damping you if you've got a damper in your fleet as well. If the enemy damper damps the carrier then have your friendly damper damp him which still gives no reason to make carriers immune to EW. There are counters to damps, use them, don't ask for immune to EW because no one uses the counters. If no one wants to use them, well, I don't know what to say. You're being ridiculous. This entire thread isn't about carriers. It's about EW STILL being waaaay overpowered. How is it overpowered when they give counters to dampers/ecm that take a lot less cap to use then the negative EW effects? If you're boosting the carrier or begin damping the enemy damper, that makes the enemy damper worthless, no? Educate me, I'm a newb, seriously.
Vmir Gallahasen Gallente Omniscient Order The Sani Sabik	Posted - 2006.12.05 08:40:00 - [36] Quote: How is it overpowered when they give counters to dampers/ecm that take a lot less cap to use then the negative EW effects? I'll start off with: because there are no ships that give a bonus to countering dampeners/ecm, and many ships that give a bonus to using dampeners/ecm instead? And as soon as you find a ship not using the counter you have fitted, that slot you have used is wasted, whereas if you had an offensive module there instead it would be effective against most any target? Although as a previous poster said, it's derailed from being about carriers to being about Ewar. I'll try to focus on what I'm interested in once more: Why can a single ship stop my capital from being useful, even in a defensive manner? Jam me, damp me, paint me, whatever -- as long as I am not prevented from providing support to my gang members on the battlefield. That's what I'm really after. I should be able to use those capital logistics mods, even if I can't directly harm the enemy. Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip New sig coming soonÖ
MrTriggerHappy Caldari Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2006.12.05 08:48:00 - [37] EW got nerfed.. big style.. it aint overpowered My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance
DriveCrash The Graduates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.05 11:45:00 - [38] how many mid slots does your carrier have? Is there a capital sensor booster? How does sensor strength help vs dampen? 5 frigs with 2 dampners each will overpower a carrier with nothing but sensor boosters in mid (thank you stacking penalty) add 2 nos battleships + alot of time = dead carrier. Fleet: What good does it do to have your entire fleet useing remote sensor boosters to boost a ship that cant do anything but rep at crap range (55km) and send some easily killed fighters out to die? Sorry but carriers are so borked I've yet to see one on a fleet line. Pos parked, fighters sent, pilot afk since he cant see his fighters hp's anyway, and has to rely on the assigned pilot to send them home if needed. Even as a mobile repair station (snipers warp to SS to get rep'd).. the lock time makes it pointless.. better off useing a domi with rep drones and 2 of each large rep =( .. lets not even go into how easy SS's are to bust now.. and oh yeah, cant target inside the pos.. so there goes that idea. Carrier = Iteron MK5 + jumpdrive. yay I've contiuned to train up logistics hopeing someday it would get love and made a viable pvp roll.. So far i've used my skills in missions.. rarely. Carrier was my dream logistics ship.. until i watched one die to 2 bs's and a celestis. I cried. -DCO
MrTriggerHappy Caldari Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2006.12.05 12:31:00 - [39] Originally by: DriveCrash 5 frigs with 2 dampners each will overpower a carrier.. They'll also overpower everyother ship in the game! Lets look at this sensibly people. Also I have seen carriers in fleet battle (again i say this Props to ER/CDC/PURE for putting theirs in) I just wish i frapsed it. My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance
Vmir Gallahasen Gallente Omniscient Order The Sani Sabik	Posted - 2006.12.05 17:17:00 - [40] Quote: As for countering dampners.. its called SENSOR BOOSTERS Unfortunately, those are of limited use against standard dampeners and worthless when fighting anything with a damp bonus. 3 t2 or phased muon damps can dampen a ship to roughly 13% of original lock range and speed with L4 spec skill and no ship bonus. if I used 3 t2 sensor boosters to counter that, I'd have just under half my original lock range and speed -- which is a very nasty hit for a carrier. God forbid if the ship doing the dampening is a celestis, arazu, or lachesis though -- better off just fitting cap rechargers so you don't die as quickly. It's especially nasty when a rook or falcon gets the odd jam in, and it's impossible to finish locking something before you're jammed again. 100-180 seconds to lock a battleship is pretty nasty. Jamming is a little more balanced now, but I'm becoming more and more concerned about dampeners instead -- and I specialize in them. Back to the original discussion again though (since we have once more veered off into the realm of Ewar): can some type of unbreakable "friendly" targeting mode be added, so logistics ships can do their thing even if damped or jammed? Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip New sig coming soonÖ
Hellaciouss	Posted - 2006.12.05 22:14:00 - [41] Edited by: Hellaciouss on 05/12/2006 22:32:59 Ok, but you people arguing that EW is overpowered are forgetting one point. If a celeste is damping your carrier, have a friendly (celeste) damp him. It's really not that hard. Tactics. It's all about who is better prepared. When going into fleet battles with big ships, you should know by now that people are going to be using damps, so you need to start requesting people in your fleet to start carrying damps to counter. Absolutely no reason to nerf EW because you or people in your fleet don't want to bring damps/boosters to negate the enemy fleets damps/boosters. Or, you know, have a squad kill the damper? Meh. Now, I have said this a few times. They need to give ships that have bonuses in EW mods such as dampers a bonus in boosters as well. It will go a long way I think.
Vmir Gallahasen Gallente Omniscient Order The Sani Sabik	Posted - 2006.12.06 08:05:00 - [42] Quote: but you people arguing that EW is overpowered are forgetting one point. If a celeste is damping your carrier, have a friendly (celeste) damp him. This thread has kinda gone off topic of what I wanted to discuss. Let's just forget changing ewar for one second and focus on the improvement I'd like to suggest: let's pretend that I'm in a carrier lending support to a smaller fleet (so that we can engage, even if outnumbered a bit). Current situation) my ship is dampened and rendered ineffective for the remainder of the [short] fight. Suggested change) I am unable to lock hostile targets due to dampening/jamming, so any nos that I may have fit (or disruptors/webs/etc) are completely ineffective. However, my locks on friendly ships are unaffected by hostile actions and I am able to effectively provide logistic support via capital remotes/transfers. What do you think of that? Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip New sig coming soonÖ
Hellaciouss	Posted - 2006.12.06 10:10:00 - [43] Edited by: Hellaciouss on 06/12/2006 10:16:40 Edited by: Hellaciouss on 06/12/2006 10:14:45 Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen Quote: but you people arguing that EW is overpowered are forgetting one point. If a celeste is damping your carrier, have a friendly (celeste) damp him. This thread has kinda gone off topic of what I wanted to discuss. Let's just forget changing ewar for one second and focus on the improvement I'd like to suggest: let's pretend that I'm in a carrier lending support to a smaller fleet (so that we can engage, even if outnumbered a bit). Current situation) my ship is dampened and rendered ineffective for the remainder of the [short] fight. Suggested change) I am unable to lock hostile targets due to dampening/jamming, so any nos that I may have fit (or disruptors/webs/etc) are completely ineffective. However, my locks on friendly ships are unaffected by hostile actions and I am able to effectively provide logistic support via capital remotes/transfers. What do you think of that? Meh. Imo, I wouldn't let that either because locking down a carrier is a legit tactic. Carriers are very powerful support. As I said before, the carrier supports the fleet and the *fleet supports the carrier*. If you don't want to be damped then I suggest getting people to counter enemy dampers or assign them as main (or assign a single squad to do it, he'll warp out most times unless someone gets a scram on him) target and get him down fast, or have someone damp him. I can't stress this enough; There are counters to damper ships. Just because people don't want to play that counter role doesn't mean you should buff the ship (carriers in this case). Work as a team. Remember, The Carrier Supports the Fleet and the Fleet Supports the Carrier. (or any big ship for that matter) Don't really know what else to say.
Astarte	Posted - 2006.12.06 10:25:00 - [44] As a carrier pilot i also had the problem with the lock times especially own gang members it is now nearly impossible to support them in a battle, you are better off with a support cruiser or Battleship. Although i would love to see EW immunity just an increase in locking range to 250 km and better scan resolution would do the trick nicely. For your information modern carriers are actually tested by exploding a waterbomb under them before they are comissioned so they can take more then 1 hit, WW2 carriers still were fragile. The thing i would like to seewould be a HP increase in my 20 mil investment per piece in the fighter drones. They are slightly out of proportion now and PLEASE give me a chance to see if my lovely corp mate treat them right, Give me a chance to see their status and Hitpoints! But thats merely my personal opinion.
MrTriggerHappy Caldari Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2006.12.06 11:47:00 - [45] Ok lets look at this logically.. your saying that you cant use the carrier in fleet because of EW/Damp/jammers etc.. Ok logically speaking primary targets in fleets are EW, so if your getting jammed its in THEIR best option to kill those targets for your continued support.. My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance
Vmir Gallahasen Gallente Omniscient Order The Sani Sabik	Posted - 2006.12.07 01:01:00 - [46] Quote: Ok logically speaking primary targets in fleets are EW, Correct. Usually, the fleet with ewar left at the end will obliterate the other. The outcome is decided at that point. Quote: Ok lets look at this logically.. your saying that you cant use the carrier in fleet because of EW/Damp/jammers etc ... so if your getting jammed its in THEIR best option to kill those targets for your continued support.. I see. In other words, as soon as my fleet kills the other fleet's ewar, I'll be able to support my allies. Unfortunately, once the enemy fleet's ewar is toast the outcome is decided and I'm just part of the "repairing any damage that we can't repair ourselves" crew, which I can do from a safespot much more easily and safely. So, logically speaking, if I cannot affect the outcome of the battle by being there, then why did I bring a carrier in the first place? Would you go to a fight, unable to use your guns until it was decided who was going to win -- and then you could shoot? And if you were going to lose, then you still can't shoot at all and you just watch yourself die a slow, inescapable death? I don't think so. I think you would be pretty upset at this, too. None of this "have your fleet's ewar/guns pwn their ewar", because if we're outnumbered and my carrier is the balancing factor, then my fleet will always get owned because I can't help them. On the other hand, if we outnumber the enemy, then their fleet is going to get pwned instead and I will have done no good at all. One ship or module shouldn't criple an entire capital ship as easily as that. Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip New sig coming soonÖ
MrTriggerHappy Caldari Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2006.12.07 09:32:00 - [47] Quote: Would you go to a fight, unable to use your guns until it was decided who was going to win -- and then you could shoot? And if you were going to lose, then you still can't shoot at all and you just watch yourself die a slow, inescapable death? I don't think so. I think you would be pretty upset at this, too Yes.. been there and done that many a times and it doesnt bother me.. I've seen carriers help turn the tide.. you wouldnt believe what 20 people in frigs with fighter and carrier support can do against 50+ in a mix of bs and hacs. If you want a ship that is immune to EW keep saving and buy yourself a mother ship. I've agreed figthers are outrageously expensive and need to be cheaper.. but as for the carriers needing EW immunity..no chance they are fine as they are! My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance
Vmir Gallahasen Gallente Omniscient Order The Sani Sabik	Posted - 2006.12.07 21:14:00 - [48] Edited by: Vmir Gallahasen on 07/12/2006 21:14:18 Quote: but as for the carriers needing EW immunity..no chance they are fine as they are! I highly doubt you fly carriers, if you really believe that. If one lachesis can nullify my carrier's abilities completely, why wouldn't I bring a lachesis myself instead of a carrier and nullify 2 or 3 of their ships instead? I don't want to be cannon fodder only. I'm not asking for complete immunity, only a new system where a lock on a friendly ship cannot be broken as easily using dampeners or jammers. It's nearly impossible to be useful on the front lines now, due to the abundance of dampeners and the very, very slow lock time of carriers. Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip New sig coming soonÖ
Mitchman Omniscient Order The Sani Sabik	Posted - 2006.12.09 05:35:00 - [49] I'm pretty sure even CCP is considering a instant/support lock option on gang members. The problem is that I know it's be "considered" for a long time. Now is your chance, CCP, to finally make fights longer and more tactical. And it is truly ridiculous that a single dampener ship, overpowered as that module already is, can lock down a carrier indefinately. For those that like to compare it to real life, would you like to see a torpedo boat jam a carrier from doing anything useful?
Talaan Stardrifter	Posted - 2006.12.09 09:42:00 - [50] How about this: Give carriers a 10% resistance to EWAR effects per carrier level? This will reduce the effects of dampeners, decrease the effectiveness of target jammers and warp scramblers.
Mitchman Omniscient Order The Sani Sabik	Posted - 2006.12.09 14:41:00 - [51] Make it based on signal strength of the targetted ship.
Skeltek Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.12.09 21:29:00 - [52] Kali has increased Cap on all ships afaik. Why don¦t you drop 2 cap rechargers and fit ECCM instead? A Carrier with such a sensorstrenght would be stupid to spend 10 Scorpions on for jamming... especialy since EW was nerfed that much...
WildAmishRose Caldari Vale Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.12.09 23:55:00 - [53] Oh, he flies carriers. Where we're from, carriers change the tide of battle. Why? They don't lose to a couple dampner ships then cry 'make me immune' about it.
umah	Posted - 2006.12.10 03:51:00 - [54] Carriers need a boost, First change the name to "escort" carrier, so there's no confusion with RL carriers, which really fit the role of mothership. EVE carriers are capital drone ships, EVE fighters are drones. A mothership coming in a dropping real ships with real pod pilots fits the RL carrier role. The problem with the EVE carrier, is it should not be capital, it needs to have the stats and cost of a BS with the ability to maneuver, lock, and mix it up with the other ships so it can stay on the battlefield Otherwise, its just a big fat capital target waiting for the easy 3B isk takedown. Originally by: Reborn Dragon Edited by: Reborn Dragon on 04/12/2006 18:00:47 Edited by: Reborn Dragon on 04/12/2006 17:36:30 Edited by: Reborn Dragon on 04/12/2006 17:32:07 Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen Wait till you've read the post until you start to flame me. Carriers still need a boost. Hitpoints are fine now, I tested that just last night with a local friendly hostile fleet However, in that fight I quickly realized that carriers still aren't viable on the front lines -- why? Not because of tank or suvivability, but because one ship with dampeners is effectively a permanent target jam. In the entire fight I could do nothing but watch them shoot at me, let alone provide remote aid to my support (which were quickly killed off once I could do nothing). I'd like to see carriers get something similar to motherships, titans, and sieged dreadnoughts -- immunity to electronic warfare (or at least high resistance to it). I don't want immunity to all Ewar, just dampeners, perhaps jammers, etc. If they have two lachesis to pin me down, fine -- permanent jam. But if they've only got 2 or 3 damps on me and my entire ship is rendered useless then I see that as a problem. I don't mind being a damage sponge for some of the fight, but when 10 minutes pass and all there is to do is look at the pretty flashing lights and wonder how much a new carrier will cost, then I'm less inclined to go on the front lines. What do you think? -Vmir I've never flown a carrier but the way I see it is the carrier supports the fleet and the fleet supports the carrier. If you run into a fleet that is using Damps and you don't have sensor boosters or someone in your fleet isn't using remote sensor boosters to help you overcome damps then they were obviously more prepared then you and your fleet and you are going to lose. Just the way I see it, tbo. If you want to avoid damps then get someone to jump in a frigate and remote sensor boost you or put some sensor boosters on. There is no I in "Fleet Battles". Work as a team. What could really help is adding bonuses to remote sensor booster strengths to the same ships that have remote sensor damper strengths.
Mitchman Omniscient Order The Sani Sabik	Posted - 2006.12.10 04:07:00 - [55] Originally by: Skeltek Kali has increased Cap on all ships afaik. Why don¦t you drop 2 cap rechargers and fit ECCM instead? A Carrier with such a sensorstrenght would be stupid to spend 10 Scorpions on for jamming... especialy since EW was nerfed that much... How about reading the post you are replying to? This is not about jamming, it's about sensor dampening.
Vmir Gallahasen Gallente Omniscient Order The Sani Sabik	Posted - 2006.12.10 07:28:00 - [56] Quote: Oh, he flies carriers. Where we're from, carriers change the tide of battle. Why? They don't lose to a couple dampner ships then cry 'make me immune' about it. If you don't really understand what the issue is, then you should refrain from posting meaningless comments such as the one I quoted. This is a discussion, not a whine thread. I didn't lose to a couple dampener ships, I lost to one cruiser. Yes, they brought in more dampener ships in the end but I already couldn't lock anything at all and the battle was a foregone conclusion from that point. It was just a matter of watching them break my tank. Also, since dampening is becoming so common in a fleet now I can only assume that you use your carriers from a pos or safespot judging by your comment, since you haven't experienced the frustration of being completely worthless despite risking so much. I'm a firm believer that risks should be taken and a carrier should really mean something when it's on the front lines, rather than a "sweet, we can gank that when we're done with them!" bonus for the other side. Most people vastly overestimate the power of a carrier, a couple skilled bs pilots can take one down with very little trouble. I'm not asking for immunity for ewar, I'm asking for a new system in which a logistics ship is more than cannon fodder; that it has at least a chance of mattering as much as a combat ship. Give me that chance. Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip New sig coming soonÖ
Lexandrius Megens	Posted - 2006.12.10 13:00:00 - [57] Edited by: Lexandrius Megens on 10/12/2006 13:05:04 Edited by: Lexandrius Megens on 10/12/2006 13:02:49 Quote: I'd like to see carriers get something similar to motherships, titans, and sieged dreadnoughts -- immunity to electronic warfare (or at least high resistance to it). Uhmm... did i miss something or are you blind? You got 2 types of carriers, the "small" and the big ones. The small ones have no EWAR immumity, the big ones do! So why are you posting this as the big carriers DO HAVE immunity to all forms of Electronic Warfare!?! Check this link (it also shows on market in game): http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/ships/carriers/gallente/23913.asp And in case ur to laisy to press the mouse button to read that specs i paste then here for ya: Quote: Gallente Carrier Skill Bonuses: 50% bonus to Shield and Armor transfer range per level 10% bonus to deployed FightersÆ damage per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Clone Vat Bay 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 3 additional Fighters per level Can fit 1 additional Warfare Link module per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare ___________________________________________ SAVE EVE, JOIN THE WAR AGAINST MACROMINERS! 1- exploit petition them 2- loot the cans 3- can trap them 4- kill them _______________________________
Vmir Gallahasen Gallente Omniscient Order The Sani Sabik	Posted - 2006.12.11 06:47:00 - [58] Quote: hmm... did i miss something or are you blind? You got 2 types of carriers, the "small" and the big ones. The small ones have no EWAR immumity, the big ones do! So why are you posting this as the big carriers DO HAVE immunity to all forms of Electronic Warfare!?! You're absolutely, completely right! I shouldn't have purchased that one billion isk ship that really isn't all that useful since it's locked down easily, but instead sprung for the 16-24 billion isk ship that only takes a month or two and a specialized starbase to build! It's also way better! Now why didn't I think of that? Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip New sig coming soonÖ
Bozl1n Caldari Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.12.11 07:58:00 - [59] Quote: It would be too risky loosing the capital sentr...uhm fighters if they are not stripped before the 1-week old noob looses his Condor <.< I LoL'd Lots
insulubria	Posted - 2006.12.11 12:23:00 - [60] Originally by: Bozl1n Quote: It would be too risky loosing the capital sentr...uhm fighters if they are not stripped before the 1-week old noob looses his Condor <.< I LoL'd Lots heh me too :D

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.