EVE Search - Decline in numbers... starting to turn into RAPID!!!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Decline in numbers... starting to turn into RAPID!!!

» 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 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 146 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13386	Posted - 2016.01.19 01:39:02 - [4111] - Quote Captain Tardbar wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Captain Tardbar wrote: Still. Were these ship deaths in Hi, Null, or Low Sec? I mean if they are in null, they weren't care bears. Carebears can exist in every security status of space. High, low, nul, or wormhole, risk aversion is not restricted to any one of them. This is true. Also, a death in high sec is no less 'consensual' than a death elsewhere. EVE Online features universal non-consensual pvp. Any ship in space is at risk. Understanding this is one of the keys to success in EVE Online, especially as a PVE player. It does matter. A 50K EHP skiff can basically assume that they will never get ganked in high sec, whereas a 50K EPH tank in null sec will do nothing except take longer to die. If you fly a 50K EHP skiff in high sec, it is safe to assume you will not be ganked and if you do it would have been worth it to see them waste battleships to kill you. The point is that either one is subject to unwanted pvp at anytime. The 50k ehp skiff is a smart move, it is not immune.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7412	Posted - 2016.01.19 01:40:36 - [4112] - Quote Captain Tardbar wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Captain Tardbar wrote: Still. Were these ship deaths in Hi, Null, or Low Sec? I mean if they are in null, they weren't care bears. Carebears can exist in every security status of space. High, low, nul, or wormhole, risk aversion is not restricted to any one of them. This is true. Also, a death in high sec is no less 'consensual' than a death elsewhere. EVE Online features universal non-consensual pvp. Any ship in space is at risk. Understanding this is one of the keys to success in EVE Online, especially as a PVE player. It does matter. A 50K EHP skiff can basically assume that they will never get ganked in high sec... Anyone can assume they won't get ganked in highsec. That doesn't change the fact that the act of undocking is consent to PVP, and they can definitely be ganked. If you think Procs and Skiffs don't get ganked in high sec, think again. I saw two Procs not that long ago ganked by three Catalysts each. There's no such thing, and nor should there be, as 100% safety. The assumption of that safety is an assumption only based on an illusion of safety that one creates for their self. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 105	Posted - 2016.01.19 01:42:52 - [4113] - Quote Tippia wrote: Nothing remotely close to a link to the evidence Starting to think you are going to run circles forever
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7414	Posted - 2016.01.19 01:47:38 - [4114] - Quote King Aires wrote: Tippia wrote: Nothing remotely close to a link to the evidence Starting to think you are going to run circles forever Dank projection buddy. The evidence has been provided, and your denial of it/inability to understand it is your own failure. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26774	Posted - 2016.01.19 01:52:22 - [4115] - Quote King Aires wrote: Starting to think you are going to run circles forever Until you follow the links provided, you probably will. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Captain Tardbar Interstellar Incorporated 1139	Posted - 2016.01.19 02:02:51 - [4116] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Captain Tardbar wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Captain Tardbar wrote: Still. Were these ship deaths in Hi, Null, or Low Sec? I mean if they are in null, they weren't care bears. Carebears can exist in every security status of space. High, low, nul, or wormhole, risk aversion is not restricted to any one of them. This is true. Also, a death in high sec is no less 'consensual' than a death elsewhere. EVE Online features universal non-consensual pvp. Any ship in space is at risk. Understanding this is one of the keys to success in EVE Online, especially as a PVE player. It does matter. A 50K EHP skiff can basically assume that they will never get ganked in high sec... Anyone can assume they won't get ganked in highsec. That doesn't change the fact that the act of undocking is consent to PVP, and they can definitely be ganked. If you think Procs and Skiffs don't get ganked in high sec, think again. I saw two Procs not that long ago ganked by three Catalysts each. There's no such thing, and nor should there be, as 100% safety. The assumption of that safety is an assumption only based on an illusion of safety that one creates for their self. I challenge you or CODE to stop the 50 man skiff fleets. You are 99.99999999999% safe in an NPC corp if you fly 50K EPH Skiffs in high sec and it would cost more in catalysts to destroy one. Considering these 50 man fleets probaly made more than 1 Skiff in an hour. Its a pointless affair. If you are a high sec player, you can be fairly smug and assured that no one is going to kill your 50K EHP skiff and if they did kill it, then it would cost much more in the kill. Which is why it matters where the numbers are coming from. Skiffs aren't dying in hi sec and therefore are not affecting the PVP averse players who don't go to null and low. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 43463	Posted - 2016.01.19 02:14:43 - [4117] - Quote I don't think CODE works like that. Why would they gank a 50 ship Skiff fleet when they can more easily gank pilots that haven't adjusted to their presence? Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7415	Posted - 2016.01.19 02:24:52 - [4118] - Quote Captain Tardbar wrote: I challenge you or CODE to stop the 50 man skiff fleets. You are 99.99999999999% safe in an NPC corp if you fly 50K EPH Skiffs in high sec and it would cost more in catalysts to destroy one. Considering these 50 man fleets probaly made more than 1 Skiff in an hour. Its a pointless affair. If you are a high sec player, you can be fairly smug and assured that no one is going to kill your 50K EHP skiff and if they did kill it, then it would cost much more in the kill. Which is why it matters where the numbers are coming from. Skiffs aren't dying in hi sec and therefore are not affecting the PVP averse players who don't go to null and low. You are picking at details and intentionally dodging the overarching point, while at the same time unintentionally making it. 50 man skiff fleets are rare and as such they are an exception to the rule. But they are only an exception by virtue of strength in numbers and strength in ship choice. There are easier targets to go after. That is, they are an exception to the rule because they are mitigating the risk of undocking, but not negating it. Meanwhile, the risk itself remains the same. That being said, if you're going to pull percentages out of thin air, you'd better have a source to cite them from or I'm going to dismiss them out of hand. As for your silly little challenge, there is no need to gank the whole fleet to prove the risk exists and remains the same for everybody. One ship would suffice. This 'challenge' is little more than an attempt at a 'gotcha' that fails by virtue of you missing the whole point. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Captain Tardbar Interstellar Incorporated 1139	Posted - 2016.01.19 02:35:31 - [4119] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Captain Tardbar wrote: I challenge you or CODE to stop the 50 man skiff fleets. You are 99.99999999999% safe in an NPC corp if you fly 50K EPH Skiffs in high sec and it would cost more in catalysts to destroy one. Considering these 50 man fleets probaly made more than 1 Skiff in an hour. Its a pointless affair. If you are a high sec player, you can be fairly smug and assured that no one is going to kill your 50K EHP skiff and if they did kill it, then it would cost much more in the kill. Which is why it matters where the numbers are coming from. Skiffs aren't dying in hi sec and therefore are not affecting the PVP averse players who don't go to null and low. You are picking at details and intentionally dodging the overarching point, while at the same time unintentionally making it. 50 man skiff fleets are rare and as such they are an exception to the rule. But they are only an exception by virtue of strength in numbers and strength in ship choice. There are easier targets to go after. That is, they are an exception to the rule because they are mitigating the risk of undocking, but not negating it. Meanwhile, the risk itself remains the same. That being said, if you're going to pull percentages out of thin air, you'd better have a source to cite them from or I'm going to dismiss them out of hand. As for your silly little challenge, there is no need to gank the whole fleet to prove the risk exists and remains the same for everybody. One ship would suffice. This 'challenge' is little more than an attempt at a 'gotcha' that fails by virtue of you missing the whole point. I'm using the 50 fleet example as a point to why its safe in high sec to flaunt the skiff. A playing mining by themselves in a single skiff with 50K EHP is just as safe. No one targets skiffs in high sec anyways. Not even CODE. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7415	Posted - 2016.01.19 03:22:18 - [4120] - Quote Captain Tardbar wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Captain Tardbar wrote: I challenge you or CODE to stop the 50 man skiff fleets. You are 99.99999999999% safe in an NPC corp if you fly 50K EPH Skiffs in high sec and it would cost more in catalysts to destroy one. Considering these 50 man fleets probaly made more than 1 Skiff in an hour. Its a pointless affair. If you are a high sec player, you can be fairly smug and assured that no one is going to kill your 50K EHP skiff and if they did kill it, then it would cost much more in the kill. Which is why it matters where the numbers are coming from. Skiffs aren't dying in hi sec and therefore are not affecting the PVP averse players who don't go to null and low. You are picking at details and intentionally dodging the overarching point, while at the same time unintentionally making it. 50 man skiff fleets are rare and as such they are an exception to the rule. But they are only an exception by virtue of strength in numbers and strength in ship choice. There are easier targets to go after. That is, they are an exception to the rule because they are mitigating the risk of undocking, but not negating it. Meanwhile, the risk itself remains the same. That being said, if you're going to pull percentages out of thin air, you'd better have a source to cite them from or I'm going to dismiss them out of hand. As for your silly little challenge, there is no need to gank the whole fleet to prove the risk exists and remains the same for everybody. One ship would suffice. This 'challenge' is little more than an attempt at a 'gotcha' that fails by virtue of you missing the whole point. I'm using the 50 fleet example as a point to why its safe in high sec to flaunt the skiff. Then it's a failure of an example because, once again, it's the exception, not the rule. It's like using the 0.3-0.5% of transgender people to claim that the human race is not a dimorphic species. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7415	Posted - 2016.01.19 03:28:40 - [4121] - Quote Captain Tardbar wrote: No one targets skiffs in high sec anyways. Not even CODE. Comments like this show how little you understand, and subsequently, how little you have to contribute to this discussion. That took me all of a few seconds to find. Both of them. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1857	Posted - 2016.01.19 04:48:16 - [4122] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Captain Tardbar wrote: No one targets skiffs in high sec anyways. Not even CODE. Comments like this show how little you understand, and subsequently, how little you have to contribute to this discussion. That took me all of a few seconds to find. Both of them. To be fair, those fits are kinda missing the point of the Skiff at well under half the potential EHP.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7418	Posted - 2016.01.19 05:02:31 - [4123] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Captain Tardbar wrote: No one targets skiffs in high sec anyways. Not even CODE. Comments like this show how little you understand, and subsequently, how little you have to contribute to this discussion. That took me all of a few seconds to find. Both of them. To be fair, those fits are kinda missing the point of the Skiff at well under half the potential EHP. These were posted to refute the claim that 'no one targets skiffs in high sec'. Clearly, someone has targeted skiffs in high sec. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7075	Posted - 2016.01.19 07:59:08 - [4124] - Quote Tippia wrote: What other GÇ£shiptypes of circumstance of deathGÇ¥ are of relevance to the killing of miners and the miner interdictions in question? You need to read further than one post to understand that the discussion is actually about gankikng, not just the mining interdiction. Stop being terrible. Scipio Artelius wrote: Tippia presented the data is response to a claim that there wasn't evidence to support the view that Eve was more violent when it had higher numbers: Correct, but all she showed was mining barge deaths, not ganks, one set of data from zkb and the other from an unnamed source. Scipio Artelius wrote: I would find it ridiculous if the procurer losses were all ganks and that high. So would I, which is why using this data to back baltec1s claim that ganking has decreased over time is ridiculous. Basically it's another of those time where Tippia goes off on a tangent to derail a conversation. I'm still calling for baltec to prove with verifiable evidence that ganking occurs less now than in previous years, because a record breaking burn X event followed by a second burn war akini event last year tells me that ganking is pretty common. For Tippia there is an easy solution, I'm just going ignore anything she says as It's guaranteed to be a time waste to read it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26777	Posted - 2016.01.19 08:52:37 - [4125] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: You need to read further than one post to understand that the discussion is actually about gankikng, GÇªwhere the killing of miners was used as an example, which is what I followed up on. Stop projecting your wishes further than what the conversation was actually about. Quote: Correct, but all she showed was mining barge deaths, not ganks, one set of data from zkb and the other from an unnamed source. The sources were named and linked. They were also far more reliable than zkb, even in its current state. You're just so caught up in refusing to read what I write that you skip over this little detail. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7075	Posted - 2016.01.19 09:50:22 - [4126] - Quote Shhhh. You are wrong. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26783	Posted - 2016.01.19 11:22:51 - [4127] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Shhhh. You are wrong. Convincing argumentation. Just watch the clip and read the PDF. I know it's horrible for you, but at least you won't remain wilfully ignorant then. That's a good thing, just so you know. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17122	Posted - 2016.01.19 11:36:41 - [4128] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Take an average Saturday when numbers on are fairly high. Uedama alone almost certainly sees more isk value destroyed by ganks than any given region of sov sees in ratting losses. Uedama losses to ganking on the 9th January 2016 24,548,919,939.01 Deklien ratting losses on the 9th January 2016 109,121,516,407.86 So the most policed region in null has over 4x more killed than one of the most dangerous highsec systems. Yet another myth busted. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17364	Posted - 2016.01.19 11:54:45 - [4129] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Vic Jefferson wrote: Take an average Saturday when numbers on are fairly high. Uedama alone almost certainly sees more isk value destroyed by ganks than any given region of sov sees in ratting losses. Uedama losses to ganking on the 9th January 2016 24,548,919,939.01 Deklien ratting losses on the 9th January 2016 109,121,516,407.86 So the most policed region in null has over 4x more killed than one of the most dangerous highsec systems. Yet another myth busted. Those are just facts, thought. They're nothing to do with the Truth. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7075	Posted - 2016.01.19 12:39:40 - [4130] - Quote It's funny though, because baltec is still dodging the call to prove ganking is less common now than in previous years. Oh and Tippia, shh. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17124	Posted - 2016.01.19 12:47:39 - [4131] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: It's funny though, because baltec is still dodging the call to prove ganking is less common now than in previous years. Oh and Tippia, shh. Malcanis wrote: Those are just facts, thought. They're nothing to do with the Truth. By the way, just so it's clear, while I don;t agree with the guy that uedama is going to have more losses than null ratters of an entire region, he did say "Take an average Saturday", while baltec chose the one saturday when a multiboxing ratter lost 24 carriers in Deklein. I showed you, that you are unwilling to follow information or links is not my problem. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7075	Posted - 2016.01.19 12:50:09 - [4132] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I showed you, that you are unwilling to follow information or links is not my problem. No, you didn't. You simply restated that ice interdictions happened and still ignored the record breaking gank events from last year. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 109	Posted - 2016.01.19 12:55:20 - [4133] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: baltec1 wrote: I showed you, that you are unwilling to follow information or links is not my problem. No, you didn't. You simply restated that ice interdictions happened and still ignored the record breaking gank events from last year. But Lucas, the mouth-breathers don't consider blowing up Freighters and Orcas and Bowheads ganking remember.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7428	Posted - 2016.01.19 12:55:30 - [4134] - Quote Tippia wrote: Redacted wrote: Shhhh. You are wrong. Convincing argumentation. Just watch the clip and read the PDF. I know it's horrible for you, but at least you won't remain wilfully ignorant then. That's a good thing, just so you know. I still don't understand why people take this guy seriously enough to argue with. Come on guys, we can do better! "Hide post" is a wonderful tool, and you know CCP have used it to hide this guy's nonsense already so let's all band together and do the same! GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Nana Skalski Poseidaon 3066	Posted - 2016.01.19 12:58:53 - [4135] - Quote This thread is silly. Everyone should post their log in numbers and date, to make it even sillier. ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ GòáGò¼GòªGò¼Gòú - my sandcastle ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ <=X - my yacht
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26785	Posted - 2016.01.19 13:04:00 - [4136] - Quote King Aires wrote: But Lucas, the mouth-breathers don't consider blowing up Freighters and Orcas and Bowheads ganking remember. The only one saying that is Lucas, so unless you're calling him a mouth-breather, your insulting the wrong people. Quote: Oh and Tippia saying that you linked to your 2008 sources by simply saying "I got them from CCP" is not actually linking them. GÇªand that's why I linked them instead. You should follow those links. Again, I understand that you don't want to since you want to maintain this truly fascinating head-canon where we I didn't follow my own dictum and you had some reason to be outraged. Unfortunately, reality has a strong anti-you bias in this regard, and at some point, you're just going to have to accept that reality. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 145	Posted - 2016.01.19 13:12:08 - [4137] - Quote Quote: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. 36. Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. More often than not, posts of this nature are made with inflammatory intent and are designed to promote trolling and flaming. Therefore, the posting of links to kill reports from any third party site, or the direct copy-pasting of kill reports from in game is prohibited on all forum channels of the EVE Online Forums, with the exception of the Crime & Punishment Channel. Removed post and those quoting them for the above reasons. ISD Max Trix Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department I do not respond to Evemails.
King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 110	Posted - 2016.01.19 13:21:12 - [4138] - Quote I actually followed your link. And it doesn't say what you think it says. They are listing the first jihadswarm ganking event of 2008 for Q1 and Q1 only. Those numbers are an anomaly and don't support baltec1's theory that 2012 was worse than 2014 or 2015. Furthermore, look at the player averages during and after said event. Eve-Online was growing very fast 2004-2008. Ganking events started Q1 2008 and the growth stopped cold. By March of 2008 the numbers dropped and stayed down until the winter expansion 2008 late. What happened in November 2008? Quantum Rise. So unless you want to lend credence to the idea that ganking killed the growth of the game from 2004-2008, your numbers show that one concentrated event that went from an average of what you linked to over 30 procurers per day in 2015. Well I don't think you want to go there.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7075	Posted - 2016.01.19 13:24:12 - [4139] - Quote Tippia wrote: So I'm right then Nope, I'm just done with feeding the troll. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26785	Posted - 2016.01.19 13:24:47 - [4140] - Quote King Aires wrote: I actually followed your link. And it doesn't say what you think it says. You have the quotes. Please show where they differ from what was said and written. Quote: Ganking events started Q1 2008 and the growth stopped cold. By March of 2008 the numbers dropped and stayed down until the winter expansion 2008 late. GÇªwhich is exactly what I said. Lucas Kell wrote: I'm just the troll. Your continued use of fallacies will not suddenly make you right or me wrong. You still lost. Live with it. I formally accept your surrender. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 146 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,20s, ref 20251007/2043
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.