EVE Search - Imbalance ... the Nano-Inertial Battleships

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Imbalance ... the Nano-Inertial Battleships

» 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 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Dendrin Koljn Minmatar Elite United Corp	Posted - 2007.02.25 17:24:00 - [961] take it as read that i think these need, tweaking, as no single ship should be able to successfully beat so much solo. 1. When the MWD is 'ON' all other mods cant be activated. - Mwd just uses to much power or 2. While the MWD is 'ON' lasers do 50% more damage to shields - because so much power is diverted to the mwd hybrids do 25% more to shields, 25% more to armour - see above + below Proj do 50% more dam to armour - due to the much higher impact speeds of solid ammo.
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.02.25 17:41:00 - [962] Originally by: Felzius Whoever is calling wcs a counter to nanoships, you're not gonna warp out with 0 cap, now are ya ^^ Yes. Yes you are. Dear God, somebody put him out of my misery... sgb
RoyAraym	Posted - 2007.02.25 19:16:00 - [963] Your nemesis is a nano-bs??? If the answer is "yes"... My question: If you are in a nano-bs with webber??? See your nemesis, fly on it, stop it, let your gang destroy it. No more camping-pirates can avoid to jump in a gate, if a pilot do it manualy (warp to 0 m --> jump)... ... so a nano-bs is functionally only in a pvp situation, and if she (for me a "ship" is a "she") is going to combat with anonther identical nano-bs?? Win the gang/group with more nano-bs??? The counter-ship of a nano-ship is probably the same nano-ship. And the fortune of non nano-ship to be the key to jump in battle and select the nano-ship stopped and destroy them... The key of a victory is not "one ship" but the way "to use all the ship together"...
F Apparition Minmatar Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.25 22:52:00 - [964] Edited by: F Apparition on 25/02/2007 22:49:09 Just throwing an idea in here, but how about making it so that the faster your ship goes, your HP decreases by %? I'm tired, slightly drunk and bored out of my skull. Don't flame me. Originally by: Derek If EVE gave you oral sex every time you used it people would still complain.
DeTox MinRohim Madhatters Inc. Maelstrom Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.26 01:52:00 - [965] Edited by: DeTox MinRohim on 26/02/2007 01:54:36 Just got owned in my interceptor by a lonely Machariel doing 12k/s (non-stop) shooting torpedoes, guns, drones on me, completly nossed and scrambled at 20km (minimum more or less depending on his circling around me) while having fighters on his ass, a Raven, a Domi, and another ship I don't even remember... I usually say "GF"... (not the smack-talker kind at all, I despise this). But on this one ? I mean... like... ffrppprrrffllleeeaaaase.. P.S.: Forgot to mention that he easily popped the raven before switching to me... oh... and did I mentioned that he took all his time to loot the friggin raven wreck ?... yea he did... So here goes another ffrppprrrffllleeeaaaase.. ------ ~~Proud member of the !s~~ I take no responsability for your paranoia ! This sig space is Read-only !
Ryysa North Face Force Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.26 02:25:00 - [966] Originally by: DeTox MinRohim Edited by: DeTox MinRohim on 26/02/2007 01:54:36 Just got owned in my interceptor by a lonely Machariel doing 12k/s (non-stop) shooting torpedoes, guns, drones on me, completly nossed and scrambled at 20km (minimum more or less depending on his circling around me) while having fighters on his ass, a Raven, a Domi, and another ship I don't even remember... I usually say "GF"... (not the smack-talker kind at all, I despise this). But on this one ? I mean... like... ffrppprrrffllleeeaaaase.. P.S.: Forgot to mention that he easily popped the raven before switching to me... oh... and did I mentioned that he took all his time to loot the friggin raven wreck ?... yea he did... So here goes another ffrppprrrffllleeeaaaase.. Losing interceptor to nanobs is retarded, just warp next time, he can never lock you before he warps out. I love people who try to burn out from my nanobs [which has very expensive setups + snake implants]. While if you just hit warp and you are in cruiser or smaller, a nanobs will never get a lock on you before you get out. Exchange "machariel" and "12km/s" with hugin and dualweb in your post, and you will realize you would have died all the same, because you don't know how to play the game. The fact that you got owned in your ceptor has nothing to do with nanobs being overpowered. They are overpowered, but not because of your stupidity. N.F.F. Recruitment
DeTox MinRohim Madhatters Inc. Maelstrom Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.26 02:43:00 - [967] Originally by: Ryysa Originally by: DeTox MinRohim blabla Losing interceptor to nanobs is retarded, just warp next time, he can never lock you before he warps out. I love people who try to burn out from my nanobs [which has very expensive setups + snake implants]. While if you just hit warp and you are in cruiser or smaller, a nanobs will never get a lock on you before you get out. Exchange "machariel" and "12km/s" with hugin and dualweb in your post, and you will realize you would have died all the same, because you don't know how to play the game. The fact that you got owned in your ceptor has nothing to do with nanobs being overpowered. They are overpowered, but not because of your stupidity. Dude (or dudette), since you weren't there and you don't have a clue about how it went on, I'll excuse the useless, uninformed and uncalled trash-talk. THAT was retarded. If you truly think I wasn't trying to get away out of this one the millisecond I saw how ridiculous it was going, think again. I NEVER could get away out of cap I was and blablabla. Me loosing my interceptor to it is the lowest of my concerns and my stupidity had nothing to do with it (your kind really must get down of your highness sometimes - it's a game ffs). The circus that it was (overpowered and unbalanced as it is) is what I'm pointing at. Now of course, my post may not have led you to understand that... I say whatever. ------ ~~Proud member of the !s~~ I take no responsability for your paranoia ! This sig space is Read-only !
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.02.26 10:12:00 - [968] The current counter for nano-bs that I have found runs as follows: 1) Bait the silly nano bs that do cruiser dps with a tanked to hell tier 3 bs. 2) Sit there and laugh at them for a few moments. 3) Jump your nano-bs in, and get him to get a web on one of the enemy nano-bs. 4) Jump the rest of your gang in and utterly gankwtfpwn the tackled nano-bs. 5) Watch his mates run like scared wabbits. 6) Rinse and repeat with the next nano-bs gang. What's the problem with the above scenario? That's right, you have to use the same idiotic setup to catch them as they use, wasting at least one of your valuable bs. And it only works on dumb pilots lacking in scouts. No other counter seems to work, short of a massive interceptor blob. Huginns and rapiers die or get nossed in seconds, don't get me started on them. Feel free to fix this at any point ccp. sgb
Mangus Thermopyle Chosen Path Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2007.02.26 12:10:00 - [969] Maybe nanophoon is slightly to fast, but dont nerf inerta/nanos now that they finally made BS really fun to fly. Besides, you have to gimp your setup pretty badly, meaning a nanophoon will be eaten alive against normally setup BSes unless he can use range/speed to his advantage. In other words, pretty similar to many other ships like for example the vaga.
Rekam Evarg Caldari Union Of Xtreme Military The Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2007.02.26 13:41:00 - [970] Hiya Sorry but I havent read all 33 pages of this thread, so sorry if this as been adressed already.. I have had a idea of a fix for this problem, I posted it else where so here is the link, Linkage As you can see, its not a straight nerf but a balance, that allows those players who wish to use this type of ships to do so, but at a risk. Lets not just stop everyone using them, lets just make them think about their choice.... Rek RekamEvarg Oh Hello, You can see the pub from here. No Animals were harmed in the writing of this post
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.02.26 15:59:00 - [971] Originally by: Rekam Evarg Hiya Sorry but I havent read all 33 pages of this thread, so sorry if this as been adressed already.. I have had a idea of a fix for this problem, I posted it else where so here is the link, Linkage As you can see, its not a straight nerf but a balance, that allows those players who wish to use this type of ships to do so, but at a risk. Lets not just stop everyone using them, lets just make them think about their choice.... Rek An interesting idea, but with a couple of problems as i see it: -The difficulty vs nanoships is often not how much damage you do when you hit, but more a case of ever hitting them at all. -I'm fairly sure ccp never intended bs to go over a few k/s. -You're creating yet more calculations that need to be constantly done, don't forget we are trying to reduce lag all the time not create more! Apart from that, it looks like a solid idea. I'm still behind nerfing nanobs but keeping ships that are designed to go fast tho. sgb
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.26 18:07:00 - [972] Originally by: Derran I just had a thought. I'm not sure if it was mentioned but why not increase the cap usage on the MWD, remove the cap penalty and put a huge agility penalty on it? It occurs to me that the whole point of the MWD originally was just for a sudden burst of speed that applies in a straight line. Wouldn't something like this work best? Figured I'd quote myself here rather than retype. I was thinking of numbers so what about a 75-80% agility penalty when MWD is in use? That way you can still have your burst of speed but your turning ability makes it unviable to keep in orbit while the MWD is on.
ArtemisEntreri	Posted - 2007.02.26 20:12:00 - [973] Originally by: Derran Originally by: Derran I just had a thought. I'm not sure if it was mentioned but why not increase the cap usage on the MWD, remove the cap penalty and put a huge agility penalty on it? It occurs to me that the whole point of the MWD originally was just for a sudden burst of speed that applies in a straight line. Wouldn't something like this work best? Figured I'd quote myself here rather than retype. I was thinking of numbers so what about a 75-80% agility penalty when MWD is in use? That way you can still have your burst of speed but your turning ability makes it unviable to keep in orbit while the MWD is on. You already get an agility nerf, and this would only nerf ships that don't have nano tbh, nerfing agility = nerfing acceleration therefore hurting ships like blasterthron approaching a target etc. MWD is not the problem imo
Ash Vincetti Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.02.26 23:17:00 - [974] The way I see it, there are two possible solutions that are at all elegant. One poster above has suggested the idea of splitting the propulsion mods into frigate/cruiser/battleship sizes. Personally i think the issue is a matter of playing with numbers, which shouldn't affect the game too greatly. Before revelations, iStabs did not come with a mass decrease, it was simply an agility bonus. Once Revelations came out, the mass reduction of the inertial stabilizer, in addition to the agility increase of them, and the nanos, in conjunction with the rigs, caused ships (battleships especially, with it's multitude of lowslots) to reach speeds they were not intended to reach. The problem goes from a full snake implant + rigs + iStabs/Nanoed interceptor reaching 16km/s, to that of a similar battleship reaching upwards of 6km/s. With that tidbit of history in mind, what should be done is have the values of all the propulsion mods & rigs adjusted down. If they were all halved, then those 6km/s become 3, and the 16km/s become 8km/s. Perhaps graded on some sort of curve with stacking penalties, so that the interceptors at the lower levels can achieve similar results than before Revelations, but after 2 of each type, diminishing results really start to sink in. This will naturally have to be tested, and done over several patches to see how the setups and gameplay are affected, but those are my .02 isk on the matter. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel in this issue. If after adjusting the propulsion mods, we continue to see nano battleships abused, then we can start looking into other alternatives, such as the nos/mwd/cap booster/etc nerfs that seem so incredibly ill-conceived. ----- /ash
Akat Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.02.26 23:17:00 - [975] Originally by: ArtemisEntreri Originally by: Derran Originally by: Derran I just had a thought. I'm not sure if it was mentioned but why not increase the cap usage on the MWD, remove the cap penalty and put a huge agility penalty on it? It occurs to me that the whole point of the MWD originally was just for a sudden burst of speed that applies in a straight line. Wouldn't something like this work best? Figured I'd quote myself here rather than retype. I was thinking of numbers so what about a 75-80% agility penalty when MWD is in use? That way you can still have your burst of speed but your turning ability makes it unviable to keep in orbit while the MWD is on. You already get an agility nerf, and this would only nerf ships that don't have nano tbh, nerfing agility = nerfing acceleration therefore hurting ships like blasterthron approaching a target etc. MWD is not the problem imo Agreed. I've heard talk of an MWD nerf and I think it would be a travasty to nerf them when they aren't the problem. The problem IS the istab. Put enough on and a BS is as agile and sometimes faster than an inty. MWDs have enough penalties as it is.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.27 00:59:00 - [976] Originally by: Ash Vincetti The problem goes from a full snake implant + rigs + iStabs/Nanoed interceptor reaching 16km/s, to that of a similar battleship reaching upwards of 6km/s. Try 6 km/s without snakes on a nanophoon (can get a nanophoon to over 7 km/s without any snake implant). Quote: With that tidbit of history in mind, what should be done is have the values of all the propulsion mods & rigs adjusted down. If they were all halved, then those 6km/s become 3, and the 16km/s become 8km/s. The general speed is no real problem - the high speed "oversized" ships can achieve is. Also, such a change would nerf all ships which plainly do not need any nerf, especially all closerange turret setups. Perhaps graded on some sort of curve with stacking penalties, so that the interceptors at the lower levels can achieve similar results than before Revelations, but after 2 of each type, diminishing results really start to sink in. This will naturally have to be tested, and done over several patches to see how the setups and gameplay are affected, but those are my .02 isk on the matter. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel in this issue. If after adjusting the propulsion mods, we continue to see nano battleships abused, then we can start looking into other alternatives, such as the nos/mwd/cap booster/etc nerfs that seem so incredibly ill-conceived.
Ryysa North Face Force Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.27 03:03:00 - [977] Originally by: DeTox MinRohim Dude (or dudette), since you weren't there and you don't have a clue about how it went on, I'll excuse the useless, uninformed and uncalled trash-talk. THAT was retarded. Truth hurts? Quote: If you truly think I wasn't trying to get away out of this one the millisecond I saw how ridiculous it was going, think again. I NEVER could get away out of cap I was and blablabla. That means, you went into nos range of nanobs. And it had time to lock you. The time for a nanobs to lock you is about 12-20 seconds, depending if it has sensor booster and if you have MWD on. That means, you had about 5-6 seconds to initiate warp. 5 Seconds is more than enough to see 6000m/s on the velocity column at the overview. Again, if you lose a ceptor to a nanobs, it either had 3 sensor boosters [which it can't have without uber gimping it's setup] or you just weren't paying attention. I'd say it's the latter. Quote: Me loosing my interceptor to it is the lowest of my concerns and my stupidity had nothing to do with it (your kind really must get down of your highness sometimes - it's a game ffs). The circus that it was (overpowered and unbalanced as it is) is what I'm pointing at. Your inability to pvp has everything to do with it. You are in ceptor/ship highly vulnerable to nos without injector with low tank. You see nanobs? You GTFO, I can warp out my vagabond from a nanobs before it locks me every time, and you can't warp out your CEPTOR? Quote: Now of course, my post may not have led you to understand that... I say whatever. The only thing there is to understand, is that losing a ceptor to a nanobs is a silly mistake. A lot of people do that mistake, but burning away from something that is going faster than you is not very smart [when you can just warp in 2-3 seconds, before said ship has a chance to lock you]. Quote: Originally by: Ryysa Exchange "machariel" and "12km/s" with hugin and dualweb in your post, and you will realize you would have died all the same...snip on the stupid rest Never said otherwise... but the same huggin surviving fighters, domi, raven and else support ? mmm..... mktksbye My hugin can survive fighters, domi, raven and support easily. In fact, my hugin goes over 5km/s. But hey - I'll leave it to you to discover how to pvp in this game, it wouldn't be fun if everything was spoonfed to you now would it? I am not saying nanobs is not overpowered, proportional increase of lowslots => speed is not right, period. Since bigger ships get more slots. But losing a ceptor to a nanobs and then justifying that it was not pilot error makes me laugh :) N.F.F. Recruitment
Zalathar Minmatar Biometaloid INC	Posted - 2007.02.27 10:38:00 - [978] Nano-ships do not necessitate atwitch movement reflex. Nanos are a form of well thought-out strategy! It is not a simple solution, and if u nerf nanos, u would have to nerf snipers too, because the concepts are very similar. Do damage, and avoid it. Nerfing nano ships would also be ANOTHER serious blow to the minmatar. If someone has invested the time, money and thought to make a nano ship, let him have it.u just have to web them and kill the drones, then they are in trouble, beacause they will have a practically non-existant tank.
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.02.27 11:48:00 - [979] Originally by: Ryysa Originally by: DeTox MinRohim My hugin can survive fighters, domi, raven and support easily. In fact, my hugin goes over 5km/s. Good to see you vary your setup from ship type to ship type buddy sgb
Imhotep Khem Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2007.02.27 12:34:00 - [980] I put my rapier on a nano-phoon before. He slid into the gate under the pause my domination webbifier. Nothing I could do about it. I suppose we could have a Sabre jump through and bubble him. But how many different types of ships and pilots should it take to bring down a single battle ship and still be called balanced? ____ If your not dyin' your not tryin'.
Miss CJB Gallente In White Suits	Posted - 2007.02.27 14:32:00 - [981] Edited by: Miss CJB on 27/02/2007 14:30:45 not shore if its bean said allready, havent read all 33 pabes, but wouldnt it be cool and make RP sence, if mwd's didnt work inside warp disruptore bubles? this would provide another counter to nano BS's, other than minni recons. edit: oo, and bost officor webs Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Taiatia ([email protected])
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.27 15:09:00 - [982] Was already suggested, no good idea since you might as well remove all ships which rely on a MWD from the game then. Including inties, shortrange turret ships and blockade runners.
Sartaron Amarr Neo-Tek	Posted - 2007.02.27 15:44:00 - [983] Well, haven't read all 33.... said before.... But: The reason, why the nano-bs have to go is: It just looks stupid, kills game-experience and is totally agains any logic.(Well, the fixed nano-bonus is) It makes makes no sense, that those big ships go that fast. Or keep the relations and make the game unplayable: Make inties go 30km/s. There is no other solution than to change this. Just put a cap on each ship based on its base speed after navigation skill. Like that it can't be raised by more than 100% or so. Just picked the number. Dunno whether it makes sense. But something like this has to be done with each ship. Some more, some less. Or any other solution, that stops this madness. Or give 8 lows to each ship, so that we can make each ship a perfect nano-ship.
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.27 15:49:00 - [984] Originally by: ArtemisEntreri Originally by: Derran Originally by: Derran I just had a thought. I'm not sure if it was mentioned but why not increase the cap usage on the MWD, remove the cap penalty and put a huge agility penalty on it? It occurs to me that the whole point of the MWD originally was just for a sudden burst of speed that applies in a straight line. Wouldn't something like this work best? Figured I'd quote myself here rather than retype. I was thinking of numbers so what about a 75-80% agility penalty when MWD is in use? That way you can still have your burst of speed but your turning ability makes it unviable to keep in orbit while the MWD is on. You already get an agility nerf, and this would only nerf ships that don't have nano tbh, nerfing agility = nerfing acceleration therefore hurting ships like blasterthron approaching a target etc. MWD is not the problem imo I'm not a speed freak so I never really paid much attention to that. Whenever I used a MWD, it was only just to get a boost in a straight line. Doesn't it seem odd that acceleration is based on agility instead of mass? Agility seems more like a stat for maneuverability and difficulty to hit than a stat for propulsion. It seems the only thing mass is tied to is your top speed. You'd think doing it so mass affects speed and acceleration and agility affects only manueverability and difficulty to hit (along with sig radius) would make more sense.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.27 16:33:00 - [985] It's a bit of a naming issue. The agility mod is not really an agility mod. Nanofibers and instabs give beside their speed/mass bonus not a +agility bonus but a negative inertia modifier. And inertia is the force of your mass which is slowing down your acelleration (not really correctly phrased, but you get the idea). The problem really is that outside of changing the physics of space-time the only way to reduce the inertia of an object is to reduce it's mass because it's a direct result of it. The -inertia mod is basically something which is physically impossible.
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.27 21:11:00 - [986] Originally by: Imhotep Khem I put my rapier on a nano-phoon before. He slid into the gate under the pause my domination webbifier. Nothing I could do about it. I suppose we could have a Sabre jump through and bubble him. But how many different types of ships and pilots should it take to bring down a single battle ship and still be called balanced? Glad some one was able to get the right words to put it in the proper perspective. This is what should be said to all people who don't think interceptors known as battleships should be changed.
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.28 01:24:00 - [987] Originally by: Derran Originally by: Imhotep Khem I put my rapier on a nano-phoon before. He slid into the gate under the pause my domination webbifier. Nothing I could do about it. I suppose we could have a Sabre jump through and bubble him. But how many different types of ships and pilots should it take to bring down a single battle ship and still be called balanced? Glad some one was able to get the right words to put it in the proper perspective. This is what should be said to all people who don't think interceptors known as battleships should be changed. If every ship that can reapproach a gate and jump, necessitating aggro management or bumping from the opposition, is overpowered - then we need to rethink pretty much every shipclass except industrials.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.28 10:46:00 - [988] Edited by: Aramendel on 28/02/2007 10:45:35 Difference is that most of those ships are not able to do that in a full combat setup, but only in travelsetups. Also, even if a blasterhtorn could get back to the gate (where I am not sure, I do not think he can acellerate fast enough to be unable to be slowed down before he reaches the gate)..anyway, even if this case a single 08/15 fitted inty should have no problem to jump through and hold him until some of your gang can jump through as well, even if the BS has a 2 bil faction fit. Assuming he does not log, that is, but thats another story. Vs a nanobs you would need at least a nanoed inty and a nanoed minnie recon.
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.02.28 13:55:00 - [989] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 28/02/2007 10:45:35 Difference is that most of those ships are not able to do that in a full combat setup, but only in travelsetups. Also, even if a blasterhtorn could get back to the gate (where I am not sure, I do not think he can acellerate fast enough to be unable to be slowed down before he reaches the gate)..anyway, even if this case a single 08/15 fitted inty should have no problem to jump through and hold him until some of your gang can jump through as well, even if the BS has a 2 bil faction fit. Assuming he does not log, that is, but thats another story. Vs a nanobs you would need at least a nanoed inty and a nanoed minnie recon. Don't forget that apart from those two, needed just to tackle the ship, you will also need enough firepower, spare tacklers, and ecm to kill the bs before it nosses or kills every thing capable of slowing it down. You need about 4-5 ships to have an even chance of catching and killing a nano-bs, which is also roughly the amount you need to take out a carrier. Remind me where this was meant to happen? sgb
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.28 14:57:00 - [990] Edited by: Aramendel on 28/02/2007 14:54:53 Not necessarily. A hug/rapier can easily use 2 webs, 2 damps, MWD and faction scram. Even if the phoon has a sensorbooster it won't be able to target the minnie recon back if it stays more than 24k away from him. If nanoed up it can easily speedtank any drones on it until help arrives (or it is able to kill the drones on it's own). You need the ceptor to keep the phoon from warping before the minnie recon can lock on him and minnie recon to lock him down. It's perfectly able to do so on it's own. Could still fail if you have bad luck (like jumping in 35k from the phoon), though. And still a lot more (highly specialized) effort than you need vs anything else.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: 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.