EVE Search - Some Tech 1 items which are better than their tech 2 counterparts

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Some Tech 1 items which are better than their tech 2 counterparts

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.03.24 11:31:00 - [1] Hey. I don't normally post writeups on aspects of the game. Well, I used to but I stopped somewhere between now and a year ago. Recently I've come to notice more and more items where the tech 2 version is not as good as a named version. This breaks the idea of meta levels, where the highest meta level named item should be worse than tech 2, or rather that Tech 2 should be better than it. Some examples of T2 modules which are better than their best named counterpart include: All turrets and launchers. - While they have the same stats as best named, they can use tech 2 ammo All armour and shield hardeners All active and passive armour repairers All active and passive shield boosters Reactor Control Units Power Diagnostic Units All turret damage mods Ballistic control units Capacitor Batteries Sensor booster - same stats but has a longer cycle duration to make it more cap efficient Remote Sensor booster Co-Processors Cloaking devices Damage Control Unit All Afterburners and Microwarpdrives All warp scramblers (increased range) Overdrives Shield extenders Shield Boost Amplifiers Smartbomb (increased range) Cap Rechargers Cap flux coils All Drones and ammo (they don't have named versions, though) All rigs (again no named versions) Nanofibres Shield Rechargers Shield Power Relays Shield flux coils There are probably more but I didn't go through everything. So the design trend is firmly set - T2 gear is better than the best named gear but has higher fittings and skill requirements. Why else would people use it when named gear is availible on the market in sufficient quantities to supply the whole demand in eve at a reasonably low price? People choose T2 hardeners, for example, because they are better than the readily availible alternatives of Tech 1 and named. Unfortunately, there are groups of modules which break this trend and as such their tech 2 versions are barely used and are not worth inventing. Until recently, Tech 2 cap boosters were useless because they simply held one more charge in their capacity but had the same cycle duration as tech 1, while the best named had a reduced duration. This was recently fixed so that the T2 version has the same cycle duration as the best named and keeps the increased capacity. This is a good fix but there are other mods that need fixed. Here is a list of module types which are not any better than their tech 1 counterparts and not worth using due to increased cap use, powergrid use, cpu use and cost, making the abundant and usually cheap named alternative a better choice: ECCM and projected ECCM ECM jammers and ECM burst Target Painters, sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors Sensor Backup arrays Shield transporters/remote armour repairers Nosferatu Armour plates - Hp bonus is the same but the named version adds less mass to the ship. As a result, rolled tungsten is better than the T2 version if mass is important to you and the same otherwise. And now for some modules where the tech 2 version is actually WORSE than the best named and so they aren't used in the game at all or is barely used. Inventing these modules is like throwing away your datacores, bpcs and decryptors: Stasis Webifier - Best named is 90% speed reduction at 10km. T2 is 80% speed reduction at 10km. Heavy Energy Neutralisers - The best named heavy neut uses 500 of your cap to neut 600 of the enemy's at a range of 25.2km. The T2 version uses 600 of your cap to neut 600 of the enemy's at a range of 25.5km. So the T2 version uses more capacitor, powergrid and CPU and gains 300m range. As a result, less than 10 Heavy neut IIs sell in jita each week while over 400 of the best named ones sell. Continued... Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.03.24 11:38:00 - [2] Edited by: Nyphur on 24/03/2007 11:36:41 ... continued. Medium neuts - of special note are medium energy neutralisers, who's best named versions use 150 cap to neut 180 while T2 uses 170 to neut 170. So not only do they neutralise MORE, they use less cap to do so and top top it off, the best named has 100m additional range. Inertial stabalisers - The t2 and best named both give 20% inertia bonuses but the T2 gives 11% sig radius penalty while the best named gives only 8% Energy transfer arrays - The large named version uses 338 energy to give 324. The T2 version uses 439 energy to give 351. It's incredibly inefficient compared to the best named one and its only redeeming factor is 750m extra range. The medium and small show a similar tale. Capacitor Power Relay - best named and T2 both give 24%, while trends with other mods would suggest it should give 25% as it used to before it was actually released. The tech 2 version has a higher shield boost penalty. It is my opinion that these modules are broken and require a fix. Many of these tech 2 items were not in the game until recently and may have been prenerfed or have skipped detailed balancing control before being released as blueprints or inventable products. I think it's about time they get looked at. If I may be so bold as to suggest some changes: ECCM - Make the T2 give 100%, not 96%. Projected ECCM - Make the best named give under 120%. ECM, Target painters, sensor dampeners, tracking disruptors - Give T2 additional optimal range but the same strengths as best named. Shield transporters/remote armour repairers - give T2 the same stats as best named but additional range. Nosferatu - Reduce diminishing nos effectiveness slightly but enough to make a difference. e.g. Heavy nos 110 instead of T2's 120. Stasis web - Give T2 12km range but keep the 80% strength Armour plates - Increase the HP given by T2 or reduce the HP given by rolled tungsten. Also, why are nanofibre plates heavier than others instead of lighter? Heavy neuts - Since long range is the domain of faction and officer versions of this module, make them neut 600 cap for under 500 cap (my suggestion is 450) and adjust all faction and officer versions to reflect this change. Medium neuts - As above, make it more cap efficient than the best named version, either by reducing the Tech 1 and named version's efficiency or increasing the tech 2 version's efficiency. This is a job for the guys who balance things. Inertial stabalisers - Not a huge deal. Could be left as they are but I'd sugfest rebalancing such as decreasing best named to 18% or increasing T2 to 22%. Even 21%, anything so it's better than named gear. Energy transfer arrays - Match the cap use of best named with T2 but leave the slightly increased transfer amount of T2 in. Capacitor Power Relay - Restore the 25% figure to the T2 version. These are simply suggestions but I definitely think something needs done about useless T2 modules. In particular, the neutraliser is something I'd like to see changed, and not just because I just bought a BPO of the heavy neut II - that was a bit of a motivator for me to post this isntead of jsut complaining to people I know about it. I feel that altering the difference in cap efficiency between best named and tech 2 neuts is important as additional range simply would not make it better than best named. Neuts are becoming a very important part of capital and battleship conflicts and it's a darn shame that even though bpos are out and tons of them are on the market, Tech 2 neuts aren't worth using over cheap named ones. The other major issues I see are webbers, where it's just plain silly to have the tech 2 version being weaker than and the same range as the best named and even second best named. Cap relays are another one that I feel is important and T2 energy transfer arrays really have been left behind in the balancing act. These things, in my humble opinion, are not correct and need changed. Thank you for reading. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
LordInvisible Gallente adeptus gattacus O X I D E	Posted - 2007.03.24 14:22:00 - [3] well, didnt read all this mumbo jumbo, but i sure agree that t2 mods should have better statistics then t1 part.. have u checked if there is any problem with faction stuff too? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.03.24 14:38:00 - [4] Originally by: LordInvisible well, didnt read all this mumbo jumbo, but i sure agree that t2 mods should have better statistics then t1 part.. have u checked if there is any problem with faction stuff too? There are indeed some faction modules which do not give a higher bonus than T2, such as true sansha capacitor rechargers, but even they have lower fittings than T2. Many faction items have T2 stats and lower fittings and while I'm not sure hwat the exact design ethos was behind faction loot I KNOW that tech 2 stuff is not meant to be outdone by tech 1 named gear. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Kar Anshral	Posted - 2007.03.24 15:30:00 - [5] Edited by: Kar Anshral on 24/03/2007 15:28:48 With the passive non-energized resist plating the T2 is worse then the best named. 'refuge' adaptive nano gives 15.36% resist while the T2 adaptive nano gives 12.5%. T2 cap relay is also worse then best named, they both reduce cap recharge time by 24% but T2 reduces shield boost by 11% and best named only by 10%. I think with T2 with EW modules is that the T2 would be more readily available(and thus cheaper) then the best named T1 but use more cpu/cap. Like with the T2 medium nosferatu, I use those on Hurricane because I have the grid/cpu to spare anyway and don't wanna spend too much to get diminishings(which are rather expensive partly because of the curse/pilgrim) Webifiers really need to be improved though, the T2 version is soo bad, the moment you fit it, your ship explodes!
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.03.24 19:09:00 - [6] Originally by: Kar Anshral With the passive non-energized resist plating the T2 is worse then the best named. 'refuge' adaptive nano gives 15.36% resist while the T2 adaptive nano gives 12.5%. T2 cap relay is also worse then best named, they both reduce cap recharge time by 24% but T2 reduces shield boost by 11% and best named only by 10%. I got the cap relay one but I did miss the passive non-energized armour resist plating. That's another one. Originally by: Kar Anshral I think with T2 with EW modules is that the T2 would be more readily available(and thus cheaper) then the best named T1 but use more cpu/cap. That would have been my guess but the same is not true of most other T2 items. Originally by: Kar Anshral Like with the T2 medium nosferatu, I use those on Hurricane because I have the grid/cpu to spare anyway and don't wanna spend too much to get diminishings(which are rather expensive partly because of the curse/pilgrim) This is perfectly reasonable but to the game, T2 cost more than t1. Refine both and see which gives more. Additionally, the opposite is true of neuts, where the best named cost peanuts. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.03.26 05:20:00 - [7] This really needs sorted. How some of these items made it into the game I don't know but I suspect they weren't actually rebalanced before being made inventable or bpos being released. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Par'Gellen Gallente Low Grade Ore	Posted - 2007.03.26 07:15:00 - [8] The named target painter "Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron" is better than its T2 counterpart. It also probably wins the "Longest Module Name In Eve" award. --- CCP : Save my mousewheel!
Syrann The Praxis Initiative FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.26 16:18:00 - [9] Originally by: Par'Gellen The named target painter "Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron" is better than its T2 counterpart. It also probably wins the "Longest Module Name In Eve" award. True - but it's also the only one that can be abbreviated to PWNAGE. Also, /signed. There are also quite a few T2 modules with ridiculously low skill training requirements (lvl 1 for T1, lvl 2 for Tech 2), but since the modules are worse then T2, it doesn't really matter. ------------ It's great to be Ama... Erm crappit, nevermind.
Random Caldari	Posted - 2007.03.27 10:23:00 - [10] Edited by: Random Caldari on 27/03/2007 10:20:24 Originally by: Nyphur Hey. I don't normally post writeups on aspects of the game. Well, I used to but I stopped somewhere between now and a year ago. Recently I've come to notice more and more items where the tech 2 version is not as good as a named version. This breaks the idea of meta levels, where the highest meta level named item should be worse than tech 2, or rather that Tech 2 should be better than it. Do not confuse Tech Level with Meta Level the two are not directly related. All player manufacturable gear is Meta Level 0 afaik Tech level is a seperate attribute of an item an can be viewed on the info sheet , Meta level cannot be viewed on the info sheet and can only be deduced by looking at the items stats. It is possible to have Tech II Items with a Meta Level , I know some exist in the data dump , but I dont know if they have ever been released in game. Tech II gear requires more skill to use. therefore if all tech II items were made better than top named it would alter the balance between new players and old players. Things are good as they are, it may be true that certain items need love/nerfage but to make all Tech II better than Top named would make the game much too biased to older skilled players. Most Tech II Items are produced in large enough quantities to make them expendable, Where as Top Named (where it is better than Tech II) tends to be an expensive substitute item for those that dont have the skill to fit tech II.
Esaka Hunters Agency Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.03.27 15:44:00 - [11] Originally by: Syrann Originally by: Par'Gellen The named target painter "Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron" is better than its T2 counterpart. It also probably wins the "Longest Module Name In Eve" award. True - but it's also the only one that can be abbreviated to PWNAGE. LOL! Ontopic: I don't know if it was intended that way (probably not), but I like the fact that you just can't rely on fitting t2 and be done. Doing some analysis of what is really better and using named t1 stuff were it helps rewards your for thinking beyond t2 = i-win. This of course can be argued by higher t2 fitting requirements and setup problems you'll get when only using t2 stuff. -------------------------------------- Agent & Mission-Info: http://www.eveinfo.com Evewide Market-Info: http://eve-central.com/
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.03.27 16:36:00 - [12] Originally by: Random Caldari Do not confuse Tech Level with Meta Level the two are not directly related. All player manufacturable gear is Meta Level 0 afaik Things are good as they are, it may be true that certain items need love/nerfage but to make all Tech II better than Top named would make the game much too biased to older skilled players. Most Tech II Items are produced in large enough quantities to make them expendable, Where as Top Named (where it is better than Tech II) tends to be an expensive substitute item for those that dont have the skill to fit tech II. Are you sure that tech 2 and faction are not given a meta level rating? You can include faction items in invention runs to increase success chance. Though you can't include tech 2 so I would guess you're right. Let's be clear, level 4 in a single skill is usually the skill requirement of tech 2 modules, barring things like weapons which need specialisation skills. That's not a whole lot of training time. The tech 2 modules listed are not, by any measure, a domain of exclusivity for older players. Making them better than best named does not unbalance the game toward older players. To get from using a tech 1 module to using its tech 2 counterpart is only a week or two of training time. The main problem is not that all tech 2 items are not better than best named. I'd not be happy to see them all be about as good as best named but at least then they'd be consistently best named items but producable on demand. The main problem I'm having is that the design ethos for tech 2 is not consistent. Some tech2 items are better than best named, some are about the same and some are even worse! There are tech 2 items in eve which are simply not worth using, under any circumstance, ever. An example is the stasis webiffier II. The worst named version, which sells for about the same price as the basic tech 1 version, are almost identical to tech 2. Tech 2 gives 80% slowdown at 10km, worst named gives 78.75% at 10km, it has less cap usage and a third less CPU usage than the tech 2 and only needs propulsion jamming 1 compared to 4. This isn't the best named, this is the worst named. The best and second-best named are better in every way. Another issue I see with tech 2 items that are not better than the best named gear is simply that with the increase in players, a lot of named gear is more availible than its tech 2 counterparts. Named gear will always be cheaper than tech 2 if tech 2 is better since the minimum price tech 2 can sell for is the price of tech 1 plus additional components and minerals - while tech 1 named items refine for about the same amount as tech 1 standard modules and can be sold for as low as the price fo tech 1. Essentially, both items can be sold for a minimum of base mineral cost and in the case of tech 2, that is much more than best named. Regardless of everything else, there should not be tech 2 items in the game which are not worth buying over readily availible, cheap alternatives. The price of named tech 1 gear should NOT be allowed to dictate the maximum price tech 2 will sell for because the price of tech 1 named gear can feasibly go as low as the price of tech 1 standard gear. And since tech 1 gear is needed to build tech 2, it's always going to cost more to manufacture than tech 1. So it's entirely plausible for there to be a tech 2 item out there that is worse than named versions and more expensive to manufacture than the named costs to buy. Want an example? Stasis webbifier II. Build cost in minerals is about 200k, but there are "Patterned Stasis Web I"s for sale for under 100k. the patterned version is better in all ways than tech 2. Therefore, the tech 2 version is not worth building even if you had a free bpo. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Kataclismo	Posted - 2007.03.27 18:07:00 - [13] the t2 spend much more CPU/PG then its t1 counterpart... BUT it gets benefits from specialization skills and you need highers skill lvl's to use it, soo it makes the t2 much more powerfull then t1. For sure there are nameds and factions much better then t2's but players may not produce'em and they are "rare" stuff.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.03.27 18:11:00 - [14] Originally by: Kataclismo the t2 spend much more CPU/PG then its t1 counterpart... BUT it gets benefits from specialization skills and you need highers skill lvl's to use it, soo it makes the t2 much more powerfull then t1. For sure there are nameds and factions much better then t2's but players may not produce'em and they are "rare" stuff. Very few T2 modules have specialisation skills, only weapons as far as I am aware. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Kar Anshral	Posted - 2007.03.27 19:41:00 - [15] I believe what is missing for modules is standardized rules about how modules improves from T1 to meta/T2/faction/... Like meta has better stats, T2 has a specialisation skill effect, faction is better then T2 etc etc. Right now the way modules improves seems arbitrary and up to the creator/designer that put the modules into the database. Creating some ground rules that have to be followed by every module and then going over every module ingame to have them follow these rules closely.
Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.03.27 22:31:00 - [16] Could CCP at least fix the armor plates? T2 being worse than T1 makes no sense, at all. Raptor and Ares Fix
Artu Stargazer	Posted - 2007.03.28 02:32:00 - [17] The T2 Shield Transporters get the same range and Shield/Second as the best T1 named. However, they do it for less cap (66 for a S95a Small, 60 for the T2). The fitting requirements however are pretty insane. 84 CPU for a small, 126 on a medium, 154 on large, and I'm not sure they ever seeded Large Transporter II BPOs.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.03.29 14:02:00 - [18] Originally by: Kai Lae Could CCP at least fix the armor plates? T2 being worse than T1 makes no sense, at all. Off the top of my head, T2 armour plates are the same as best named but give more mass. Mass isn't really a HUGE thing unless you're using an oversized plate and mwd. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.03.30 13:50:00 - [19] Update: From another thread, I gather that they've improved T2 Stasis webs on sisi to be the same as best named but with higher cpu use. This is one step in the right direction. There are plenty more modules that are worse than best named and need some attention. There are also still others such as battleship mods and armour plates that are just as good as best named and in the same abundance on the market but simply aren't worth fitting due to grid and cpu reqs. That might be balanced out by the prices dropping due to invention but if you recall, I made an argument above showing that the best named items can ALWAYS undercut Tech 2 prices and make a profit even if the tech 2 versions aren't making any profit at all. This might be solved by increases in supply of tech 2 or decreases in supply of best named gear but one thing is for sure - right now, some tech 2 modules that are working as intended are not worth buying over their named counterparts. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.04.04 20:53:00 - [20] Updated the first post. T2 Stasis webs are now on TQ with the same stats as best named. That is perfectly acceptable. It doesn't follow the same trend as warp disruptors/scramblers and may leave the huginn slightly weaker than the lachesis but that's a matter for another discussion. That's one crossed off the list, here's what's left in the list of modules whose Tech 2 version is worse than Tech 1 named and thus useless: Energy Neutralisers Energy Transfer Arrays Adaptive Nano Membrane (non-energised) Armor coating (passive non-energised armour resistance plating) And these two are arguable: Inertial stabalisers - This one can be ignored if we're assuming the signature radius penalty isn't a measure of ability Capacitor Power Relay - Gives the same percentage as best named. Can be ignored I guess. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Airmaker Umbra Congregatio	Posted - 2007.04.06 10:16:00 - [21] The webbifiers do have the same 90% speed reduction and range, but the skil requirements are higher and fittings worse than best named. For the greater investment in skill training and the greater hit on CPU / Power that T2 items require, I really expect some benefit on the actual working end of the mod, i.e. either speed reduction or range. Of course the current stats don't make the item unusable or unsellable, (if people only used or bought the best items, we wouldn't be building any T1 stuff) but those stats must really put anyone off from inventing the T2 bpo and manufacturing the webber IIs - although there may be a market for them, I think it will be small and the profits low.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.04.07 13:44:00 - [22] Originally by: Airmaker The webbifiers do have the same 90% speed reduction and range, but the skil requirements are higher and fittings worse than best named. For the greater investment in skill training and the greater hit on CPU / Power that T2 items require, I really expect some benefit on the actual working end of the mod, i.e. either speed reduction or range. Of course the current stats don't make the item unusable or unsellable, (if people only used or bought the best items, we wouldn't be building any T1 stuff) but those stats must really put anyone off from inventing the T2 bpo and manufacturing the webber IIs - although there may be a market for them, I think it will be small and the profits low. Considering the price of the best named right now and the cost of T2 to manufacture through invention, I'd say T2 has the price advantage at the moment. However, as I said before, T2 base costs are higher than T1 base costs and the named items refine into roughly T1 base cost worth of minerals. The best named can always be sold cheaper than T2 without making a base loss. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Rhaegor Stormborn	Posted - 2007.04.07 14:30:00 - [23] Originally by: Syrann Originally by: Par'Gellen The named target painter "Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron" is better than its T2 counterpart. It also probably wins the "Longest Module Name In Eve" award. True - but it's also the only one that can be abbreviated to PWNAGE. Rofl.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.04.13 17:03:00 - [24] Updated the second post. Webbers have been fixed. Time for energy transfers, energy neutralisers and possibly: Cap relays ECCM ECM Target painters Sensor dampeners Tracking disruptors Sensor boosters and sensor backup arrays. Nosferatu Shield transporters Armour plates Inertial stabalisers. I don't care how they're fixed as long as we don't have a whole list of T2 modules that aren't worth using :/. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Von Druid Black Omega Security GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.04.13 19:13:00 - [25] Edited by: Von Druid on 13/04/2007 19:11:01 Webbers aren't fixed. They have the same range and velocity reduction as the best named webbers, but use more cap and have higher fitting requirements - they are worse than the best named. I don't think the price advantage counts :)
Bowlance	Posted - 2007.04.14 07:39:00 - [26] I completely agree with the OP on the fact that there are many t2 items that have no use what-so-ever when compared to t1 named items. But I don't know if he mentioned this or not, but I think t1 should be worse, named t1 w/ low skills should be average, t2 should be good, and all the faction gear should be best. In that order. I don't agree that t2 gear should have higher fitting requirements than named t1 gear.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.04.22 00:58:00 - [27] I'm still adamant that something be done about useless Tech 2 modules. Just the other day, someone was telling me that his corpmates made fun of him for making a setup that used T2 neuts because named were cheaper, better in every way and easier to fit. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.04.26 22:13:00 - [28] While we're at it, how about making bulkheads and non-energized passive membranes useful? Non-energized membranes are considered frigate modules by the game, while energized are considered cruiser modules. It's been a very long time since a frigate hasn't had a better choice of module for a low slot than a non-energized membrane. In the current state of the game, people tend to either you an energized one if they have the CPU or a speed module if they don't. I can't really see a use for non-energized membranes. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Tonto Auri Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2007.04.26 22:35:00 - [29] You lost point at start by forgot that T-I named modules are non-restorable equipment. You can quickly build plain T-I(MT0) item or T-II(MT5) module if You have BPO(or enough runs BPC), but not MT1-MT4. So I think there's not a case of general problem, but I agree that some T-II equipment need love. At least it must have fitting closer to T-I counterparts (and not twice than T-I, else I'd go for any MT1 equipment which not that rare/expensive(and sometimes cheaper!) and saves my CPU/PG alot). -- .
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.04.26 23:51:00 - [30] Originally by: Tonto Auri You lost point at start by forgot that T-I named modules are non-restorable equipment. No, I covered that during the thread a few times. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.