EVE Search - Please fix the lag in Jita/Motsu/etc.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Please fix the lag in Jita/Motsu/etc.

» 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 - 11 post(s)
Marquis Dean The Last Thing You'll Ever See	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:03:00 - [31] I think the corp-level LP pool is the best idea i've heard in ages. It would allow people to spread out of their own accord. And i'm not sure moving Lvl4s to losec is necessary, people will either just not run them, or they will go nuts on level 3s. And can you imagine the complaints on the forums? I know that shouldn't matter, but it will break world records. If the corp-level LP can be fasttracked, it would solve issues like the Santenpaa constellation almost overnight. --- Originally by: CCP Sharkbait will explain when i have the time i promise
Velsharoon Gallente Endgame.	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:15:00 - [32] Originally by: Dal Thrax Originally by: CCP Sharkbait i thing that worries me tbh is that the current agent system was not designed to handle the amount of people that it is having to. there is a change i would like to see but i think it would annoy too many people and will not happen. this is what i would like to see all lv5 agents put into 0.0 all lv4 agents moved to 0.0 and low sec. all lv3 agents moved to 0.2 - 0.6 sec systems. all lv2's and lv1's found in 0.6 and higher. the main reason i would like to see it happen is because i think the current system can't handle the amount of people doing missions (over 110k per day are completed and rising) and with the amount of new people starting and the PCU always on the rise, i think we need to get a new agent system in that will work better with a large online count. now we have the warp to 0 feature ingame, i can't see that this would be a problem tbh. this is just my view and not an offical "this is whats happening n00bs" statement Sharkbiat, I think you're underestimating the inginuity of pirates. Once any type of traffic becomes common in low sec pirate group will arrise with the capability to gank it. If you where able to move Motsu to low sec and if folks followed the agents there would be a brief blood bath/piracy spree followed by the abandonment of those agents. If you're considering moving agents to low sec tbh I would recommend that you get an alt in a low sec carebear corp for a month or so to get a feel for low sec before moving agents there. Remember level 4 missions require bigger ships, bigger ships can't align and warp before jump cloak breaks. This means that they can be locked and scrammed before warp which honestly I think is a large reason why people won't run missions in low sec (unless the price of gear where to decline so that top level mission runers weren't flying on average 2bil in ship + geat). Also how do you plan to stop "content ownership". Every 10/10 plex in the game is currently owned by a major alliance. How do you plan to avoid a similar situation in low sec with groups monoplozing agents. Somehow I don't think it's your intent that only major alliance members should get to use high level agents. Dal ONOES CAREBEARS FORCED TO INTERACT WITH OTHER PLAYERS SHOCK HORROR Now I totally get were your coming from, but if pirates can be smart and figure out how to kill carebears then damn well the carebears can sort themselves out (Namatz akin or whatever did this and im sure others have to)
Vincent Lionhart	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:27:00 - [33] I'm beginning to wonder if I should just move agents. From what the dev has said: nothing is going to be done about this for a while. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only player getting ****ed off about this... Time to find a new agent and forget my LP.
Becky Cynohooker	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:38:00 - [34] There are a few players in my corp that run with the Caldari Navy agents out of Motsu, and while they'd love to move, don't wish to loose all their LP's. If LP's moved to the corp as opposed to agent level, most of these players have stated that they'd move to less lagged, but lower quality agents. They just don't wish to throw away all the LP's they're already earned.
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:40:00 - [35] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 07/04/2007 17:37:05 Originally by: Vincent Lionhart I'm beginning to wonder if I should just move agents. From what the dev has said: nothing is going to be done about this for a while. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only player getting ****ed off about this... Time to find a new agent and forget my LP. Ive been telling people this from day one... I must be a genius. Staying around for years in the same system, hoping there will some day magically be no lag despite every new mission runner picking the exact same system... where do i NOT sign? --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune
Pardack State War Academy	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:42:00 - [36] Originally by: CCP Sharkbait i thing that worries me tbh is that the current agent system was not designed to handle the amount of people that it is having to. there is a change i would like to see but i think it would annoy too many people and will not happen. this is what i would like to see all lv5 agents put into 0.0 all lv4 agents moved to 0.0 and low sec. all lv3 agents moved to 0.2 - 0.6 sec systems. all lv2's and lv1's found in 0.6 and higher. the main reason i would like to see it happen is because i think the current system can't handle the amount of people doing missions (over 110k per day are completed and rising) and with the amount of new people starting and the PCU always on the rise, i think we need to get a new agent system in that will work better with a large online count. now we have the warp to 0 feature ingame, i can't see that this would be a problem tbh. this is just my view and not an offical "this is whats happening n00bs" statement I really don't like this as an answer. You're just moving the problem and 'defining' it away by putting missions in low-sec. Many people will not go for this change, including me. The thing that frustrates me the most is the 'justification' of moving many L3s and all L4s to low/no-sec space. You're just moving the problem to areas where people who run these missions DO NOT want to go, thus defining away the problem. Which is also the most simple way to be done with it. There are already agents in low-sec, how many people run them? Not too many compared to high-sec agents. Do you really think this is just a coincidence? Low-sec is underpopulated as it is and I can see the reasoning to move missions there to reduce load, I do not see it as a panacea. There are other ways to encourage people to go there, other than forcing them there. Sure, you'll 'distribute' the load more evenly by having people leave and less people to do them. Is that really the solution you want? There have been tons of suggestions on how to fix this, search and read the forums. The best one I can see is to simply add more agents to more diverse regions of space. There are TONS of high-sec constellations and systems out there, why force people into low/no-sec? Wouldn't adding agents and actually distributing many of the same quality agents more evenly around high-sec perform the same function? Mission running isn't the pew pew that some seem to believe EVE is ALL about. There are many aspects to the game and missions are a BIG part. Check your own numbers. 110k missions per day being done, isn't that a fairly large HINT that a lot of people like doing missions? They're short things that people with not a lot of time can do with the hour or two they get to play. Moving missions to low-sec doesn't encourage player interaction either. The mission runners who brave low-sec will still play the same as before. Again, just moving the problem. Sharky, I love ya. You give great info about what's happening in EVE when things go wrong. I think you need to re-evaluate your stance and consider the 'carebear' point of view and see how the changes effect them. Yeah I've done the alliance, 0.0, pew-pew, lagging fleet battle, POS war, station ping-pong thing and it's just not my playstyle. I like eve because of the 'sandbox' mentality. You make the game what it is. Artifically forcing people into holes, ruins this and would reduce my proclivity to play. Sure mission running in low/no-sec can be done, but I despise 'looking over my shoulder' every 5 seconds to make sure I'm not being attacked. A little more creative thinking other than PVP, PVP, PVP would be a refreshing change.
Pardack State War Academy	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:46:00 - [37] Originally by: Vincent Lionhart I'm beginning to wonder if I should just move agents. From what the dev has said: nothing is going to be done about this for a while. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only player getting ****ed off about this... Time to find a new agent and forget my LP. I did the same thing recently, moved to a new agent out of the Saila/Motsu area as I had worse lag there than in Jita with 4x as many people. The lag is much better but the LPs I left behind stinks.
Lord Dynastron Mystical Knights Legionnaire Services Ltd.	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:46:00 - [38] Hehe,, poor Sharky,,, how do all those words taste that people are sticking into your mouth?!

CCP Sharkbait	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:49:00 - [39] Originally by: Vincent Lionhart I'm beginning to wonder if I should just move agents. From what the dev has said: nothing is going to be done about this for a while. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only player getting **ed off about this... Time to find a new agent and forget my LP. it's something we are working on and i want to try and get some things done for the revelations 2 patch. Originally by:** Pardack Originally by: CCP Sharkbait i thing that worries me tbh is that the current agent system was not designed to handle the amount of people that it is having to. there is a change i would like to see but i think it would annoy too many people and will not happen. this is what i would like to see all lv5 agents put into 0.0 all lv4 agents moved to 0.0 and low sec. all lv3 agents moved to 0.2 - 0.6 sec systems. all lv2's and lv1's found in 0.6 and higher. the main reason i would like to see it happen is because i think the current system can't handle the amount of people doing missions (over 110k per day are completed and rising) and with the amount of new people starting and the PCU always on the rise, i think we need to get a new agent system in that will work better with a large online count. now we have the warp to 0 feature ingame, i can't see that this would be a problem tbh. this is just my view and not an offical "this is whats happening n00bs" statement I really don't like this as an answer. You're just moving the problem and 'defining' it away by putting missions in low-sec. Many people will not go for this change, including me. it's not happening, who said it was ? i said it's something i would like to see. this is a discussion board and i'm allowed an opinion

Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:53:00 - [40] Come on sharky, we all know you have this pink divine rod you wave around the office and everyone does what you say... And.. please dont interpret pink rod as anything other than a, umm, pink rod... --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune
Vincent Lionhart	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:53:00 - [41] I'm pretty sure the devs won't be that stupid. They realize that a large portion of the people who play this game are carebears...or at least have some carebear in them. I've been to 0.0, but if I had to make isk by ONLY being in 0.0 I'd quit this game because then I might as well go play Lineage 2.

CCP Sharkbait	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:56:00 - [42] i bet if i said i wanted to jump off a cliff none of you would try to stop me. move a few agents, well.....................

Alex Tremayne Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:57:00 - [43] Originally by: CCP Sharkbait Originally by: Pardack Originally by: CCP Sharkbait Really good idea for sorting out agent problems I really don't like this as an answer. You're just moving the problem and 'defining' it away by putting missions in low-sec. Many people will not go for this change, including me. it's not happening, who said it was ? i said it's something i would like to see. this is a discussion board and i'm allowed an opinion Apparently not. Even when you're right. Go on, make the changes just to spite them now. You know it makes sense. Lyrus Associates' Diplomat Of Last Resort
Pardack State War Academy	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:01:00 - [44] Edited by: Pardack on 07/04/2007 18:02:26 Edited by: Pardack on 07/04/2007 18:00:17 Originally by: CCP Sharkbait Originally by: Vincent Lionhart I'm beginning to wonder if I should just move agents. From what the dev has said: nothing is going to be done about this for a while. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only player getting **ed off about this... Time to find a new agent and forget my LP. it's something we are working on and i want to try and get some things done for the revelations 2 patch. Originally by:** Pardack Originally by: CCP Sharkbait i thing that worries me tbh is that the current agent system was not designed to handle the amount of people that it is having to. there is a change i would like to see but i think it would annoy too many people and will not happen. this is what i would like to see all lv5 agents put into 0.0 all lv4 agents moved to 0.0 and low sec. all lv3 agents moved to 0.2 - 0.6 sec systems. all lv2's and lv1's found in 0.6 and higher. the main reason i would like to see it happen is because i think the current system can't handle the amount of people doing missions (over 110k per day are completed and rising) and with the amount of new people starting and the PCU always on the rise, i think we need to get a new agent system in that will work better with a large online count. now we have the warp to 0 feature ingame, i can't see that this would be a problem tbh. this is just my view and not an offical "this is whats happening n00bs" statement I really don't like this as an answer. You're just moving the problem and 'defining' it away by putting missions in low-sec. Many people will not go for this change, including me. it's not happening, who said it was ? i said it's something i would like to see. this is a discussion board and i'm allowed an opinion It IS a discussion. I never said it was happening. I'm responding to your statements . The fact that you have this position is what bugs me. How do you see this as a change for the better for those who don't prefer pvp? Also, since you're a member of the dev team your opinion has a lot more weight in meetings and discussions than players. We're not there. So your opinion impacts all those who don't agree with you. I'm putting out the argument and reasons why I don't think this should happen. Learn to take a little criticism and banter before rolling your eyes. Which is again, the easy way out rather than addressing the issue. *edit Please don't jump off a cliff :) I like ya too much. Stay cool

CCP Sharkbait	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:06:00 - [45] hehe just for the record i aviod meetings at all costs. they bore me to tears. i found a great way of getting out of them, but i have kept and will keep this a secret for as long as possible.

Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:08:00 - [46] Originally by: CCP Sharkbait hehe just for the record i aviod meetings at all costs. they bore me to tears. i found a great way of getting out of them, but i have kept and will keep this a secret for as long as possible. Alienate everyone around you? Yeah I use that too. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune
Lord Dynastron Mystical Knights Legionnaire Services Ltd.	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:10:00 - [47] Originally by: CCP Sharkbait hehe just for the record i aviod meetings at all costs. they bore me to tears. i found a great way of getting out of them, but i have kept and will keep this a secret for as long as possible. You mean like working until after 6pm on a saturday so you have to come in late monday,, narrowly missing the 10am meeting!? ...which makes me wonder,,, why are you working late on a Saturday!? Yuck
Pardack State War Academy	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:11:00 - [48] Edited by: Pardack on 07/04/2007 18:09:04 Originally by: CCP Sharkbait hehe just for the record i aviod meetings at all costs. they bore me to tears. i found a great way of getting out of them, but i have kept and will keep this a secret for as long as possible. You're just trying to get on my good side :) I HATE meeings, with a passion, ugh. A meeting once in a while is OK. Meetings to talk about past meetings and future meetings and having meetings about meetings... Meetings are the bane of programatic existence. * License plate "I'd rather be programming" Also, you don't have to publicly announce your secret, you can e-mail it to me :) I bet it has something to do with passing gas :)
qrac Caldari Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:17:00 - [49] Edited by: qrac on 07/04/2007 18:13:50 Originally by: CCP Sharkbait the main reason i would like to see it happen is because i think the current system can't handle the amount of people doing missions (over 110k per day are completed and rising) and with the amount of new people starting and the PCU always on the rise, i think we need to get a new agent system in that will work better with a large online count. now we have the warp to 0 feature ingame, i can't see that this would be a problem tbh. this is just my view and not an offical "this is whats happening n00bs" statement Most missions nowadays are deadspace missions. Why not move the deadspace area to a separate node? The only reason against this would be that the session changes cost is greater than the cost saved by relocating the mission to another node. This should be pretty easy to implement since you can't warp straight to the mission but need to use a gate. -------------------------------------------
Lord Dynastron Mystical Knights Legionnaire Services Ltd.	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:19:00 - [50] Originally by: qrac Edited by: qrac on 07/04/2007 18:13:50 Originally by: CCP Sharkbait the main reason i would like to see it happen is because i think the current system can't handle the amount of people doing missions (over 110k per day are completed and rising) and with the amount of new people starting and the PCU always on the rise, i think we need to get a new agent system in that will work better with a large online count. now we have the warp to 0 feature ingame, i can't see that this would be a problem tbh. this is just my view and not an offical "this is whats happening n00bs" statement Most missions nowadays are deadspace missions. Why not move the deadspace area to a separate node? The only reason against this would be that the session changes cost is greater than the cost saved by relocating the mission to another node. This should be pretty easy to implement since you can't warp straight to the mission but need to use a gate. Hmm,, good idea,, but I suspect that is already what is happening.
Pardack State War Academy	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:33:00 - [51] Edited by: Pardack on 07/04/2007 18:31:26 Originally by: Lord Dynastron Originally by: qrac Edited by: qrac on 07/04/2007 18:13:50 Originally by: CCP Sharkbait the main reason i would like to see it happen is because i think the current system can't handle the amount of people doing missions (over 110k per day are completed and rising) and with the amount of new people starting and the PCU always on the rise, i think we need to get a new agent system in that will work better with a large online count. now we have the warp to 0 feature ingame, i can't see that this would be a problem tbh. this is just my view and not an offical "this is whats happening n00bs" statement Most missions nowadays are deadspace missions. Why not move the deadspace area to a separate node? The only reason against this would be that the session changes cost is greater than the cost saved by relocating the mission to another node. This should be pretty easy to implement since you can't warp straight to the mission but need to use a gate. Hmm,, good idea,, but I suspect that is already what is happening. AFAIK, each system is attached to a node (along with other systems). So I disagree with you. This is also the bottleneck in the node-balancing system, it cannot dynamically predict large numbers of people engaging in a sytem (deadspace or not). Eg. Systems A, B, C, D, E, F and G are tied to one processor. If any of those systems have large numbers of people, all the rest lag. Since load-balancing happens after down-time, systems reflect the lag of the previous average load for the past week and not the current load, that is THE major problem with no easy solution.

CCP Sharkbait	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:44:00 - [52] Originally by: qrac Edited by: qrac on 07/04/2007 18:13:50 Originally by: CCP Sharkbait the main reason i would like to see it happen is because i think the current system can't handle the amount of people doing missions (over 110k per day are completed and rising) and with the amount of new people starting and the PCU always on the rise, i think we need to get a new agent system in that will work better with a large online count. now we have the warp to 0 feature ingame, i can't see that this would be a problem tbh. this is just my view and not an offical "this is whats happening n00bs" statement Most missions nowadays are deadspace missions. Why not move the deadspace area to a separate node? The only reason against this would be that the session changes cost is greater than the cost saved by relocating the mission to another node. This should be pretty easy to implement since you can't warp straight to the mission but need to use a gate. this is a good idea and has been talked about before now and is still an option. at the moment we can only have a system loaded on 1 node, but this is being looked into and if we can get around that then we maybe move the missions to another node within the same system. maybe even have slave nodes for nodes. it's another thing that is being looked into.

Little Benjamin Natural Inventions	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:51:00 - [53] What interests me is, if there is an overall approach for a redesign server-side so that any concentration of pilots (hubs, large engagements, ...) could be handled fluently? \benjamin
Ralara Caldari Lilandri Foundation	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:55:00 - [54] Originally by: CCP Sharkbait they did have a big impact, altho you can't see it so clearly, we can. so effectively, your new strategies havent actually solved the situation for the players? A few numbers on your spreadsheet have changed, but for us, the lag is still just about the same as normal, eh? Is that what you just said? That what you did, had a "big impact" but the players "can't see it" - as in, we still have the lag? In that case: Fail. I'm a corp thief. And remember, I only do it because I like your robot.
Pardack State War Academy	Posted - 2007.04.07 18:57:00 - [55] Originally by: SharkBait this is a good idea and has been talked about before now and is still an option. at the moment we can only have a system loaded on 1 node, but this is being looked into and if we can get around that then we maybe move the missions to another node within the same system. maybe even have slave nodes for nodes. it's another thing that is being looked into. This would be a HUGE advantage. Currently lag is caused by many people doing many thing in one node. Dynamically assigning nodes to systems (preferably multiple nodes/system) would be ace. IMO that's the biggest (and HARDEST thing to do programatically) thing that CCP can do to alleviate lag. Daily re-balancing does help lag overall by looking at trends. Trends, however, do not reflect actual game-time scenarios where hundreds of people swarm an area. This causes ALL systems on that node to lag. Dynamically allocating CPU usage is a VERY tricky thing to achieve, requiring a lot of programming resources and even then there's no guarantee it will work as expected.
Pardack State War Academy	Posted - 2007.04.07 19:07:00 - [56] Edited by: Pardack on 07/04/2007 19:05:22 Originally by: Ralara Originally by: CCP Sharkbait they did have a big impact, altho you can't see it so clearly, we can. so effectively, your new strategies havent actually solved the situation for the players? A few numbers on your spreadsheet have changed, but for us, the lag is still just about the same as normal, eh? Is that what you just said? That what you did, had a "big impact" but the players "can't see it" - as in, we still have the lag? In that case: Fail. I couldn't agree more. Numbers are one thing. The actual experience is a whole other beast. Sure the servers may be running 10% more efficiently (which is good) but if players still experience the same amount of lag, has anything actually been accomplished other than touting numbers? Example: Our company recently re-designed the software engine of our primary product. The result was more efficiency 'behind the scene', but the user experience was no different. The 'user experience' is what really matters. So what if the servers are running faster if no-one notices? I absolutely agree that these lower level changes need to be made, but from the user perspective if nothing has changed, who cares? The user needs to see changes. Server-side changes are good. Everything runs more efficiently, but if users don't see the change, was there really that much effect other than your numbers looking better?
qrac Caldari Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.04.07 19:10:00 - [57] Edited by: qrac on 07/04/2007 19:11:26 Originally by: CCP Sharkbait this is a good idea and has been talked about before now and is still an option. at the moment we can only have a system loaded on 1 node, but this is being looked into and if we can get around that then we maybe move the missions to another node within the same system. maybe even have slave nodes for nodes. it's another thing that is being looked into. What kind of complications are we looking at? Can two nodes share the same market or is the market tied to a node? The "local" chat should be shareable between nodes. Scanning could be solved by making the outside world invisible from inside the deadspace pocket and vice versa (except for the gate into it). I'm guessing that some (probably a lot) of code which depends on the node (maybe like "Assets in current system") needs changing and is only a shortterm solution. Slavenodes and several nodes within a system would be preferable. Btw is this something you have started working on or is it still in planning? It's kind of hard to make any suggestions without knowing the architecture of the nodes and systems. -------------------------------------------
Sgt Napalm Synergy Evolved Sparta Alliance	Posted - 2007.04.07 19:11:00 - [58] Sharkbait ftw --- Sahwoolo Etoophie, next time I'll activate the module! ;) O rly? ;) -Sahwoolo
Pardack State War Academy	Posted - 2007.04.07 19:13:00 - [59] Originally by: Sgt Napalm Sharkbait ftw riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. LOL.

CCP Sharkbait	Posted - 2007.04.07 19:22:00 - [60] Originally by: Ralara Edited by: Ralara on 07/04/2007 18:55:17 Originally by: CCP Sharkbait they did have a big impact, altho you can't see it so clearly, we can. so effectively, your new strategies havent actually solved the situation for the players? A few numbers on your spreadsheet have changed, but for us, the lag is still just about the same as normal, eh? Is that what you just said? That what you did, had a "big impact" but the players "can't see it" - as in, we still have the lag? In that case: Fail. To put it bluntly. I know, I know, it's not easy. If you had a quick and easy fix you'd have done it a year ago. Random idea: set a timer on missions: do a mission for an agent, you cant do another for 4 hours (like the decline option). You have to find another agent in the corp. That way, people don't stay in one hub. ? it's not about the numbers as such really. alot of people who used to pass through jita don't have to anymore and are using the new route. i'm sure they are noticing it. also although jita is still high load, before the changes it was always at 100% cpu. now it doesn't rest at 100% cpu, quite offen it is only at 80-90%. i just checked and we are in peak hour and jita is only at 92% cpu. thats alot better than it was tbh. Originally by: qrac Edited by: qrac on 07/04/2007 19:11:26 Originally by: CCP Sharkbait this is a good idea and has been talked about before now and is still an option. at the moment we can only have a system loaded on 1 node, but this is being looked into and if we can get around that then we maybe move the missions to another node within the same system. maybe even have slave nodes for nodes. it's another thing that is being looked into. What kind of complications are we looking at? Can two nodes share the same market or is the market tied to a node? The "local" chat should be shareable between nodes. Scanning could be solved by making the outside world invisible from inside the deadspace pocket and vice versa (except for the gate into it). I'm guessing that some (probably a lot) of code which depends on the node (maybe like "Assets in current system") needs changing and is only a shortterm solution. Slavenodes and several nodes within a system would be preferable. Btw is this something you have started working on or is it still in planning? It's kind of hard to make any suggestions without knowing the architecture of the nodes and systems. in testing, when we have the same system loaded on 2 nodes it goes completely bonkers. causes massive lag as people are trying to do things on 2 nodes, causes massive serverside memory leaks and causes clients to disconnect alot. the market regions are run on different nodes and they don't lag really. there are 4 market nodes (2 machines) and they are only at about 10% cpu. so thats not the problem really. chat channels i think are handled by the proxies and are kinda connected to everything as in theroy there could be a person on every node in the same chat channel.


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.