EVE Search - Nullification and Interdiction

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Nullification and Interdiction

» 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 .. 13 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
epicurus 2 Secret Passage 1	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:34:25 - [31] - Quote The current balance where interdiction capability has a direct relationship or effect on combat ability is fine. No changes to interdiction capabilities is required. Bubble spamming is a pain in just about every sense, either restrict the number through enforcing a significant distance between them, or make them require fuel.
Winter Archipelago Autumn Industrial Enterprises 825	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:34:37 - [32] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? I'm against nullified combat ships (primarily T3C's). I feel that including it adds a bit too much strength to them. However, I like the thought on nullification in regards to some specific ships: I'd love to see Interceptors changed a bit, with four having nullification, better tackle bonuses, and dropping their combat bonuses (Ares, Crow, etc), and four being oriented towards combat but without the nullification bonus (Taranis, Raptor, etc). They would still function as travel ships and could still be used as fast tackle, but would be weak (weaker) in terms of combat, while the ones that are decent at combat won't have the nullification. I'd also love to see Blockade Runners given nullification. I was surprised a few years back with how the Transport Ships were revamped. I had figured that giving Blockade Runners a bonus to Warp Core Strength and nullification would have been a shoo-in idea (considering the historical use of Blockade-Running ships). The cargo scan immunity strikes me as an odd thing for a ship that's supposed to be difficult to catch (again, "difficult to catch" based on historical usage of their real-life namesakes). As for anchorable bubbles, they should exist, yes, as they serve a useful purpose, but they need to have one of three changes: a large minimum distance from each other (large enough to prevent overlap on even the T2 large bubbles), a decay timer, or generate a killmail. Generating a killmail would probably solve the problems in a much more enjoyable way for the average nullsec and wormhole resident. For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
Van Doe 13	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:34:43 - [33] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey folks, thanks for the feedback so far and keep it coming! We're watching this thread. Watch this instead https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=509350&find=unread #not_my_csm I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3673	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:37:27 - [34] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? yes for WH this is essential. and it is also very important in null for two reasons that i encounter. 1 being able to hit larger groups deep in their space 2 catching or intercepting an enemy fleet Quote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? i have no opinion on this well except that no BRs do not need this they can already be bridged past bubbles Quote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? at worst i think they should have a 24hr timer however i do not think it is needed. what is needed is a minimum range you can anchor these near each other so you don't wind up with 50 on a gate you need to slowly kill BLOPS Hauler
ISD Fractal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1418	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:39:26 - [35] - Quote Forum Rules of Conduct wrote: 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. # I have removed an off-topic post. ISD Fractal Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Kirito Litvyak Svea Rike Circle-Of-Two 8	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:39:59 - [36] - Quote Well it would be nearly impossible to run escalations etc if nullifiers were removed, exploration PVE would become nonexistant outside cheap frigates doing relic sites or escalations within well developed owned sov. NPC null would become complete trash with no activity.
Christy Cloud The Mongo Tree PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS 97	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:41:52 - [37] - Quote To copy what I said in slack - i feel that nullification suits what a ceptors meant to do, a yacht is fine, shuttles i'd actually say no, as it becomes a fairly risk free way of moving your pod t3 interdiction i feel should have more of a draw back than just "you cant do anything else with this subsystem slot" it should penalize, rather than just not benefit blockade runners, no - Getting through a bubble is the job of the pilot as for bubbles, i'd rather they have a cargo that they slowly consume, meaning they have to be maintained, and attackers can send forward scouts to just nick all the ammo My Third Party Thread(Gò»°Gûí°n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+ Current Trades - Selling 2 Travelfit Erebus 1 rigged 1 unrigged 85bil Ea Selling 1 Rigged travelfit Avatar 86b
Kirito Litvyak Svea Rike Circle-Of-Two 8	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:46:52 - [38] - Quote Maybe split it into active interdiction and passive interdiction? Passive = larger area of effect, anchored bubbles, HIC script + standard dictor bubble. But does not catch nullified stuff. Active = smaller area of effect, HIC script + advanced dictor bubble(larger so less can be loaded). Does prevent nullified ships from warping. (more expensive too) It is more lore friendly too, concord blah blah invent new thing to counter pirates nullification technology.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3673	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:48:05 - [39] - Quote Christy Cloud wrote: t3 interdiction i feel should have more of a draw back than just "you cant do anything else with this subsystem slot" it should penalize, rather than just not benefit to be fair it does. it gives no low slots and is slower and less agile but i agree more could be done i'm in favor of a resist or hitpoint penalty (god knows t3s have enough to spare) BLOPS Hauler
Lugh Crow-Slave 3673	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:49:28 - [40] - Quote Kirito Litvyak wrote: Maybe split it into active interdiction and passive interdiction? Passive = larger area of effect, anchored bubbles, HIC script + standard dictor bubble. But does not catch nullified stuff. Active = smaller area of effect, HIC script + advanced dictor bubble. Does prevent nullified ships from warping. (more expensive too) It is more lore friendly too, concord blah blah invent new thing to counter pirates nullification technology. it would be better if there was a hard lower limit on align time so nothing nullified could also instantly warp BLOPS Hauler

Cassie Helio Push Industries Push Interstellar Network 42	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:50:00 - [41] - Quote Some other pilots believe that the nullified inty is a risk free travel ship but that is not true. That's why we DO NOT use intys to haul goods at PushX. They are hard to catch but they are easy to smartbomb and it happens all the time and it even happens in null. Like every other good balance it has its advantages and disadvantages. It is quick and nullified but it's also weak and fragile.
Assia Eko Art Of Explosions Hole Control 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:51:51 - [42] - Quote Timer on bubbles that are on a gate grid is a good idea. Make this timer a few hours and limit the amount of bubbles on a gate grid. If there are bubbles on a gate, every char entering the system through that gate will be shown in local with a delay of : X sec * [NumberOfBubbleOnThatGate]. As a nullsec player, you secured your system already. There are 30 bubbles on that gate so why add to that the fact that any people entering the system will instantly show in local. WH players only see a new sig spawn something like 30 seconds after a scout has jumped into you. WH players secured the system, althought they can see a new people entering your system (new sig spawn) with a delay. That should be somehow the same with Nullsec. You use one tool to secure your system from ganking (bubbles), you lose the benefits of the other one (local). Currently, Carriers and Supers are almost impossible to catch because they have a full intel channel and map, 200 bubbles on the gate, a local, and they can rat aligned to their pos/citadel because there are no scrams/disruptors on nullsec rats. 0 effort (right click, warp to 100), 0 risk (bubbles + local + intel channel + im aligned LOL), plenty of isk., My proposition maybe seem a little crazy, but in the state of current things, Nullsec ratting is safer than High Sec ratting because too many tools are offered to secure a system.
handige harrie Vereenigde Handels Compagnie 367	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:52:41 - [43] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? I think it's a bad thing they way it's set up now. It gives players the ability to just skip over parts of the game (interdictors, gatecamps and bubbles) and bypass mechanics without real counter. The way it's set up now with cloaky nullified almost insta warping Tech 3 cruisers, insta warping or stabbed interceptors it's just a mess and leads too all sort of weird fringe stuff like Slippery Pete's, Alpha Claws and cyno ceptors. Which are all amazing at not committing to a fight and grid, while being able to do some decent damage numbers and having a real impact without being able to or fight them make a mistake themselves. For Tech 3 cruisers shooting out to 250km while being nullified makes no sense and is just not fitting, those ranges should be the area of long range battleships and require a similar committent to the battlefield in terms of engageability. if the ability to fit a cloak, shoot out to ****** ranges for a cruiser hull and stabs would be removed from nullified ships (or remove nullification from ships that have those fitted) , it would be fine for Tech 3 frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser hulls. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? non combat ships are a tough one. On one hand it's handy and fitting for them (like the Yacht), but nullified blockade runners would be way to powerful for the cargo hold size. A transport frigate sized hull with nullification would be cool though, transport Tech 3 cruisers are in a good spot in that regard. They serve a niche without being disruptive (not a too big cargo hold). Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?** I like gameplay elements that give players the means to alter the space they live in and customize it how they see fit. Bubbles will just never be a 'fun' item for the people they are used against, that is the whole purpose of them. I would lower their HP and build costs accordingly. If you get caught you can just shoot them and get out faster, but they still serve the purpose of disrupting your access and giving defenders the ability to have a short while to get themselves sorted or get save. They do serve a purpose of buying time for players to get safe. Removing them from the game will just cause those players to live in even more remote areas (only last system of pipes, scouts in more systems out). CCP just introduced a rebranded ship to counter this (rorqual) and I think that is enough. Players who don't want to pvp would just adapt to there being no bubbles, so removing them serves no role except creating more empty space for players to complain about. Which is a fun topic in itself and almost the same as China's Fishing practices in which they kill everything in their waters and complain that there is no more fish and then causing a uproar and start fishing in other countries territorial waters, causing all kinds of international accidents, while playing dumb 'we are just fisherman trying to make a living, we have no fish in our waters'. Heavy ships like battleships should be less effected by them than smaller ships. Since they are a delaying tactic and heavy ships aren't known for their speed already. Baddest poster ever
Lugh Crow-Slave 3673	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:54:47 - [44] - Quote handige harrie wrote: [/b] I think it's a bad thing they way it's set up now. It gives players the ability to just skip over parts of the game (interdictors, gatecamps and bubbles) and bypass mechanics without real counter. SmartBombs BLOPS Hauler
Bertral Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation 18	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:54:47 - [45] - Quote I don't mind nullification on t3 cruisers since the subsystem makes them terrible in combat for their price. However, interceptors should have never been nullified. They were fine before, as tackle/scout/solo pvp. Typical case of fixing something that's not broken. The main purpose of nullified interceptors was so they get to their objective faster. They don't. They just run AWAY from fights faster.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3673	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:56:03 - [46] - Quote Bertral wrote: I don't mind nullification on t3 cruisers since the subsystem makes them terrible in combat for their price. However, interceptors should have never been nullified. They were fine before, as tackle/scout/solo pvp. Typical case of fixing something that's not broken. The main purpose of nullified interceptors was so they get to their objective faster. They don't. They just run AWAY from fights faster. ceptors have been essential when chancing a fleeing fleet craping dictor bubbles at every gate BLOPS Hauler
Sarah Flynt Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 266	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:58:22 - [47] - Quote Cassie Helio wrote: Some other pilots believe that the nullified inty is a risk free travel ship but that is not true. That's why we DO NOT use intys to haul goods at PushX. They are hard to catch but they are easy to smartbomb and it happens all the time and it even happens in null. Like every other good balance it has its advantages and disadvantages. It is quick and nullified but it's also weak and fragile. A well fitted travel interceptor survives 2 faction fitted SB battleships. I wouldn't exactly call that "easy to smartbomb". They're not invincible, but correctly fitted ones are certainly not that easy to take down during travel. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Zaryte Celestial Cartel Circle-Of-Two 55	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:59:22 - [48] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? I think there should be different tools for different jobs, so yes, there should be a type of ship that is designed to travel through bubbled space. However a ship that excels at this should of course not be as effective in other areas. Steve Ronuken wrote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Similar to my answer from the first question. A good analogy for this would be mining ships. A retriever has low yield but high capacity whereas the covetor has high yield but low capacity. As it stands now, there's no interdiction nullified transport/DST. If there were to be one, it should have less cargo capacity AND tank than it's counterparts, since there's already "tools" for both those things. Steve Ronuken wrote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? I think they should exist and not decay. I think they already "decay" anyway since people can just shoot them. Although if they're going to continue to exist i'd rather they had a larger area of effect. People are forced to use dozens of them just on one stargate to lock it down and that just causes lag and a giant mess in space. One massive bubble 10 times larger than the current largest would be less annoying and achieve the same objective. (This final point is coming from someone who never anchors bubbles, i just encounter them all the time and i hate the lag spike when i load a grid full of them)
Xerxes Fehrnah Angelus.Mortis Fidelas Constans 63	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:59:35 - [49] - Quote TL;DR: make nullification a module, and when the module is applied, make it conflict with all weapons including ECM, tackle, and drones. Disallow fitting of weapons and cynos. That way if you are doing combat, you are vulnerable to defense fleets. Nullification is important for transport into and out of low sec and null sec as well as travel through wh chains to markets. We need nullification. But we don't need it for combat. Make bubbles and other deployables hackable. Allow me to use a data analyzer on them, play the minigame, and unanchor them and scoop.
Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate 1796	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:00:50 - [50] - Quote TL;DR: * Fewer, more powerful bubbles. Potential sov bonuses. * No or severely restricted interdiction nullification on combat ships. * People need a means of travelling quickly and unencumbered in non-combat ships. Semi-permanent area-of-effect warp inhibitors (bubbles) should be part of "owning your space". I mean, the stargate you presumably have some control of by it being in your space just decided it was going to bring in an entire hostile fleet, so having some bubbles is not a big ask. However, massive bubble camps with 30 on each gate is not my idea of fun. I'd much rather see a one or two specialist T2 bubbles, potentially in the region of 100m - 200m ISK, that are capable of enveloping a whole stargate out to say 50km, with the requirements that they MUST to be anchored within a certain range of a celestial (station, citadel, stargate) and no other bubbles can be anchored near them. Then make normal bubbles either decay after 6 hours, or don't let them be dropped near those sites at all. This would take it from a situation where we would have 40 bubbles on a gate, to maybe 2 semi-permanent bubbles on a gate. Make them reinforcable, but turn off their interdiction effects when RF'd, just like standard deployables. Give a bonus to range based on sov, maybe. Regarding interdiction nullification: Getting from point A to B in a dictor-nullified ceptor is extremely helpful. Travelling is among the most tedious parts of EVE, so doing it as quickly as possible, with as little interruption as possible, is a quality of life thing for me. However, should combat ships (those able to fit cynos / tackle) be able to do it? I think not. It's too overpowered. It has its place, but right now it's a bad ecosystem, Interdiction nullification and offensive action should be mutually exclusive in all but very specialist ships. I DO think there should be a cheaper, mass producible ship akin to ceptors that allow people to travel between two points quickly (Player-built luxury yachts) but they shouldn't be able to tackle you or light a cyno once they're there. I suppose a "traditional" solution would be to move dictor nullification to a module with a 1 or 2 minute cycle that grants the dictor nullification trait, but also knocks out ewar, cynos and DPS. Dictor nullified blockade runners? Yes please! Logistics is hell, and doing it is often thankless. Anything to make it a bit easier for the run-of-the-mill player who can't afford 8 billion isk for a personal jump freighter is a good thing and encourages a bit of self-dependency.

Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2911	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:01:03 - [51] - Quote Anchorable bubbles should most definitely have an expiry date when they either turn off or destroy themselves. Anchorable bubbles should not ever get any additional benefits that people float around in the forum, like a mild stasis webifier effect or agility penalty. If such additional bubble benefits got ever introduced, they should be reserved for Hictors alone. There are some limited cases where people BLOPS bridge nullified T3C around. As far as I know, Drone Proteii and Neut Legions are pretty popular for that, but they are the only real combat ship that can dish out some notable DPS and tank more than just a sneeze. There shouldn't be more of these ships but also not less because they play a vital role in grabbing and destroying certain target where other ships would just die before a bridge could get established. Nullified Blockade Runners would be pretty awesome, in particular because it would make their name finally carry some weight and not just be empty words; however, it would make traveling around, for instance via JBs, too safe and convenient. I also do not believe that shuttles should be nullified, because it would make moving around even cheaper than it already is (a travel ceptor costs barely 30M, a shuttle costs 15k). I do not think that the argument of "nullified shuttle allows noobs from high sec to explore deep dangerous space" holds any water. Someone who has not trained for a ceptor and informed themselves about how to travel "safely" in null sec has no place there and having him move around there provides no beneficial activities for neither him nor the residents in the area. If a noob really wants to explore outer space, that's what Yachts are for, but they come with a price, which in turn encourages those noobs to inform themselves about what they want to do first and discourages ever so slightly willy-nilly-carelessly flying around without any consideration. Or in other words: In my opinion, there should not be more and there should not be fewer cloaky-/nullified ships. Bubbles that do not require constant player interaction to stay active should turn off after a certain time. Bubbles, which require constant player interaction, ie. Hictor bubbles only, could get another little buff. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Edd Reynolds Jump Drive Appreciation Society Jump Drive Appreciation Alliance 3	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:01:52 - [52] - Quote I agree with Capri that when it comes to hunting for ratters in NullSec, the balance between nullified tackle with non nullified support and bubbles to slow down that support is in a decent place, apart from the huge 100km+ walls of bubbles. The problems start when you get nullified ships that can do more than just tackle. See: Huge ceptor fleets in Sov fights, and Petes. One place to start could be keeping nullification on the tackle bonused ceptors, but removing it from the combat bonused ceptors. Another could be reduced/zero hardpoints on T3Cs when fitted with a nullification sub. These changes would preserve the hunter/tackle role of these ships, whilst removing some of the worst offenders of using nullification to fight without risk.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3675	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:02:17 - [53] - Quote Sarah Flynt wrote: Cassie Helio wrote: Some other pilots believe that the nullified inty is a risk free travel ship but that is not true. That's why we DO NOT use intys to haul goods at PushX. They are hard to catch but they are easy to smartbomb and it happens all the time and it even happens in null. Like every other good balance it has its advantages and disadvantages. It is quick and nullified but it's also weak and fragile. A well fitted travel interceptor survives 2 faction fitted SB battleships. I wouldn't exactly call that "easy to smartbomb". They're not invincible, but correctly fitted ones are certainly not that easy to take down during travel. why do you think you are entitled to it being easy? BLOPS Hauler
Lugh Crow-Slave 3675	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:03:16 - [54] - Quote Xerxes Fehrnah wrote: TL;DR: make nullification a module, and when the module is applied, make it conflict with all weapons including ECM, tackle, and drones. Disallow fitting of weapons and cynos. That way if you are doing combat, you are vulnerable to defense fleets. and then large null groups sat back and ratted all day in peace interdiction is also important for small groups to be able to disrupt large groups BLOPS Hauler
handige harrie Vereenigde Handels Compagnie 367	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:04:49 - [55] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: handige harrie wrote: [/b] I think it's a bad thing they way it's set up now. It gives players the ability to just skip over parts of the game (interdictors, gatecamps and bubbles) and bypass mechanics without real counter. SmartBombs Baddest poster ever
Sarah Flynt Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 266	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:07:46 - [56] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sarah Flynt wrote: Cassie Helio wrote: Some other pilots believe that the nullified inty is a risk free travel ship but that is not true. That's why we DO NOT use intys to haul goods at PushX. They are hard to catch but they are easy to smartbomb and it happens all the time and it even happens in null. Like every other good balance it has its advantages and disadvantages. It is quick and nullified but it's also weak and fragile. A well fitted travel interceptor survives 2 faction fitted SB battleships. I wouldn't exactly call that "easy to smartbomb". They're not invincible, but correctly fitted ones are certainly not that easy to take down during travel. why do you think you are entitled to it being easy? why do you think that I think I'm entitled to it being easy? I didn't say anything about that. Read my post and the one I quoted again. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Lugh Crow-Slave 3675	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:10:04 - [57] - Quote Sarah Flynt wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sarah Flynt wrote: Cassie Helio wrote: Some other pilots believe that the nullified inty is a risk free travel ship but that is not true. That's why we DO NOT use intys to haul goods at PushX. They are hard to catch but they are easy to smartbomb and it happens all the time and it even happens in null. Like every other good balance it has its advantages and disadvantages. It is quick and nullified but it's also weak and fragile. A well fitted travel interceptor survives 2 faction fitted SB battleships. I wouldn't exactly call that "easy to smartbomb". They're not invincible, but correctly fitted ones are certainly not that easy to take down during travel. why do you think you are entitled to it being easy? why do you think that I think I'm entitled to it being easy? I didn't say anything about that. Read my post and the one I quoted again. lol show me the fits that survive 16 faction bombs and can ista warp aside from that you will regularly find smartbomb camps with 4+BBs BLOPS Hauler
Robert Quaisado Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:12:15 - [58] - Quote So you are hindered in your game play by nullified combat ships? Well... You know what you usually say when it comes to cloaky campers being "unfair"? You usually say that you need to bait them (leaving aside the common opinion that this "mimimi" is the typical speech of a "carebear"). And that's it. You can use the very same way to argument here: Adapt your gameplay to that fact that there might get a fleet of nullified **** in. Besides: You won't find bubbles in HiSec, right? And there are fights, too. Should bubbles collapse? Well.... Should ships decloak automatically at some time after activation? :-) Even if it's no fun, you can shoot the unattended bubbles just like the other stuff drifting in space, Am I missing something?
Rainus Max Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 68	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:16:07 - [59] - Quote I'd liked to see a manned counter to nullified ships. Perhaps a HIC mod/script that creates a bubble that only drags nullified ships but is only say 10km in radius
Lugh Crow-Slave 3676	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:16:36 - [60] - Quote Rainus Max wrote: I'd liked to see a manned counter to nullified ships. Perhaps a HIC mod/script that creates a bubble that only drags nullified ships but is only say 10km in radius you mean like smartbomb? BLOPS Hauler



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: 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.