EVE Search - Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Assault Ships

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Assault Ships

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 240	Posted - 2012.01.06 09:27:00 - [1] - Quote Why in heaven's name are you going ahead with this? Have you intentionally ignored all the threads spawned after the Chaos leak? YOU CANNOT add combat capability to AFs without wiping out T1 cruiser viability. Some of them are already dangerously close to higher-tier cruiser performance (real world performance, not paper!). YOU CANNOT add combat capability to AFs without demolishing viability of all T1 frigates (except Griffs) and destroyers (except Trash, 'cause :alpha:). You are severely dumbing down offensive ship choice for small gangs. With combat boosted AFs as proposed it will be "tier2 BC or AF, else GTFO". Where is the fun in that? Take a look at the other T2 frigates and try to figure out why they work .. here is a hint: Roles. Interceptors work because they are fast and provide extended range tackle .. balance: fragile Bombers work because they are cloak'n'dagger and provide face-melt .. balance: fragile, limited target selection. EAS work (could be better though!) because they provide Recon capabilities to the light gang .. balance: fragile, slow'ish. How the hell do think AF's will work if all you do is make them into small speedy cruisers? The apple-cart will most upset, young man! Common sense. Logic. Deductive reasoning...Look them up, very handy tools for just about anything.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 240	Posted - 2012.01.06 12:37:00 - [2] - Quote @Prom: Get the feeling you have very little experience with small fast gangs. Do you really believe that the very fragile balance on the sub-BC small gang scene will be fine when you add slots, tank plus applied damage to the hulls right smack in the middle of the ship line-ups? Prometheus Exenthal wrote: Feel free to come up with a well thought out idea that would benefit everybody.... Already did, numerous times in the relevant threads. Split them up in utility/combat and give them primarily non-combat related bonuses: - Utility gets 20%/lvl RR (both!) efficiency and 150%/lvl RR range = All four races get a shield+armour (maximum versatility) RR frigate with a 40km+ range where each small RR performs like a medium. - The remaining four get CPU/Grid fitting bonus to be able to field gang links, will be godly when links are made on-grid (you know its coming, common sense is a biatch!), in the meantime they could get a combat bonus .. temporarily! Gives them value/purpose on the small as well as the large scale, doesn't translate into yet another Winmatar FTW! change AND nimbly avoids destroying what remains of balance in the sub-BC classes.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 240	Posted - 2012.01.06 18:20:00 - [3] - Quote Dumbass forums .. they eat more posts than they ever let through. Short version: Balancing something to function on the large scale inevitably breaks it on all other scales, unless such function hinges on 'gimmicks' like cloaks (bombers) or speed (ceptors). Tier2 BC or AF is hardly conducive to competitive and fun gameplay. Don't know if CCP are unaware of this .. or they just want the AF line on the backlog ticked .. or they started believing that the CSM represents all of Eve. At this point, considering the crap want to do to FW, I wouldn't be surprised if this AF idea came from the CSM and CCP adopts it blindly if only to feign innocence when TQ data proves them utterly broken in anything but large romps. Meh, GW2 is coming. Should be just in time for what looks to be a summer fiasco for anyone not in blob-land. Peace out.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 241	Posted - 2012.01.07 10:58:00 - [4] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: ..I'm not deaf, and I wouldn't be so against certain suggestions if they haven't be brought up prior and disproved at some point in the 4 years that AFs have slowly been draaaaggggiiiinnnnggg behind... As far as I know my logistics concept as the 4th bonus was never aired before me and the only 'negatives' I got from it was that some people would rather have a dedicated frigate/destroyers logistics, the idea spawned 3-4 independent threads .. so there goes that "theory". - Adding a logistics bonus (efficiency+range) to already combat capable ships not only increases diversity and fills a gap but allows the "logistics" to fight back provided they don't go full Naughty Nurse .. hell one could use them as the ultimate bait ships as all enemy frigs descend upon it to clear logi only to run into a combat fit. - Gang link platforms on the small scale has what available? BC, CC, T3, Car/Scar/Titans are the only ones in game .. which one would you like to drag around on a cruiser-down/Frig roam? Gang-links will be changed either in power (unlikely) or made on-grid (logical) with appropriate tanking buffs and whatever else may be required to lessen the pain of change, since the idea of a single ship effectively doubling the power of an entire fleet/gang from anywhere in a system is, to put it mildly, untenable. Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:* the most important thing I have learned from fhc is that prom is opinionated, rude and also very ignorable. do yourselves a favor and just glaze over the diarrhea he sprays indiscriminnately all over the interwebz Unfortunately the amount of attention he is giving this indicates that it is either his idea or he has been assigned to 'answer questions' by CCP so ignoring him is not really an option .. bet he is even responsible for reporting 'progress' in thread back to Tallest so CCP will only get all the rave reviews until its too late. Zircon Dasher wrote: ...They couldnt give the retribution a slot without everyone whining about how they didnt get one. So everybody gets +1 arbitrary slot... Heh, would not be surprised if that was how it started, "logic" used for evil is never a pretty thing. What they should have done was add the midslot and then take a bit of CPU away from it .. forces either voluntary loss of low for fitting mod or loss of high utility if the extra mid has a high cpu mod in it (ie. tackle). But if that was the initial reasoning, then I don't know why they ignored the Ishkurs lower slot count .. arguably one of the best AFs currently despite its slot deficit, so I reckon there was other factors at play .. namely the uniformly-null council's wish for something more fun to fly in blob-camp-land without dying every 5 seconds, balance everywhere else be damned. Tanya Powers wrote: You failed to explain why 100% bonus to afterburner speed would make AF's overpowered.... Abuse Eve-Search. Look for the threads on the Test Server Forum from 3 years hence when testing of that exact bonus was done on SiSi .. now if only I could remember what those threads were called, but should get you started. Crux of it was that prior to testing start, we argued that the 75%?-AB speed bonus would widen the gap within the class to absurd levels and make AF's nigh unkillable by just about anything .. both points were proven and acknowledged by CCP after which the change was scrapped. Prometheus Exenthal wrote: ...So please humour me for a moment... Why don't you humour us and explain how you expect a ship balanced for null survival/viability (the ~40%) can ever be anything but broken everywhere else. It is not a question of casting them into the abyss, but preventing them from reaching god-hood .. the over-buff proposed is more damaging to overall balance and makes the intra-class differences even more pronounced. - Vengeance with a slot for Nos/neut .. yay, more cap (has enough for Goddess sake!) or 10s shaved off a kill on a cap dependent ship. - Retribution with tackle .. yay, now I can burn some extra cap before the neuts shut me down just as before! - Hawk/Harpy .. damage mod, still slow and fat as nothing else. Will be in the same place that blasters occupied for years, situational in the extreme but awesome damage when applied. Will see use due to passive tanking ability. - Enyo .. actually a good change. Web helps blasters and its brought up to Ranis level, armour buff a little overdone though. - Ishkur .. doesn't actually need a buff, result is as expected an OP ship in the making. At least you stopped short of the drone dmg bonus. Wolf/Jaguar .. Still almost an entire bodylength (ie. not merely head and shoulders) above the rest only now with an extra free damage mod (as if they need more damage .. sheesh!) .. yay. But meh, I'll shut up now and let SiSi testing prove me right as it did with the AB boost idea (yes I was in the vanguard, as I said logic and common sense are powerful tools)
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 242	Posted - 2012.01.07 12:39:00 - [5] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: Literally everything you said there is wrong-headed speculation. You have not even the first beginnings of a clue as to how the SiSi AFs perform at present or what their strengths and weaknesses are. Almost as constructive and worth reading as proms blind dismissals of anything that goes against his wishes. Testing an obviously OP change does not make it less OP so applying logic to my experience flying most of the AFs over the years is more than enough .. it was not coincidence that I mentioned the AB boost and that we shot it down before testing even started .. some things are just so out of whack that they should be discarded outright. Adding slots + bonuses puts AFs on par with highest tier cruisers when it comes to tanking and applied damage, less weapons range but comparatively insane mobility. It is already perfectly possible to take out most 'generic' cruiser fits in AFs, a change of this magnitude pushes them so far that even fits specifically tailed to counter them will struggle. Don't know who had the idea to give them the role of slow, tanky combat interceptors and then adding slots/bonuses to meet that role, and I honestly don't care. If you want that role filled then add an AB or tank bonus to the inties. What I do know is that I have only really been wrong once the past several years, and that was by underestimating the synergy between the AC and TE changes which kicked off the Winmatar FoTY .. I knew it was going to be good just didn't expect it to be godly. Once more before for posterity: One cannot balance something to be viable/survivable on the large scale without breaking it on all other scales.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 243	Posted - 2012.01.07 16:33:00 - [6] - Quote seller1122 wrote: I was said jag pilot btw....... Not accustomed to frigate combat I take it. Fighting bigger weight-classes necessitates a small nos which would have run ab/scram/web/td + intermittent armour rep perpetually, even when under effect of small neut. If you do not have nos fitted (ie. not fit to counter bigger) then you take 6-8km after first neut cycle hits and you identify its size. Puts you deep in falloff, halving your damage but with TD active (tracking script) he wont even breach the shields of the active armour tanked Jag. Not being able to defeat a M.Laser boat in ab frig with td .. I don't even .. Edit: How big is the SiSi patch, seems I might have to burn my months BW allowance to save Eve from dilettante frig pilots?
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 246	Posted - 2012.01.10 09:47:00 - [7] - Quote Must admit, never killed a Destroyer while flying an AF .. have had to make do with killing them in Punishers (~50/50 win/lose ratio) and Brawling Slicer (~90/10 win/lose ratio) .. albeit before they lost the RoF penalty but since they put close to zero pressure on tank and have received no additional tracking I don't expect that to have changed. If an AF dies to a destroyer it will be entirely due to piloting error (ie. he is a noob). The over-buffed AFs should be able to take on 2-3 Dessies at once, so there goes the 'they have counter' argument (We in FW do **** with frigs that only the fun addicted oldschool pirates can match). Just sayin'
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 246	Posted - 2012.01.10 10:33:00 - [8] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: If an AF dies to a Destroyer it's because the Destroyer was fit to counter support (as intended). The new AFs can barely deal with a single Destroyer. Your mention of them being able to handle 2-3 of them (assuming fit normally and not some awful proxyy tank) made me choke on my drink. 2-3? What the hell have you been smoking lmao One year plus of killing Dessies in Punishers, switched to Slicers after they were buffed to increase target pool .. what I am smoking, shooting up, snorting or whatever other word you can think of to try to discredit my statements has nothing to do with it. Frigates are stupidly effective when used right. PS: Is it intentional that the boosts seem to be aimed at doubling the already insane power of the dual-prop Jaguar/Ishkur (and now Hawk as well I guess)? Caveat: I am in FW/LS so not subject to bubble camps and excessive on-grid travel distances.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 246	Posted - 2012.01.10 14:06:00 - [9] - Quote Yes, look at my stats why don't you .. isn't the whole assuming/demanding everyone posts with primary character getting a little old? @Zarnak: You should try using a trick that was pulled against me, have MWD but throttle speed to "look like" its AB fit. You retain all the oomph of the MWD plus get all the fights that normally avoid MWD fits
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 247	Posted - 2012.01.11 08:43:00 - [10] - Quote Dro Nee wrote: ..I say put them through as is and do another hard look at them in 6mo after release. We had the dram domination for such a long time that 6mo should be easy to cope with. Errm, no. Dram existed in its OP incarnation for so long because CCP were busy playing with dolls .. a better comparison is projectile balance which is "newer" but just as broken and we have had no word on what the plans are to reign them in despite CCP officially being back in the serious space business. Over-buff now and you get one year minimum of broken gameplay .. keep in mind that CCP has had to reread "How to balance a game for Dummies" after their brains liquefied playing SpaceBarbie, they only have 1-2 guys working it for Goddess sake! Intentionally over-buffing anything should NEVER be on the table, no matter what .. the whole point of these forum spats and SiSi is find and eliminate the over-buffs before they make it TQ where they can break the actual game. The SC (or Dram even) over-buff should be more than proof of that. @Anyone asking for 5 mid Jags: Increase the dosage of whatever meds you are on. It would make them into DD's on the small scale and the ultimate eWar platform on fleet scale .. if you have ever seen what that nasty Stiletto can do in the right hands you'd be loathe to add midslots to any frig .. yes, Hawk becomes way too good with it as well but since the null-monkeys demand new toys and CCP allow them to make some themselves we are in for a rough ride. PS: Make sure Tallest knows what kind of work load is being dumped on him with this, practically every ship sub-BC will have to be revised. PPS: Make sure forum moderators knows what kind of work load is being dumped on them as the forum will be flooded with "Nerf AFs!" for the year or more it takes for Tallest to grind his way through the changes.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 247	Posted - 2012.01.11 09:52:00 - [11] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: What projectile balancing do you speak of? Because I'm pretty much Mr.**-Projectiles and I no longer see a problem with them. In fact, the Crucible patch paired with Nulls potential increase to 40% (instead of 25%) leads me to believe you're just talking straight out of your ass with no pants on. You know, the imbalance that has made the vast majority of ships used in competitive PvP Minmatar, or did you think that people were just cute when they started calling it Winmatar? Take off 4/2/1 from damage of L/M/S ammo and see how it plays out. Prometheus Exenthal wrote: Null-Monkeys ... Pfft, been calling you lot that for months, got tired of using sheep so mixed it up .. besides, why am I not allowed to be a ** when you have been acting like one for 10+ pages? By the way, a person who has lived in LS would NEVER propose an over-buff that essentially wrecks his backyard so no they very well could NOT be. Prometheus Exenthal wrote: I've yet to be shown how invaluably overpowering said 5 mid Hawk is That is your problem, your experience is limited to null warfare so you are unaccustomed to the power that twin-web or web-TD yields on the small scale. The complete disconnect from the rest of the sandbox is exactly why a uniform CSM should never have been allowed. Prometheus Exenthal wrote:** Wait a second.. You mean to tell me that a mass of frigates, with logi support no less, can kill things? No I am saying that an equal sized or even larger gang will not be able to kill them without very specific counters (ie. alpha dessies, aka. Trash). AF's are already pretty damn good when used right, there are some mediocre ones but buffing the whole line to make those 'acceptable' pushes the excellent into the stratosphere .. not that you'd know since you seem to want/need a strong FoTM to wet your pants. But go ahead, break the game so you can have your mini-cruiser for blob fights .. don't mind everyone else, we'll muddle through. Monkey.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 252	Posted - 2012.01.12 12:12:00 - [12] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: ...And in regard to the Firetail, I've no idea. A flat boost to its damage bonus would probably be enough. Don't forget, Navy frigates are supposed to be better versions of T1, not better or equal to T2 No. Simple enough for you? Here, let me point you to the blog in question and for convenience quote the relevant text: wrote: Navy frigates: the goal was to revamp them into a relatively cheap mix of interceptor and assault frigates, with neither the speed of the former or the firepower of the latter. So you see, not just 'better versions of T1". For pirate frigs the quote is: Quote: Pirate ships have focused, niche role they excel to. Due to their high acquisition cost and rarity, it was decided they should either be on par with Tech 2 ships of the same class or even slightly above them. If you had any idea of tight the balance is on the small scale, you would run screaming for the hills at the prospect of re-balancing everything from scratch due to wanting AF's to be a tad more useful in bubble-land .. just sayin'
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 252	Posted - 2012.01.12 14:30:00 - [13] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: ...The Firetail is the only weak Navy frigates and it should be fixed... Why are you here anyway, if your understanding of frigates is so limited then you should be no where near a balancing discussion. Four (4) .. count them FOUR .. midslots on a high dps turret ship (yes, 120+dps is high for a T1 frigate) is insane. Firetail is probably one of the stronger navy frigs, largely due to the immense versatility of its slot configuration .. there are several very powerful fits for it whereas the other navy frigs have two, perhaps three if one pushes the criteria. 2+k/s on AB, 140+dps, scram, 5k+ EHP, TD and neut with only a single T1 rig used to fit .. yeah, sounds horribly underpowered to me .. sheesh. But it is OK, at least now I am confident that the proposed over-buff will be toned down significantly or go back to the drawing-board .. even blind, deaf and dumb CCP employees would think twice about leaving balance in the hands of the inexperienced .. or rather I hope so. Carry on, lobbying complete.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 252	Posted - 2012.01.12 18:15:00 - [14] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: You must be completely oblivious to the world to think that the Firetail can even compare to the Hookbill, Comet, or Slicer.. Not at all, my experience with comes from fighting the damn things in my Coercer's, Slicer's, Punisher's and Nomen's .. what point of reference do you use .. and no EFT/SiSi shenanigans does not count. It is one of the two frigates that I actually hesitate engaging when in my brawling Slicer, what you call super-punisher I reckon, the other being Daredevil's. FW breeds the best frigate/cruiser pilots in game .. I have been in FW since beginning (missed first week or so) .. dismiss my evaluation of frigates at your own peril (not that I expect you to care about a snooty FW monkey). PS: Poke the Devs on the CSM board and get those damned blogs out already!
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 253	Posted - 2012.01.14 12:02:00 - [15] - Quote Zarnak Wulf wrote: ...It's within 10m if both use a MWD. And the latter bonus is useful for AB aficionados too. Would make them way too hard to kill once you factor in the mandatory Loki .. that sig bonus worked for interceptors since you can often kill them just by looking at them, but on AFs that can field cruiser size tanks shudder .. Wolf would be a 200dps/10k EHP light drone Also shares the problem that any uniform combat related bonus has, it mainly benefits the few (ie. strong become stronger). The only such bonus I can think of that would benefit all in equal measure is a heat resistance or efficiency bonus, but I think CCP said some time ago that it represents an advanced style of play so won't be used on "normal" ships or some nonsense like that. The MWD bonus has such a limited use that any benefit already strong hulls may gain from it will be negligible, but that is about the only good thing there is to say about it. Much better all-round if 1mn MWD's had their sig bloom halved instead as all frigates/dessies labour under the very problems that Prom seeks to solve for AFs .. bonus is that tackle in the form of interceptors would become phenomenal even in blobby weather. Wonder how many of the Wolf/Jaguar/Ishkur BPO's are in Prom&Co's hands, bet it is most of them considering the arbitrary dismissals of any criticism.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 255	Posted - 2012.01.18 15:18:00 - [16] - Quote minutes wrote: CCP noted that new ships with new roles drives gameplay more than the existing system where one hull type does everything... Made in reference to possibility of a new anti super-capital ship but applicable everywhere else as well .. so why does AF's get Destroyer level anti-frig power (tracking/range), Interceptor MWD sig bonus and Cruiser+ tank/damage? Perhaps we should include some eWar bonuses on top and scrap all the other light hulls to really make intentions clear My final take; Back to drawing-board and don't even mention any sort of bonus before this pesky question has been answered: What is their role?
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 256	Posted - 2012.01.18 16:18:00 - [17] - Quote Alex Medvedov wrote: Their role already exists and it is to deal damage.... Then why even discuss the merits of a MWD sig reduction as it does not facilitate said role and tracking also does nothing for damage except against a few AB frigs (the only thing in game that can tracking tank small guns to begin with). If they are to be mini-HACs then design them as such, don't start mixing in destroyer and interceptor traits just because some noob (/me waves to null) might need it the one time per week he flies the damn things. But of course, that is where the problem lies .. they CAN'T be mini-HACs because they do not have the base EHP and medium tracking is high enough to insta-gib them even if they did. Which brings me back to: What is their role?
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 260	Posted - 2012.01.20 06:10:00 - [18] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: Aside from very niche situations, pick a navy/pirate frigate and pick the appropriate AF target. You'll find that many of those T1 frigates do pretty well against the ideal AF opponents. Now where did that ugly form of argument last rear its head .. aah, yes: During nano-age and Failcon debates. Nano is fine,L2P, because it can be countered by Rapier/Hugginn or a bunch of H.neuts! Failcons are fine, L2P, because they can be countered by snipers! Here is something you might want to know, Rock/Paper/Scissors expanded to cover something as wide as Eve needs more than a few in each category to work .. otherwise the system breaks down. But meh, the blog is out so Devs are already at the pub celebrating their work .. "Eve, Reserved for AF/BC pilots" all aboard!
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 261	Posted - 2012.01.20 14:50:00 - [19] - Quote Stukkler Tian wrote: um fit a vamp or a neut, know your roll I have been trying to get whomever cooked up this concept to let me know what their damn role is since the beginning but so far no luck .. its a grab-bag of attributes with very little focus. What should have been done was move a Retribution slot and add damage bonuses to everything .. the extra slot is going to come back and bite the balancing peon in the arse with a vengeance (hint: SiSi is crap for determining what happens in the wild, ref: Dramiel, projectile-buff et al. By the way Devs, might want to look at when the current AF BPOs were acquired by their current owners and if it was a long'ish time ago then remove them from game .. if on the other hand they/some were acquired by CSM members and/or their affiliates within current term then scrap this idea and do the work yourselves (I know its tedious, but you are getting paid for it).
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 262	Posted - 2012.01.21 12:04:00 - [20] - Quote Quote: ...people who know absolutely nothing... Huh? So spending 80%+ of the last 3+ years in frigates/destroyers shooting all size ships is not enough to be considered knowledgeable on the topic frigates/destroyers and their place in the hierarchy? Quote: ...I have disproved those 'facts' Sticking ones fingers in ones ears and humming loudly does not actually disprove much of anything. You have at best ignored everything that has been said against the over-buff and at worst resorted to foul language and the rock solid argument of "just because!!!!111". Quote: ...So far nothing is broken. Wasn't it you who argued that it didn't matter if something was broken now since the plan is to rebalance almost everything at some point anyway? Didn't you state that they are not broken because it is possible to counter the over-buffed AFs with some ships? So your claim hinges on light combat in Eve surviving X number of years in a broken state and/or everyone not in an AF resort to specialized fits to stay competitive .. I would seriously love to hear what you consider broken .. hahahahahaha. Top of pile come February with no competition from any ship sub-BC: DP Enyo, DP Ishkur, DP Hawk, and DP Jag. With tracking removed as a hindrance any ship that has slots to DP WILL DP and thus be nigh unkillable by most everything not specifically setup to counter DP .. we finally managed to convince CCP that the Dramiel was off the reservation and now this ****. Hope frigate/cruiser tiers gets removed come summer or LS will be a very bland indeed
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 296	Posted - 2012.01.22 08:23:00 - [21] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: ..But at least they'll be super hard to kill with Destroyers at least, right? **, nope. Even easier.. Still trying to peddle that lie? Come visit us in the FW monkey cage .. the only case where a current** AF can be killed by destroyers is if its blobbed and/or alpha'd, we kill dessies with T1 frigs for Goddess sake .. tried saying it too many times to count but you are at least consistent in your efforts to automatically discard arguments against your over-buff. By the way, are interceptors even used in any significant numbers in the mega-blobs any more, seems to me that dictors have all but taken over all tackling duties .. Either way, looking forward to the over-buff spreading to all other ships now that AFs get placed somewhere between cruisers and BCs .. we are getting tiericide this summer right or will we have to live with these abnormal's for a full year or more?

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.