EVE Search - A Proposal for the fix to Jita

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

A Proposal for the fix to Jita

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.08.26 21:08:00 - [1] Edited by: Rells on 26/08/2007 21:12:01 Most poeple that I have seen complain about Jita toss all of the scorn on CCP but the reality is that it is just very difficult to run that many people on a server node without having problems, no matter what your infrastructure. The solution, as I see it, is in the way they changed Yulai before but a bit more drastic. The center of the galaxy falls into war. Trade disputes between the four factions starts a gradual decline in the securty of the center part of the galaxy. CONCORD forces are called away to handle the Serpentis, Gurista and other pirates that are taking advantage of the chaos. The center of the galaxy starts dropping security status gradually as the situation gets worse. Three months from now, there will be wars between NPC factions going on in the core of the galaxy and the security status will continually drop. When it goes below 0.5, the CONCORD forces will migrate out, declaring that the factions need to resolve their issues before they will return. The faction fighting continues and the security status drops further. Stations end up getting destroyed by the wars in the very center of the geographic galaxy. Refugees from the center flock to the previously low sec regions near the rim of the galaxy and CONCORD forces are called in to roll back pirates several systems, in some cases back up to the 0.0 regions themselves. Some lowsec regions see rise in sec status to expand the donut slightly. Stations that become in deep 0.0 get blown up and any player gear that has not been moved out already gets moved by the GMs before then (in case people are afg). Out of character, you make the security status gradually decline in the geographic center of the galaxy over a perios of months. As the security status drops, people will make an exodus outside of the center of the galaxy and will move into the rim regions. Ultimately the very center of the geographig galaxy (the place where every 0.0 region is equidistant from) will be 0.0 space and surrounded by a large swath of 0.0 space. As you approach the 0.0 chokes the security status gradually rises until it is high sec and then drops off again to 0.0. The galaxy, as seen geographically by security status, would be a donut of high sec surrounded inside and outside by 0.0 space. Since there would be no single high sec system at the core of the galaxy, multiple markets would stabilize in various parts of the dount. The longer travel times would lead to trade as plazers ship equipment to other regions. There would be a small number of local market hubs that would hold a lot fewer people and player-made courier missions and so on would be much more prevalent. Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken!
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.26 21:21:00 - [2] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 26/08/2007 21:21:16 First off there already are some other trade hubs about (such as Amarr and [I think] Oursulaert). Jita is by far the biggest but that probably due to their being far more Caldari and Caldari space being much more heavily populated than the other regions. As such your proposal would probably not change that much. Indeed it may even cause people to lump together more than they already do. If you have to travel all the way around the dougnut on lengthy trips many will find it more worthwhile to stay nearby. Besides...hi sec is already overcrowded. This proposal would just smush more people into already limited space and be a HUGE boon for whoever controlled that central region.
JitaTradeManager	Posted - 2007.08.26 21:26:00 - [3] no
Sleepkevert Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.26 21:38:00 - [4] Originally by: JitaTradeManager no Go Go super flame alt! Serously, if you don't have anything to add to a thread, don't post! Hmm, interesting tought, problem is, it would **** off a LOT of carebears, and it wouldn't really solve the problem. It would just establish another huge trade hub in caldari space. And multiple small ones (as mentioned before) in the other regions. There is no way around a trade hub because there will always be an other taking his place, that is just as busy, or even busier. I have also seen some movement in jita in the past few times i was there, ships were for sale cheaper in the same region, but not in jita. I guess the builders / sellers also got fed up wit the lag. One more try: Sign my sig
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.26 22:01:00 - [5] Trade hubs are an emergent effect. That is it is nothing the Devs do to make it so. They just evolve naturally. Same reason we have shopping malls today. Instead of having to drive all over on errands you can make one trip and get most of what you need. As the OP noted they nerfed Yulai into oblivion and we got Jita now. Another will crop up if they zap Jita. As far as I see it there is only ONE solution to doing away with trade hubs and that is an incremental increase on the price of doing business there. Ideally this would be a calculation based off of current orders in the system. The more stuff that is on sale there the more expensive it becomes to put stuff on the market. This even makes sense from an RP perspective. A station would have finite storage space (I know they don't in current game mechanics). As sellers unloaded more and more to sell there space would become scarce and via simple supply and demand the station would raise prices to put your stuff on the market. For game balance purposes however this should be imposed to an entire system and not just a given station (you could say the station owners in the system collude to fix prices in all stations in the system). This would need to extend to Contracts as well as Market orders and the price should go up substantially over time. Eventually certain items would simply become too expensive to sell there and people would move off...likely to a system next door. Their prices would go up and so on. Some backwater systems with very low costs would then look more appealing.
AlleyKat White-Noise Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.26 22:03:00 - [6] Jita does not need fixing, Yulai did. (yes, I did read your post and my opinion stands)
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.08.26 22:07:00 - [7] If you "fix" Jita, you're going to have to "fix" some other system 2 months down the road. There will always be trade hubs on intersections of major trade routes.. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Thekenni Mining Munitions and Mayhem R i s e	Posted - 2007.08.26 22:09:00 - [8] this actually sounds really cool. the only problem i see with it is the new players that are just starting not reacting well or adapting to the environment fast enough to pay past the trial ------------------------------------------------ pew pew
Quincy TawHarr Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.08.26 22:29:00 - [9] Cement Walls would be my choice, but if you want to create a non band-aid solution then be my guest. Scrapheap fun on Bombs: Takahashi: Atm you're essentially "firing the equivalent of a Ferox" Dixon: Letting people fire actual Ferox's would be nice... it'd make them almost useful.
Bellatrix Racell Amarr	Posted - 2007.08.26 22:38:00 - [10] Jita will remain a problem due to the amount of Caldari players, and all the others that flock to Jita rather than build upon their own races Minor trade hubs such as Ourserlert, Rens, and Amarr. I don't remember where, but I did see something about factional warfare comming to EVE. If that is so, then there is the Jita solution. Once that's in having such a high concentration of players will result in more of the waring factions having a huge supply of targets, and the situation will balance. I do like what Rells suggests though, having more a lowsec / no sec buffer between the factions in empire is more realistic, and adds a certain border feel. I mean the Matari, and Amarr do not like each other, you think it'd be a little more hostle to crosss territory. Same between Caldari - Gallente. Then again I think there should be no more than 12 systems that retain the 1.0 rating. ( 1 Starter for each race, with 3 stations, 1 from each school ) Having the empires push a bit further out into unclaimed space, and adding a violent border buffer makes great sence. ------< Official Sig demarkation line >-------- 100% Mod hijack proof If a Caldari, and an Amarr had an offspring, would it be a Calamari?? Please excuse me, for I need to find some
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.26 23:19:00 - [11] OMG, I was literally JUST about to post my own Jita fix idea (first in about a year from me). Since it's actually relatively similar, I'll post it here (to the hijack mobile!). With the impending arrival of factional warfare, so there should (as you say) also be a breakdown in CONCORD coverage. However, unlike your idea (whereby security status drops in the most populated areas), my idea is based on the concept of a war front. So, at the border zones of each of the Empires, CONCORD coverage drops. In practice, this'll mean that in order to travel from, for example, Caldari space to, for example, Gallente space, you'll have to travel through a thin band (2 or 3 jumps) of lowsec space. There can be numerous entrance points to prevent over camping (or there could not, if you prefer), but you still have to take the plunge and travel through several low sec systems. What does this mean? Two things: firstly, it'll allow RPers (and others) from each faction to duke it out on their borderlands in as bloody a defence of their homeland as you could ever hope for (CVA demanding a toll from every Minmatar to enter Amarr? Genius!). Secondly, if anyone wishes to ship valuable goods from their homeland to a "trade hub" such as Jita, they'll have to cross some lowsec (and have you seen many people willing to ship 20 billion worth of faction loot through pirate country?). Since most people's home is wherever their best mission agents are, and since the best mission agents tend to be in their home country, some 40% of EVE (the non Caldari bit) will have to cross lowsec to get to Jita. Most carebears seem to have an innate phobia of crossing lowsec, and even the most hardened vet wouldn't fancy crossing inevitably well-camped space with billions in trade goods without a lot of decent preparation, meaning the general market should become more "localised" (a much repeated goal of the Dev team). A tenuous third reason is that PvP is, of course, always nice. --------
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.08.26 23:43:00 - [12] Very nice how the "solution" is always to reduce high sec and empire space, as if 3/5 of the star systems weren't already 0.0. A bit greedy, don't you think?
Captian Internet	Posted - 2007.08.26 23:48:00 - [13] I actually would like to see sec status change based upon the number of ships/pods killed (excluding 0.0 systems) Lowsec systems could change to highsec if the pirate presence was little to none So the amount of kamikazes in a highsec system would basically change its sec status lower and lower. I'm all for having dynamic effects on the entire galaxy based upon player actions we need more of them in my opinion
Erimisha The Silent Rage R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.08.26 23:52:00 - [14] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Trade hubs are an emergent effect. That is it is nothing the Devs do to make it so. They just evolve naturally. Same reason we have shopping malls today. Instead of having to drive all over on errands you can make one trip and get most of what you need. As the OP noted they nerfed Yulai into oblivion and we got Jita now. Another will crop up if they zap Jita. As far as I see it there is only ONE solution to doing away with trade hubs and that is an incremental increase on the price of doing business there. Ideally this would be a calculation based off of current orders in the system. The more stuff that is on sale there the more expensive it becomes to put stuff on the market. This even makes sense from an RP perspective. A station would have finite storage space (I know they don't in current game mechanics). As sellers unloaded more and more to sell there space would become scarce and via simple supply and demand the station would raise prices to put your stuff on the market. For game balance purposes however this should be imposed to an entire system and not just a given station (you could say the station owners in the system collude to fix prices in all stations in the system). This would need to extend to Contracts as well as Market orders and the price should go up substantially over time. Eventually certain items would simply become too expensive to sell there and people would move off...likely to a system next door. Their prices would go up and so on. Some backwater systems with very low costs would then look more appealing. Bingo. Corp offices are like this so why aren't "shops"?
Shilikahn	Posted - 2007.08.27 00:04:00 - [15] Fix Jita? is it broke? Too many other trade hubs to visit instead.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.27 00:05:00 - [16] Originally by: Patch86 Most carebears seem to have an innate phobia of crossing lowsec, and even the most hardened vet wouldn't fancy crossing inevitably well-camped space with billions in trade goods without a lot of decent preparation, meaning the general market should become more "localised" (a much repeated goal of the Dev team). A tenuous third reason is that PvP is, of course, always nice. Have you ever personally tried to move stuff via hauler/freighter through low sec? If you have you would understand that innate "phobia". It's not even a phobia really. Recognizing legitimate danger only makes sense. I doubt you'd say you have a phobia of lions but I bet you wouldn't willingly walk through a pride of lions either. Just common sense really. Your ideas sound interesting and in fact people (on and off) have suggested low sec buffer zones in EVE since forever. I'd be ok with it IF you come up with some reasonable ways to guard haulers/freighters that does not require a fleet in attendance. I can say from experience that when going through a camp in a hauler WITH guards the pirates almost without fail pop the hauler first before dealing with the guards. The only reliable defense today for a hauler is having such a large escort with you that pirates run but it is not a very viable strategy most times.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.27 00:49:00 - [17] Edited by: Patch86 on 27/08/2007 00:50:01 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Patch86 Most carebears seem to have an innate phobia of crossing lowsec, and even the most hardened vet wouldn't fancy crossing inevitably well-camped space with billions in trade goods without a lot of decent preparation, meaning the general market should become more "localised" (a much repeated goal of the Dev team). A tenuous third reason is that PvP is, of course, always nice. Have you ever personally tried to move stuff via hauler/freighter through low sec? If you have you would understand that innate "phobia". It's not even a phobia really. Recognizing legitimate danger only makes sense. I doubt you'd say you have a phobia of lions but I bet you wouldn't willingly walk through a pride of lions either. Just common sense really. Actually yes, I do it all the time. Back when my corp used to live in Genesis (back in the day) there used to be some great trade runs that went out in to low sec, and ATM I've been lazing around Empire (not enough time to do 0.0 right now, and Empire is very relaxing) cleaning up on some of the contracts people post in low sec (in my trusty Itty 3). I wouldn't fancy moving more than few million isk's worth without some protection, but I've not actually been nabbed yet in the last couple of weeks. And heres how you guard it: Hauler waits in hi-sec. Combat gang jumps in to low sec, clears gate (if necessary) and the hauler jumps through. Hauler heads to safe spot, combat gang jump through next gate, clears it, and so forth. The hauler should at no point ever see a pirate on his overview, and the pirates should never see the hauler. In the event that the gate is too heavily camped, the whole bunch can turn around and try another route, losing only the unlucky scout. The way NOT to guard it: have the hauler and all the combat ships jump through a gate blind. If theres a gate camp, hauler gets popped regardless of guards, and the guards might get popped too. Can we implement my idea now? --------
Juneau Vespertine Minmatar Tech 3 Hotsauce Limited	Posted - 2007.08.27 00:49:00 - [18] The current incarnation of the contract system requires that the sale of expensive items uses a single unified point or area of space. Fracturing the four empires into semi-self contained trade regions ("WTS Rattlesnake, Caldari space only") would seriously harm EVE's economy. Busier regions would be harmed less, but the quieter parts of highsec would be hurt a lot more. Shipping costs would rise tremendously, and freighters would require some sort of changes or risk only being usable solo for intra-empire commerce. Solitude is an example of a semi-self contained economy, and I don't think it's economically viable for the whole of highsec. What's more, the center of the galaxy already is lowsec. While I do think more lowsec should be added there, since it currently seems to be pretty cramped in some places, I'd also argue that more highsec needs to be added as well. One doesn't necessarily need to come at the expense of the other. As much as people decry Jita, it serves several economic purposes: a place where unique items can be bought and sold without having to ship things across the galaxy, a place where perfect-competition goods can be found reliably and can be expected to follow a predictable supply curve, a place where specialty and exotic product vendors can find enough clientele to turn a profit, and a bellwether that allows people to determine the value of a product and in which direction that value is moving. You can destroy Jita, but you can't destroy the economic need for all of those things, so eliminating Jita as a hub market will not solve your problem. It'll just move it. I hate Jita and I avoid going there, but I respect the economic function that it serves, and as a tech 2 industrialist I have absolutely no choice but to go there on occasion, for a variety of reasons. Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Minmatar men are the bad guys of EVE, they need bad ass looking props to go with it.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.27 01:22:00 - [19] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 27/08/2007 01:23:17 Originally by: Patch86 Can we implement my idea now? Not so fast. Your solution to guarding a hauler is somewhat idealized. Yes, it works and is indeed the way to go about it but it leaves out many possibilities. For instance I have been on runs where the guards ran off some campers. I jump through and go safespot and they are off to the next gate. In the meantime the pirates decided there was some fun to be had here, gathered more ships and started the chase. At first they do not know about me (I think) and are after my guards. Eventually I am left with no guard and they spot me in local and start the hunt. I managed to get to another system and dock but am then stuck deep in low sec in a hauler with no guard. I have had several instances of the above occur with minor variations (e.g. an unrelated pack of pirates comes in from another direction by chance and start after us). If I was in a freighter I'd have been doomed in every case (can't cloak it, so darn slow to warp around safespots it gets caught eventually). I realize that all that chasing stuff is part of the game and its fine and even fun but the point is the hauler is not "protected" directly. It relies completely on sneaking the damn things through. I'd like to see some decent method of actually protecting a hauler (like say sharing shields with another ship so pirates have to engage the defender and at least knock down his shields to get at the hauler). Or something like that.
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.08.27 06:11:00 - [20] So the argument against the idea is that people would have to actually take some risk, that trade between regions would become a legitimate pursuit and that there would be more markets spread out? Hmm, sounds like the arguments in favor to me. There will be a lot of poeple against the idea just because it makes them actually work for their money rather than justdumping it all in Jita but I get sick of the fact that the only place to buy things is Jita. Jita is a self-perpetuating mess. If there were other trade hubs there would be import and export businesses and businesses bringing in covoys, more value to tech 2 haulers and so on. Nerfing jita in this way only could help commerce in eve as prices will no longer be so monostructured. As for the amount of high sec space, it should change very little. Most is underused anyway and you forget that some of the current lowsec systems, such as aununen, would rise in security status as more "refugees" mode there and CONCORD forms an interest. There should be only one or two lowsec systems before 0.0 in a lot of places. Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken!
jongalt	Posted - 2007.08.27 06:23:00 - [21] hmm. even been to manhattan? would you prefer Mall of America and the Gold Coast and Rodeo Drive to the convenience of manhattan? people like to gather in groups to trade. its been that way for a thousand years. the kasbahs and the bazaars in the mid-east attest to that. whats that got to with eve? human nature. why would it be any different in a "pixellated universe"? say "no" to nerfing jita as a trade hub and "social" meeting place. say "yes" to nerfing lag. they are mutually exclusive. -jg.
Stakhanov Katana's Edge	Posted - 2007.08.27 06:30:00 - [22] Edited by: Stakhanov on 27/08/2007 06:30:00 While it's any pirate's dream to make Jita lowsec , I'd be rather annoyed if Egghelende became highsec. Originally by: Cipher7 If you manage to get baited, what's your skill, being a good victim?
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.08.27 07:23:00 - [23] Originally by: Patch86 Edited by: Patch86 on 27/08/2007 00:50:01 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Patch86 Most carebears seem to have an innate phobia of crossing lowsec, and even the most hardened vet wouldn't fancy crossing inevitably well-camped space with billions in trade goods without a lot of decent preparation, meaning the general market should become more "localised" (a much repeated goal of the Dev team). A tenuous third reason is that PvP is, of course, always nice. Have you ever personally tried to move stuff via hauler/freighter through low sec? If you have you would understand that innate "phobia". It's not even a phobia really. Recognizing legitimate danger only makes sense. I doubt you'd say you have a phobia of lions but I bet you wouldn't willingly walk through a pride of lions either. Just common sense really. Actually yes, I do it all the time. Back when my corp used to live in Genesis (back in the day) there used to be some great trade runs that went out in to low sec, and ATM I've been lazing around Empire (not enough time to do 0.0 right now, and Empire is very relaxing) cleaning up on some of the contracts people post in low sec (in my trusty Itty 3). I wouldn't fancy moving more than few million isk's worth without some protection, but I've not actually been nabbed yet in the last couple of weeks. And heres how you guard it: Hauler waits in hi-sec. Combat gang jumps in to low sec, clears gate (if necessary) and the hauler jumps through. Hauler heads to safe spot, combat gang jump through next gate, clears it, and so forth. The hauler should at no point ever see a pirate on his overview, and the pirates should never see the hauler. In the event that the gate is too heavily camped, the whole bunch can turn around and try another route, losing only the unlucky scout. The way NOT to guard it: have the hauler and all the combat ships jump through a gate blind. If theres a gate camp, hauler gets popped regardless of guards, and the guards might get popped too. Can we implement my idea now? Very good solution if: a) you are doing regularly a route, so you have sapespots in all the systems, doing it the first time will require some work before from a Cov ops or similar ship to prepare the safespots. b) you have a combat gang big enough to burst the gangs at the gates, so useful if you are moving a convoy with multiple hau=ers or a freighter, not so useful (isk wise/time wise) if you need to protect a single hauler.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.08.27 07:30:00 - [24] Originally by: Rells As for the amount of high sec space, it should change very little. Most is underused anyway and you forget that some of the current lowsec systems, such as aununen, would rise in security status as more "refugees" mode there and CONCORD forms an interest. There should be only one or two lowsec systems before 0.0 in a lot of places. I suppose you live in 0.0. So how much system with only you there you pass every day? In high sec, unless I log in just after DT, I find almost always at least 2-3 other people in the same system. So if high sec is underused and some can be cut away, following the same line of thought 0.0 should be reduced by 70-80%. Think before posting.
Arvald Caldari House of Tempers	Posted - 2007.08.27 07:31:00 - [25] jita dosent need to be fixed, players do forum warrior in training ya cant stop the rokh Originally by: Tsia Yarrr, server be down
Acidictadpole Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.08.27 07:32:00 - [26] Originally by: Sleepkevert Originally by: JitaTradeManager no Go Go super flame alt! Serously, if you don't have anything to add to a thread, don't post! I think that's a perfectly fine "add" to this post. No.
Allestin Villimar	Posted - 2007.08.27 07:41:00 - [27] Originally by: Rells So the argument against the idea is that people would have to actually take some risk, that trade between regions would become a legitimate pursuit and that there would be more markets spread out? Hmm, sounds like the arguments in favor to me. There will be a lot of poeple against the idea just because it makes them actually work for their money rather than justdumping it all in Jita... The problem isn't the increased risk, it's that there's currently no real way of protecting anything. Unless you have 20 ships remote armor repping/shield xfering you can't really protect a hauler. Freighters can't equip anything to boost their survival, and industrials wouldn't last 30 seconds to t2 drones, much less actual fire. So what you're suggesting is increased risk with no gain. Yeah, sure, Jita isn't lagging. Instead you have to make 50 jumps through various regions hoping you aren't going to run into a gate camp and get podded just to get certain things. What would happen is that trade would come to a complete halt. Single players would no longer be able to do anything because there would always be at least one gate camped in between those empire pockets. You'd have large corps who'd get 3-4 freighters into trade hubs a day by escorting them (and occasionally losing one), but that's compared to the 100s of them that get into the various zones today.
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.08.27 08:01:00 - [28] Fixing the Jita problem through security degredation won't work. Yes it will fix Jita but another system will just take over Jita's spot as main trading hub being just as lagged (see how the "fix" of yulai became, instead of yulai being a massive lag central now it's Jita). --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
J'Mkarr Soban Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.27 08:20:00 - [29] Yes there will always be trade hubs, but you can craft the environment in such a way that one single trade hub exists - there would be multiple. Having a void of insecure space in the middle would create a doughnut shape of safe space, which wouldn't have a centre. This also opens up the opportunity for traders to offer their services to cross the void with their escort, too, instead of people going all round the doughnut. Plus faction warfare coming up anyway, and people aligned to opposing factions, won't the navies of the opposing factions fire on enemies? Even players? That would mean that any players aligned with a faction that the Caldari are at war with can't get to Jita. Which means that new trade hubs would appear, or at the very least it will stifle the crowding in Jita (as alot of the buyers will move out being aligned, but the traders will remain neutral). ----------------------------- "Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow." "Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?" "..."
RisenPhoenix Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.08.27 08:25:00 - [30] The way to fix Jita is just to shut down the system for a few weeks and force people to start doing things elsewhere so then when you turn it back on there is a significantly lower population and people wont all flock back to jita because they are setup elsewheres now. Or just remove Jita altogether.... ------------------------------------------------

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.