EVE Search - A Proposed Compromise for the AFK Cloaking Debate (module)

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

A Proposed Compromise for the AFK Cloaking Debate (module)

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Illyria Ambri RennTech	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:52:00 - [31] Originally by: Bellum Eternus We don't need any new modules. Just let non covert cloaks be probable. Problem solved. Incorrect.. this would effect all stealthbombers and combat recons as well. T2 cloaks shouldn''t be probable.. not just t2 CovOps. If you allow all cloaks except CovOps become probable.. then that will kill the Stealth Bomber and Combat Recon portion of eve Remove local.. problem solved ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek Here come the Drums!! - The Master
Steel Tigeress Gallente Steel-Wolfs	Posted - 2007.09.10 15:04:00 - [32] Originally by: Illyria Ambri Remove local.. problem solved Thats been tried, it failed.. move on people.
BoBoZoBo Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.09.10 16:18:00 - [33] I love the story behind the module but a few things that still get me in this whole debate: 1) Who says COVERT cloaks are not meant to be used for COVERT operations, such as monitoring a system for enemy activity, REGARDLESS of the duration of the operation. 2) How do you PROVE that the pilot in question is AFK all the time? 3) Regarding this module (with the fact you still cannot prove WHO is AFK)... How does the module determine if the pilot is AFK? Does it call your house? Activate your webcam? ========================= Minister of Propaganda - Operator 9
MaidMarion The SMITE Brotherhood Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.10 16:41:00 - [34] There is no debate, just alot of whiners screaming for a nerf.
Aaron	Posted - 2007.09.10 16:52:00 - [35] Originally by: MaidMarion There is no debate, just alot of whiners screaming for a nerf. Originally by: Aaron Another simple idea would be to set the eve client to log off after a period of 1 hour and thirty minutes of not reciving any mouse, keyboard, or voice data. I think its quite safe for CCP to assume the subscriber is not playing eve if they are afk for 90 minutes. cmon lets not kid ourselves here. the solution above is the most realest, if it is not done by ccp then they condone people being afk for 23 hours per day. its not a whine its logic.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.09.10 16:54:00 - [36] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Reem Fairchild If one hostile/neutral in local is enough to harass you and keep you from your normal activities and you are unable to defend your miners and ratters from them, then you don't deserve to have 0.0 space. It's not about people cloaked in local disrupting mining. It's about ISK farmers permacloaked and unable to be killed. Actually, to the vast majority of people on these forums who complain about "afk cloaking" it is what I described that is the "problem" and not the cloaking ratting Ravens. Not that the latter is a real problem either considering they will just log off anyway when someone enters the system, if they can't cloak, and be just as impossible to catch in most circumstances. That's why you add a 15 minute agression timer to player's ships when they are attacked by NPCs. They log, they're stuck in space (at a safespot) for 15 min, just like PVP combat. Problem solved. They log, they get probed and die. They cloak, they get probed and die if they're not actively avoiding being caught. Simple. It's amazing really. I can't possibly be that much smarter than everyone else as to be the only one who could possibly come up with the simplest, most elegant solution to the problem. I don't see why hundreds of people haven't already thought of the same thing. No you aren't smarter than the average player. It is only that the "smart" solution will mean that any miner that has encountered a rat in the las 15 minutes is a easy prey, the same for every ratting ship, and so on. Someone could jump to a safespot and leave the game without anyone in system, and 10 minute later any wiseass guy entrer the syste, scan a ship, drop a probe, say "easy kill", ad nuke the por sap (as the aggression timer restart as soon as you have been shot. Your solution is "perfect" if you want people to stap doing any activity 15 minutes before leaving the game, a bit less if you suppose some people has a life beside EVE.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.09.10 17:01:00 - [37] Originally by: Del Narveux Epic bear solution to the AFK cloaker problem: AFK timer that ticks you in local and chat channels after 10 minutes of inactivity, then ticks off when you do something. Badda bing badda boom, AFK problem solved without even touching cloaks. Of course this wont placate those who 'zomg afk cloakers' as an excuse for wanting to nerf anything they cant ez gank, but itll fix the stated problem. You mean that the character will diappear from local after 10 minutes is cloaker is inactive and will reappear as soon he do anything like changing speed/warping/dropping probes ecc. ? As soon has the ship do any activity, not the player, so no macro spamming on a empty gang channel to keep the character visible? Seem a very good idea. If the player want to scout enemy movements he can do it, even a bit better than normal as he is not noticed, but at the same time as soon as he start any potentially ostile activity he reappear in local, like he just jumped in. If it can be implemented it is genial. The cloaker would be doing exactly what a true stealt ship would do: move to all passive systems to eaversdrop the enemy, but doing so heavily cutting on his offensive capability.
BoBoZoBo Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.09.10 17:10:00 - [38] Funny how people avoid the question of actually PROVING pilots are AFK. ========================= Minister of Propaganda - Operator 9
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.09.10 17:13:00 - [39] Originally by: Gorefacer AFK macro miners And what is a AFK macrominer? A macro is a program, so there is no question of AFK or not. The work is done by a program not a player, that is the key point. If you have problems with players mining while mostly AFK (reading, writing, using other character do do things, ecc.) it has nothing to do with macro or cloaking. So use the appropriate threads.
Elipsis Gallente The Mission Guys	Posted - 2007.09.10 21:31:00 - [40] A lot of good replies here so I'm going to end up doing lots of edits. Originally by: BoBoZoBo Funny how people avoid the question of actually PROVING pilots are AFK. The module that I thought up would work (as in return results) regardless of whether or not the pilot was AFK... however it would take long enough to use (see the original description of how you would have to triangulate your way to their position) that the cloaked person would have plenty of time to see you warping in and mucking about moving 5 and 10k at a time trying to figure out how close to you they were getting. Originally by: A Few Different People Posts regarding whether or not this module would work on Covert Ops cloaked ships My original thinking was that it would but that any covert ops cloaked ship pilot with half a brain (ie: not AFK) would see you doing this and just move away from you. The idea of the module is that it is not as quick and easy to use as simply probing out a cloaked player would be, and thus give the cloaked player plenty of time to react and the AFK player plenty of time to die. -... CEO and Founder of the Mission Guys
Reem Fairchild	Posted - 2007.09.10 22:09:00 - [41] Originally by: Lord Zoran Originally by: Ishmael Hansen Cloaked ships can't kill ya. cloaked ships can uncloak....... At which point they die if you defend your miners and ratters. If you don't, then you shouldn't be in 0.0.
Gorefacer	Posted - 2007.09.10 22:19:00 - [42] Originally by: BoBoZoBo I love the story behind the module but a few things that still get me in this whole debate: 1) Who says COVERT cloaks are not meant to be used for COVERT operations, such as monitoring a system for enemy activity, REGARDLESS of the duration of the operation. 2) How do you PROVE that the pilot in question is AFK all the time? 3) Regarding this module (with the fact you still cannot prove WHO is AFK)... How does the module determine if the pilot is AFK? Does it call your house? Activate your webcam? You don't need to PROVE if a pilot is AFK or not, just set-up modules or game mechanics in such a way that AFK cloaking is inherently impossible, this way there can be no AFK cloakers and the argument of difficulty to prove an AFK state is null in void. Many suggestions have been made about game changes that don't affect cloaks that would stop AFKing. In this thread the same result is theorized to be achieved through the addition of a module. With a module that finds AFK cloakers, you would not need to prove if they are AFK either. Basically it should be designed so that if they are AFK, they get probed out eventually and killed. If they are active they have warning that they are being hunted and can never be found before they have time to move. Im leaning more towards an AFK refresh button or an auto logout timer rather than another module, but the module may work as well. To the people that claim that ANY ability to probe cloaked ships will render the module ineffective: Why? What if the cloaker was alerted everytime they were being probed AND given ample time to move and remain undetected indeterminately? How would this negatively affect a cloaked ship that wasn't AFK? "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
Reem Fairchild	Posted - 2007.09.10 22:23:00 - [43] Ok, someone explain to me why cloaking in a hostile system in 0.0 and going afk shouldn't be possible.
Gorefacer	Posted - 2007.09.10 22:32:00 - [44] Edited by: Gorefacer on 10/09/2007 22:33:46 Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Gorefacer AFK macro miners And what is a AFK macrominer? A macro is a program, so there is no question of AFK or not. The work is done by a program not a player, that is the key point. If you have problems with players mining while mostly AFK (reading, writing, using other character do do things, ecc.) it has nothing to do with macro or cloaking. So use the appropriate threads. This is the appropriate thread. People that mine while reading/writing etc is fine. People that mine all day while they go to the bar is where I draw the line. As I explained, not being present in the game and still affecting others in game is the issue. With mining, a macro is required to do this. With cloaking, game mechanics are set up in such a way as it is possible without a macro. If game mechanics allowed miners to mine all day without touching the keyboard and did not require a macro to achieve this, I would be of the opinion that there should be a game change to prevent this also. If you can't make the connection, that's OK. Don't tell me what threads my opinions belong in though. AFK mining was just a comparison many are familiar with, AFK cloaking is the issue and that is exactly what my posts referred to. Also I agree with the 10minute cloak ship dissapearing from local until they do something idea. That way you remove the negative affects of a cloaker WHEN they are AFK. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
Gorefacer	Posted - 2007.09.10 22:43:00 - [45] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Ok, someone explain to me why cloaking in a hostile system in 0.0 and going afk shouldn't be possible. Ok. The way a cloaker negatively affects a system: Forces miners/ratters/logistics to operate in a less efficient way than they normally would. This is a very effective way to hamper a systems operations and a valid tactic to use by cloakers. Why should this result be achieved by pilots not actually playing the game? I need to be active in game to rat or mine (gaining ISK for friendly forces). I also need to be in game to kill enemy ships (effectively reducing an enemy forces ISK). Cloakers should have to be in game to do what they do (also reducing an enemy forces ISK). "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
RuriHoshino Minmatar The Mission Guys	Posted - 2007.09.10 22:46:00 - [46] What confuses me is the argument that being AFK in a system is somehow harmful to the game. By definition the person is not actually doing anything, which is different from a macro miner who is actively harming EVE and should be asploded on principle. Also, CCP has stated that they will be making cloaked ships scannable in some way with Rev III. However they implement it either the probe will get you within 2k of the cloaked ship, or you will have to bring a few friends with drone boats to fill an area of space with as much collision detection as you can manage. It will not be easy or instant and will give an alert covops pilot plenty of time to warp off. Saying that this woud make cloaks useless is just silly, all it means is that you, like all other pilots, cannot stop piloting your ship without the risk of being blown up.
SiJira	Posted - 2007.09.10 22:55:00 - [47] Originally by: Steel Tigeress Originally by: Illyria Ambri Remove local.. problem solved Thats been tried, it failed.. move on people. no it has not failed - it has barely been accidentally tested whiners usually need more than a few days to adjust and only if they know its permanent ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
Mirirar Solstice Systems Development Concourse	Posted - 2007.09.10 23:10:00 - [48] If your corp can't: a) at least provide sentries in adjacent or nearby systems to warn of approaching hostiles so your miners can POS up b) at least arrange for at least 1 combat pilot to be on standby to guard your miners against combat recons. YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE IN 0.0. Stop whining. I'm mean, seriously - if ONE cloaked ship is paralyzing your entire corp's activity in the system (let alone constellation) you're playing the wrong game. You're going to get plowed under once someone takes a serious interest in you. ALSO: MAKE NON-COVERT CLOAKING DEVICES REQUIRE FUEL.
Gorefacer	Posted - 2007.09.11 00:14:00 - [49] Originally by: RuriHoshino Edited by: RuriHoshino on 10/09/2007 22:50:30 Edited by: RuriHoshino on 10/09/2007 22:48:52 spelling ftw How does just sitting there hamper anyone's operations? One extra person in the local channel is only a problem if you're afk mining in low/zero sec without escort. What confuses me is the argument that being AFK in a system is somehow harmful to the game. By definition the person is not actually doing anything, which is different from a macro miner who is actively harming EVE and should be asploded on principle. Not sure why its so hard to understand. System with cloaker(s): Miners/ratters/logistics must act as if there is a hostile in the system ready to warp to them at any given moment. This means providing escorts and defense. This means they must split profits with the protection they bring. In the end they make less ISK than they would have. System w/o cloaker(s): Miners/ratters/logisitics know that they will see hostiles jump into system before trying to locate them. This gives them a time buffer and allows unguarded operation to proliferate. In this way they are able to maximize ISK/hr gain. That is how sitting there hampers operations. Does anyone dispute that this is not the case, regardless of how they feel about changes to it? You say a macro miner hurts EVE. Why? I think it is because he can gain ISK without putting the effort of being in game to do it. You ask why AFK cloaking is harmful to the game. I think it is because he can reduce the gain of ISK of his enemies without putting the effort of being in game to do it. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
Gorefacer	Posted - 2007.09.11 00:27:00 - [50] Originally by: Mirirar If your corp can't: a) at least provide sentries in adjacent or nearby systems to warn of approaching hostiles so your miners can POS up b) at least arrange for at least 1 combat pilot to be on standby to guard your miners against combat recons. YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE IN 0.0. Stop whining. I'm mean, seriously - if ONE cloaked ship is paralyzing your entire corp's activity in the system (let alone constellation) you're playing the wrong game. You're going to get plowed under once someone takes a serious interest in you. ALSO: MAKE NON-COVERT CLOAKING DEVICES REQUIRE FUEL. You miss the point entirely. I never mentioned anything about not being ABLE to defend miners/ratters. It has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. Even if you can defend a miner, he must give you ISK for the service of your TIME in game. In an example (Numbers not necessarily accurate), lets say that Miner X needs to mine 100mil ISK for whatever objective he needs it for. Without splitting ISK for defense it takes him 8hrs. With splitting ISK for defense it takes him 16hrs. MinerX had to spend 8hrs extra of his in game time to achieve his objective. The cloaker that forced this reduced efficiency should also have to spend his in game time to affect MinerX in this way. DESERVING to be in 0.0 does not touch on the subject at all. Also nobody ever said anything about ONE cloaker paralyzing a system. Who said there is only one? The world is not Black and White, it is possible to affect something to a certain degree, of having a variable negative effect on something. For me the argument is purely the principal of the matter. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
Mirirar Solstice Systems Development Concourse	Posted - 2007.09.11 01:07:00 - [51] Originally by: Gorefacer In an example (Numbers not necessarily accurate), lets say that Miner X needs to mine 100mil ISK for whatever objective he needs it for. Without splitting ISK for defense it takes him 8hrs. With splitting ISK for defense it takes him 16hrs. MinerX had to spend 8hrs extra of his in game time to achieve his objective. The cloaker that forced this reduced efficiency should also have to spend his in game time to affect MinerX in this way No matter how you spin it, all I see is you whining that miners can't work alone in 0.0. That cloaker is suffering "reduced efficency" -- he's not out ratting or otherwise messing with your empire.
Gorefacer	Posted - 2007.09.11 01:36:00 - [52] Originally by: Mirirar Originally by: Gorefacer In an example (Numbers not necessarily accurate), lets say that Miner X needs to mine 100mil ISK for whatever objective he needs it for. Without splitting ISK for defense it takes him 8hrs. With splitting ISK for defense it takes him 16hrs. MinerX had to spend 8hrs extra of his in game time to achieve his objective. The cloaker that forced this reduced efficiency should also have to spend his in game time to affect MinerX in this way No matter how you spin it, all I see is you whining that miners can't work alone in 0.0. That cloaker is suffering "reduced efficency" -- he's not out ratting or otherwise messing with your empire. There is no spin. This is a perfectly reasonable example. The cloaker is not suffering reduced efficiency. Is that what you meant to say? Also I'm not whining, no matter how much you want to spin that. I don't agree that cloaking mechanics should allow AFK cloakers to affect people. Cloakers are just fine, explain to me why keeping cloaks exactly as they are and removing the ability to AFK cloak would be bad for the game. The issue is AFK cloaking, my position is that it shouldn't be possible without circumventing game mechanics. Everyone that has an opinion in any issue is not a whiner. I could easily call you names, but it wouldn't change a damn thing, nor would it somehow change my argument other than making me look petty and emotional about a virtual world. Get a grip. The current AFK cloaker situation will probably not change, much like ISK selling macro mining and other game activities I don't agree with. Much like those other instances, when this is not changed I will continue to play and enjoy the game, this does not mean I can't have an opinion on it though. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
Pherusa Plumosa Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.11 01:44:00 - [53] Originally by: Elipsis Module: Cloak Emission Scanner ....... ...... Impact: -This module would take a couple minutes or more to effectively narrow down the position of an AFK cloaked ship. -A player who is cloaked and half conscious could easily just change directions a few times and make it impossible to find them. -Going entirely AFK while cloaked would become a terrible idea. Ideas, thoughts, feedback? Too complicated. 1. What about random malfunctions of the tech1-cloaking devices? Depending on your skill-level in cloaking your module has 10 to 1 malfunctions per hour. If you are afk, you can't hit the cloak button again, if you are watching the screen, easy game, just hit cloak. 2. Other restricions for example increase fitting-costs, more drawbacks, you can't cloak with aggresion just a few ideas... __________________________________________________ Hire us \o/ contact Necrophorus or me ingame
Grendelsbane	Posted - 2007.09.11 01:45:00 - [54] You need a guard no matter if there is someone lurking in local or not, cloaked or otherwise. Your point simply makes no sense.
Elipsis Gallente The Mission Guys	Posted - 2007.09.11 01:59:00 - [55] Edited by: Elipsis on 11/09/2007 02:05:01 Originally by: Gorefacer You don't need to PROVE if a pilot is AFK or not, just set-up modules or game mechanics in such a way that AFK cloaking is inherently impossible, this way there can be no AFK cloakers and the argument of difficulty to prove an AFK state is null in void. Thank you! This is precisely the point I was trying to make earlier. Like you said though, maybe a simple non-module mechanic would be easier as long as that mechanic didn't interfere with active players and, ya know... bathroom breaks. Originally by: Gorefacer System with cloaker(s): Miners/ratters/logistics must act as if there is a hostile in the system ready to warp to them at any given moment. This means providing escorts and defense. This means they must split profits with the protection they bring. In the end they make less ISK than they would have. System w/o cloaker(s): Miners/ratters/logisitics know that they will see hostiles jump into system before trying to locate them. This gives them a time buffer and allows unguarded operation to proliferate. In this way they are able to maximize ISK/hr gain. Well... you do realize that if we remove / hide cloaked ships in local than you have to always act like someone hostile is in the system. Because then there could always be cloaked ships and you wouldn't know about it. So removing local just makes everyone paranoid and people remain just as scared of AFK cloakers... if not more so... because there is no way to detect them. Removing local definitely would not stop AFK-cloakers from terrorizing a system. Originally by: Pherusa Plumosa Too complicated. 1. What about random malfunctions of the tech1-cloaking devices? Depending on your skill-level in cloaking your module has 10 to 1 malfunctions per hour. If you are afk, you can't hit the cloak button again, if you are watching the screen, easy game, just hit cloak. 2. Other restricions for example increase fitting-costs, more drawbacks, you can't cloak with aggresion just a few ideas... Those solutions don't solve AFK-cloaking, they just nerf cloaking. Well, solution 1 does both, but what I'm looking for is something that makes AFK-cloaking really bad and has no effect on AAK (actually at keyboard) players. -... CEO and Founder of the Mission Guys
RuriHoshino Minmatar The Mission Guys	Posted - 2007.09.11 02:37:00 - [56] Originally by: Gorefacer System with cloaker(s): Miners/ratters/logistics must act as if there is a hostile in the system ready to warp to them at any given moment. This means providing escorts and defense. Actually, if you don't behave this way all the time, you're asking to die in a fire. If there are systems in 0.0 where you feel comfortable just taking a few mining barges and no escort or scouts, I'm sure there are tons of people who would like to hear about it And remember: it's not paranoia if they really are trying to kill you. That's kind of how you have to play it in 0.0 unless your alliance has a large enough presence to ward off pirates.
SiJira	Posted - 2007.09.11 11:33:00 - [57] has anyone else noticed how the people that are against cloaking generally have a lot of alts supporting their arguments? while the people that dont want it ruined generally know what they are talking about and make more sense? yes i have tried to look at it from a neutral point of view and thats what i noticed ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
SiJira	Posted - 2007.09.11 12:05:00 - [58] nice quite tree and no cloaks arent broken the carebears that are too scared to get militaristic about it are very broken ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
Reem Fairchild	Posted - 2007.09.11 13:00:00 - [59] Originally by: Gorefacer Originally by: Reem Fairchild Ok, someone explain to me why cloaking in a hostile system in 0.0 and going afk shouldn't be possible. Ok. The way a cloaker negatively affects a system: Forces miners/ratters/logistics to operate in a less efficient way than they normally would. This is a very effective way to hamper a systems operations and a valid tactic to use by cloakers. Why should this result be achieved by pilots not actually playing the game? By "reduced efficiency" I assume you mean having to have a force protecting them from the potential enemy in the system. Well, if you live in 0.0 this is something you should do (or be able to do at a moments notice at least) even if local is completely friendly in the system. I don't mean having a large defense fleet ready, but certainly something that can deal with a Force Recon or two. Anything else is laziness and puts them at risk (at the least) from fast roaming gangs even if there's no one cloaked in your system. The risk is always there, and should always be there. The cloaked hostile in local is simply making you acutely aware of it.
Tu Madre	Posted - 2007.09.12 23:33:00 - [60] there is no argument here at all - if there is a cloaked red in system why not move to the next system?? if the cloaker follows you - then he's not afk is he?? afk cloakers can be afk all they want in empty systems as far as i am concerned. you cant tell me its such a great disadvantage to use the system next door for you mining opp? or a few more jumps away... how often do you have an abundance of high end ore in a station system anyway.. and there is massive amounts of ore and empty systems all over the place in 0.0 come on. i think the real issue here is that you want a way to nerf all cloakers because you havent thought of a way to deal with them or are too lazy to use another system. who would mine in a system with a red in it any way? wait let me guess - you are based in an area with only one system for 20 jumps that has good ore in it right? yeah didnt think so.. btw - in order for your silly module to work it would have to put you right on top of a cloaked ship in order for it to be of any value at all - 2600 meters away or 3billion miles away its all the same if you still cant see the guy when you get there. so anything that can put you right on top of a cloaked ship would pretty much make a cloaking device usless. its a nerf too far imo stoop complaining do your mining in another system while the cloakers bout - get some of your defense guysm to park at a gate with a bubble and a can at the sticky part of the bubble so he cant cloak when he warps to follow you to next system - if he's stalking you he'll try to follow and you can get him - if he's afk you can mine all day next door and not have to worry about the red next door - tell me why that wont work?

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.