EVE Search - ALTERNATIVE TIMELINE: One Year Ago... CCP announce the follwing

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

ALTERNATIVE TIMELINE: One Year Ago... CCP announce the follwing

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Yaay Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:09:00 - [31] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Okkie2 Edited by: Okkie2 on 22/10/2007 07:55:47 Nerfing a ship to fix problems that don't exist (and doesn't even solve the real problem) is not the way to solve things That's the reason there is so much complaining. A Carrier/MOM cannot be used solo in 0.0 and a carrier cannot be used solo in lowsec (both will be killed easily by a competent gang). The only problem are the MOMs in lowsec which are invulnerable to electronic warfare, but strong enough to sit at a gate smartbombing anything that passes, and if a big gang arives they just jumpdrive away. have you ever faced a 40 carrier blob? If not, how can you say that the problem don 't exist? Face a 40 carrier blob then come tell me no problem exist. Eve is Capital online nowadays Are you complaining because you can't do it, or because every time you've tried to use carriers to your own advantage, they've fallen to a smaller fleet w/o capitals? Don't ask for game changes, try changing who you fly with or who you let control your own fleet.
Ares Lightfeather Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:10:00 - [32] The devs have now clearly shown what they want fleets to be : groups of one cap ship with an escort of 4 - 6 battleship (or any non-cap ship) around them. Currently there are fleets composed of cap ships only, which isn't what they intended. They probably believed that the money necessary for them would be enough to deter people from using them like that. While I don't know if that solution is better or worse than what exist now, this change reduces the number of cap ships in a fleet, with is the only justification I'll ever need. -- Siggie ! Come back here ! -- Originally by: Victor Valka Originally by: MotherMoon well a drone UI is a bit of an artist job Drone AI is obviously done by an artist too. One that is heavily into abstract
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:16:00 - [33] Originally by: Yaay Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Okkie2 Edited by: Okkie2 on 22/10/2007 07:55:47 Nerfing a ship to fix problems that don't exist (and doesn't even solve the real problem) is not the way to solve things That's the reason there is so much complaining. A Carrier/MOM cannot be used solo in 0.0 and a carrier cannot be used solo in lowsec (both will be killed easily by a competent gang). The only problem are the MOMs in lowsec which are invulnerable to electronic warfare, but strong enough to sit at a gate smartbombing anything that passes, and if a big gang arives they just jumpdrive away. have you ever faced a 40 carrier blob? If not, how can you say that the problem don 't exist? Face a 40 carrier blob then come tell me no problem exist. Eve is Capital online nowadays Are you complaining because you can't do it, or because every time you've tried to use carriers to your own advantage, they've fallen to a smaller fleet w/o capitals? Don't ask for game changes, try changing who you fly with or who you let control your own fleet. Because its ridiculows that anyone without a capital is unable to play in fleet fights when this happen!! Only capitals have the HP enough to survive long enough to do anythign in huge fleet battles!!! When alliances field fleets of only capitals ships its PROVED that capitals are broken, period. CCp shoudl revert the 400% HP buff capitals recieved! If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Greenwing SuX ltd. Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:18:00 - [34] Originally by: Jowen Datloran I see nothing wrong in turning the carrier back into a strict supporting role. The complaints seem to come from people worrying that with the carrier changes they will no longer top the all important kill boards. Too bad the carrier is pretty bad in it's support role, remote boosting only works in small gangs and once dampened it can't do anything except asign/use it's fighters. Furthermore the killboards won't change because the same amount of fighters will still be used. Originally by: Johnny Darkseid I'll just add that the vast majority of posters in teh mega thread seem to have missed this part at the end of the post.. Originally by: "Dev Blog" Remember that this is still just an idea and we want your feedback on this, so please, post constructively and you just might make a difference in the (EVE) universe. History tells us such changes usually will be performed anyway (maybe a little bit changed). History also tells us only whining seems to help (too bad most people don't even try to be constructive in there posts) Originally by: Kagura Nikon have you ever faced a 40 carrier blob? If not, how can you say that the problem don 't exist? Face a 40 carrier blob then come tell me no problem exist. Eve is Capital online nowadays A 40 carrier blob sounds like a big gang to me and so you will need a big gang to kill them so i don't see the problem ? And what's this change going to do about it ? They still have enough fighters to kill anything and don't forget that even whith 15 fighters they still don't have the DPS of a good BS. CCP Zulupark's statement is : What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer. The main problem, capital ships are not direct nber deathbringers, they already need support to survive. They will win a 1 vs 1 with a BS, but they are designed for that. The only direct nber deathbringers are the MOMs in lowsec, so fix that problem and don't fix things that aren't broken
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:21:00 - [35] Why do people think that the time they spend on training something is a valid argunemt against nerfing it?
Mark Lucius Forbidden Lore	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:28:00 - [36] Originally by: Ares Lightfeather The devs have now clearly shown what they want fleets to be : groups of one cap ship with an escort of 4 - 6 battleship (or any non-cap ship) around them. Currently there are fleets composed of cap ships only, which isn't what they intended. They probably believed that the money necessary for them would be enough to deter people from using them like that. While I don't know if that solution is better or worse than what exist now, this change reduces the number of cap ships in a fleet, with is the only justification I'll ever need. This. --- Originally by: Malachon Draco If you eat your veggies, maybe one day you'll grow up and be a real big alt poster like Johnny ReeRee or Alice C.
Jaleera Kaisin Amarr Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:51:00 - [37] Edited by: Jaleera Kaisin on 22/10/2007 10:52:07 Hmmm - Agree with OP on attitude of replies to Dev suggestion, childish personal attacks are not warranted, however, I too feel that this is a poor solution to a couple of real issues 1) MOM ship gate camps in Low-Sec 2) Fighter Blobs being Battle Winners in lag situations. Unfortunately there are lots of whines about it and little in the way of contructive suggestions/criticism. If CCP are to do this they need to look at the issues around assigning fighters, cap cost/targetting issues for logistics support and fixing triage. To do this would require mmore work though as CCP would need to look into eliminating the issues. (insurance for Drones?, Increased Cap or Cap logistics bonus?, Assigning Dones when in Triage? lock time on friendlies? etc) There are other things that could be done instead of reducing number of Fighters/Drones controlled: - Ban MOM's from low-sec (like Titans 0.0 shiips only) - Make fighters NOT auto aggress, that takes away their advantage iin lag situations - Look at how fighters cause lag and reduce on hardware/software calls How about another radical suggestion? Take away carrier ability to use Cap remote reps AND the ability to assign Fighters. This forces the carrier pilot to the front lines and also requires logistics support to keep the carrier flying. (Finally a use for logistics ships ) There are many ways that the above issues could be tackled but I would respectfully suggest that limiting the carriers direct control to only 5 drones is eroding the basis for calling them "Carriers". So stop with the personal attacks on a dev "Suggestion" but rather offer rational reasons whey it is not a good idea and offer alternate suggestions. I'm sure experienced carrier pilots will have better ones than those above but its a starting place.
Ares Lightfeather Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:57:00 - [38] Edited by: Ares Lightfeather on 22/10/2007 10:59:12 Well, as I said before, I think it's a good idea because it reduces the number of cap ships in fleet. Solutions would then be to make them more useful in the front lines (as it has been said by the one that don't like this idea that the carrier has rather useless support abilities...). Like : - reduce the targeting time when targeting allies, - adding more tank capabilities to the carrier so it dies less easily (not sure whether this point is needed), - enabling new bonus to allies like better bonuses to remote repairing, - build in immunity to dampening only when targetting allies for repairing, - limiting leadership bonuses so they affect only the grid the carrier is in, - obi wan kenobi And probably other ideas like that could work. However, it's general discussion, only a few people actually want to try to discuss solutions. -- Siggie ! Come back here ! -- Originally by: Victor Valka Originally by: MotherMoon well a drone UI is a bit of an artist job Drone AI is obviously done by an artist too. One that is heavily into abstract
Ebodhisatva Gallente hunter killers	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:59:00 - [39] Check my sig? Originally by: Dreznengul Only 4 motherships? really? Get with the times, this is how you camp low sec
Obidom Jax	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:57:00 - [40] Well i have never played a carrier, am still only 2 months into playing game but from what i understand from this argument is that they want to reduce the amount of drones a carrier can have active? if i recall the max amount of drones you can have active at once is 10? (apologies if i am wrong but i am not a drone fighter) If you look at comparisons to modern day navies carriers are always escorted by support vessels due to their vulnerabilities to direct attack from heavier ships surely this should be right a 1on1 attack of Carrier Vs BS should result in heavy damage to both as carrier will use its drones for main attack, able to keep launching more as each are destroyed, Carriers should be equipt with point defense systems to defend it self against missles etc and of course shields to protect itself, carriers are not meant to be behemoths that require massive groups to destroy but support vessels capable of repelling smaller vessles that would otherwise harry larger vessels well thats my thinking behind it, its all down to how you equip your vessel and how you play, if you got plenty of support vessels and you getting beat maybe its how those supposrt vessels are protecting you Carrier = Drones to harry Frigates + Point defenses to intercept missles and frigates = BS free to hammer into relevant counterparts free of Frigates annoying them maybe im wrong but thats my perception Viva La Noob :)
Cadiz Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.10.22 12:16:00 - [41] Edited by: Cadiz on 22/10/2007 12:17:39 Back in the day, at the very beginning, carriers were heavily predisposed towards being support ships. As you could delegate fighters from inside POS shields, there was really not much reason for carriers to be on the front line, except for remote repping each other (and the occasional heavily plated BS that could survive getting primaried long enough for friendly carriers to lock & rep). The devs didn't like this - who wants to spend months of training and billions of isk just to sit at a POS and listen to everybody else downing primaries? - and decided they wanted carriers to be used as front-line combat platforms. So, bit by bit, they whittled away at where & how you could delegate. First you couldn't delegate while inside POS shields, but you could delegate outside then go back inside. Then they made it so that going inside POS shields auto-undelegated all of your fighters. These were good steps forward for pushing carriers out onto the front lines, and shows that if they wanted them to be "support" ships, they wanted them to be very aggressive support ships standing on the line alongside everybody else. As other people with extensive experience in using front-line carriers in fleets have said, delegating fighters in the middle of a fleet action is nightmarish. The UI is terrible for it, you're lagging to hell and we all know what lag does to right-click menus, you have to scroll through huge lists to find the right people, and they may or may not be dead by the time you throw the fighters at them. As such, most carriers being used in direct combat prefer to keep fighters under their own control, because that makes things much easier to manage. Forced delegation basically removes much of the impetus towards front-line usage that the devs have been working towards and seems a fine kick back to the old days of "park that thing at a POS and go nap for a bit". Sure, they'll have to be hugging the edges of POS shields instead of being comfortably inside them, but the principle is the same. By removing the ability of a carrier to control its own full damage output, you basically relegate it to sitting off somewhere safe, constantly making sure that its fighters are assigned properly and not much else - otherwise it is not contributing to its full capacity, after all. So, I suppose the crux of the matter is: do CCP want carriers on the front lines? If so, why do they seem intent on making that role considerably more troublesome & pointless to execute? Carriers in small gangs are perfectly fine right now (they make superb force multipliers while still being vulnerable to things like sensor dampeners) and need no change, while the proposed changes don't really do anything for the big carrier gangs you see the major alliances occasionally fielding, except frustrate the pilots behind them with poorly designed UIs. After all, even now you don't see 100% capital fleets...sure, you may see groups of 40+ carriers (which is an entirely different mess, yay spider tanking), but they're usually accompanied by hundreds of sub-capital ships. BSes remain the core component of any self-respecting fleet, and this will not change until another ship class is implemented that has superior degrees of range, alpha strike capability, and affordability. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence."
midge Mo'yb R.U.S.T. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 12:56:00 - [42] how about give asigned figters a speed/dmg/tank bonus when asigned this way it encourages team play... but chocolate bar analogy is perfect -----------------------------------------------
Sarah McTeef	Posted - 2007.10.22 13:05:00 - [43] Originally by: Le Skunk You all go through the roof and eat the new dev alive with your words... your horrible words. I agree. It was REALLY bad form for CCP to throw the new guy to the god damned wolves on this one. They had to know the reaction this was going to draw, I can't see them being that far out of touch with the community. Now the man has to move to a safe house and change his last name for fear of ninja assassins. That was truly mean guys, I love it.
Tassolhof Quam Singulari	Posted - 2007.10.22 13:27:00 - [44] In my Opion the only way this would work is the introduction of.... Capital Energy Neutralizer's Now before ppl say OMG no, put a limitation onto them... i.e Ship Class Limitation. This mod can only be used against another capital ship. As with a good tank, a carrier can easily tank multiple carriers attacking. Reducing the ammount of drones that can be used in any situation, without a support fleet, carriers will be useless except for hauling and pos repping.
angggggry	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:59:00 - [45] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 22/10/2007 07:51:42 Imagine It is one year ago........ A new ship type is coming out. Its going to have a HUGE structure/shield/structure Its going to be able to fit capital sized modules - repping huge amount of armor / shield Its going to be able to remotely rep huge amounts of damage - enabling a BS to sustain massive damage Its going to be able to carry tons of stuff in its on board hanger - avoiding gatecamps and aiding resupply Its going to have jump drive capability Its going to have a massive drone bay - and deploy five of a new type of drone.. THE FIGHTER which does three times the damage of any other drone in game You will be able to assign these fighters to your gang mates AND STILL use five yourself. The fighters EVEN FOLLOW PEOPLE INTO WARP Its only going to cost about 7 times the cost of the most expensive mainstream battleship. Cheaper even then some faction ships. It going to be called the CARRIER. You would have all wet your pants, ed a brick and praised CCP for their wonderfulness/ranted about how overpowered it is. Now because youve got used to using 15 drones and CCP had the sheer brass neck to even suggest they are thinking about AN IDEA about lowering drone use. You all go through the roof and eat the new dev alive with your words... your horrible words. You should all be ashamed of yourself. SKUNK saaaaame amount of droneeeees but neeeed more frieeeeends to do iiiit
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:14:00 - [46] Originally by: Sarah McTeef I agree. It was REALLY bad form for CCP to throw the new guy to the god damned wolves on this one. DING DING DING. We have a winner. The guy opens with this line: Originally by: CCP Zulupark Say hello to your newest balancer. He then drops a bombshell, and ends with this line: Originally by: CCP Zulupark Remember that this is still just an idea and we want your feedback on this, so please, post constructively and you just might make a difference in the (EVE) universe. Note that he gives no timeframe whatsoever. Either he's playing a helluva prank, or someone just fed him into a meat grinder. Regardless, I'm sure CCP attained their goal. At the very least, they got us talking about the solo, small gang, and fleet role that a Carrier does and should play. Wait... could it be possible that CCP wants to limit the number of new Carrier pilots? They put forth this idea, and we wildly react. Remember, he never mentioned any sort of timetable. We already have ambulation and faction warfare as stated short-term goals. They drop this one dev blog from "the new guy", then never mention it again. How long until pilots feel comfortable training the costly and time-consuming skills associated with flying a Carrier? Six months? A year? How many potential Carrier pilots will instead be lured by a FOTM ship? Perhaps they don't really have any objections to the Carrier (they'll go after the moms first), they are just taking a measured action to curb any further expansion of existing Carrier assets. Maybe even CCP metagames in order to get us to play the game in the way they want. /tinfoilhat
cal nereus Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:21:00 - [47] What, like speculative investing? Amazing how a few words from the right mouths changes the entire face of the game. Don't even need programmers anymore. --- Join BH-DL
Knocturnal omen. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:29:00 - [48] Originally by: Le Skunk Now because youve got used to using 15 drones and CCP had the sheer brass neck to even suggest they are thinking about AN IDEA about lowering drone use. You all go through the roof and eat the new dev alive with your words... your horrible words. You should all be ashamed of yourself. SKUNK Now mr. Le Skunk pls let me know where can i get the isk 50mils every damn time the one who i assige fighters f**s up ? Will you haul all for meh and will you pay every damn time? If ccp nerfs or tweaks something don't waste my cash $$ that i paid for the accounts just to train something that will be useless. FIghters don't get the dmg bonunes when they are assigned to somebody. So i traind carrier 5 and fighters 5 just to say.. oh well your 3months of traning was worthless. Just cuz it fits you don't mean it dosn't fit the others... Why should everything in eve be fair for the weaker ones... Play and adapt. Fck Derek we got Xlop.
citizen amarr33sd3g4	Posted - 2007.10.22 19:49:00 - [49] Zulu is my new friend. I hate carriers.
C601	Posted - 2007.10.22 19:55:00 - [50] Originally by: Knocturnal Originally by: Le Skunk Now because youve got used to using 15 drones and CCP had the sheer brass neck to even suggest they are thinking about AN IDEA about lowering drone use. You all go through the roof and eat the new dev alive with your words... your horrible words. You should all be ashamed of yourself. SKUNK Now mr. Le Skunk pls let me know where can i get the isk 50mils every damn time the one who i assige fighters f***s up ? Will you haul all for meh and will you pay every damn time? If ccp nerfs or tweaks something don't waste my cash $$ that i paid for the accounts just to train something that will be useless. FIghters don't get the dmg bonunes when they are assigned to somebody. So i traind carrier 5 and fighters 5 just to say.. oh well your 3months of traning was worthless. Just cuz it fits you don't mean it dosn't fit the others... Why should everything in eve be fair for the weaker ones... Play and adapt. What just b/c you paid "cash" to play this game makes you special that CCP should make the game the way you want it.. wow you swear you where the only one By your own words Play and adapt.
Auron Shadowbane Teeth Of The Hydra R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:04:00 - [51] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 22/10/2007 07:51:42 Imagine It is one year ago........ A new ship type is coming out. Then I'd have been happy about a low-tier carrier... cause CARRIERS HAVE BEEN OUT FAR MORE THAN A DAMN YEAR YA NUB!
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:13:00 - [52] Skunk, you have no idea how often I have remembered that exact same dev-blog and wished it was actually so. Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
citizen amarr33sd3g4	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:12:00 - [53] Edited by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 on 22/10/2007 21:12:37 Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Skunk, you have no idea how often I have remembered that exact same dev-blog and wished it was actually so. Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... You should look in the mirror.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:15:00 - [54] Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... No - Its still here. Weve still got the brains in the game: Originally by: Auron Shadowbane Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 22/10/2007 07:51:42 Imagine It is one year ago........ A new ship type is coming out. Then I'd have been happy about a low-tier carrier... cause CARRIERS HAVE BEEN OUT FAR MORE THAN A DAMN YEAR YA NUB!
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:15:00 - [55] I endorse the OP Paradox V2.0 is recruiting!
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:15:00 - [56] Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 Edited by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 on 22/10/2007 21:12:37 Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Skunk, you have no idea how often I have remembered that exact same dev-blog and wished it was actually so. Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... You should look in the mirror. My case exactly, no insult of substance. ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
Alekseyev Karrde The Royal Guard Giant Space Amoeba	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:19:00 - [57] Most obvious fix if lowsec motherships are the big problem? Change the game so motherships cant go anywhere but 0.0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -Alekseyev Ambassador, Fleet Commander, Council Member =The Royal Guard= "=TRG=Public" Channel www.rgrocks.com
Corwain Gallente Down In Flames	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:20:00 - [58] The Rorqal and the soon to be introduced Jump capable freighter will do a much better hauling job than carriers. Dreads tank better Carriers are poorly equipped to actually do any logistics, they struggle to target the ships they're trying to rep in realistic larger scale operations. They are now basically poorly designed logistics ships that have a bigger HP buffer than the logistics cruisers. Why call em carriers at all? Looks to me like they're not doing much carrying post-nerf. -- A Solo Arbitrator vid, Distortion by Corwain
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:24:00 - [59] Originally by: Corwain The Rorqal and the soon to be introduced Jump capable freighter will do a much better hauling job than carriers. Dreads tank better Carriers are poorly equipped to actually do any logistics, they struggle to target the ships they're trying to rep in realistic larger scale operations. They are now basically poorly designed logistics ships that have a bigger HP buffer than the logistics cruisers. Why call em carriers at all? Looks to me like they're not doing much carrying post-nerf. While I agree with the main points you made there, I have to add this and ask a quesion; Are the Carriers and MOMs getting the cargo bay nerfed? Are they suddenly losing their corporate hangar array? Are they losing their fitting capabilities or the ship maintenance array? No? Well it is not quite a nerf then is it? They can still carry stuff and it will finally put them into a position of battlefield support which they should have been from the start... ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
citizen amarr33sd3g4	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:37:00 - [60] Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 Edited by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 on 22/10/2007 21:12:37 Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Skunk, you have no idea how often I have remembered that exact same dev-blog and wished it was actually so. Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... You should look in the mirror. My case exactly, no insult of substance. The forums are not for insults. You claiming to be the only one of intelligence is rather lame don't you think?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.