EVE Search - Carrier nerf, back to pos hugin

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Carrier nerf, back to pos hugin

» 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 - 1 post(s)
maria stallion Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:19:00 - [1] Edited by: maria stallion on 23/10/2007 18:19:37 I think it's important to point everybody to the carrier changes post: Linkage ,this probally aplies to a lot of us. In short carrier role will change from a ship with firepower to a ship that can delegate fire power to gang members. The carrier and mothership will only be able to use 5 drones/fighters them selfs meaning carriers and motherships will have the same firepower of a battlecruiser. There have been several post why this is a bad idea, but CCP thinks the critism isn't bassed on anything so as of today they put the changes on the test server.
maria stallion Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:19:00 - [2] Edited by: maria stallion on 23/10/2007 18:19:37 I think it's important to point everybody to the carrier changes post: Linkage ,this probally aplies to a lot of us. In short carrier role will change from a ship with firepower to a ship that can delegate fire power to gang members. The carrier and mothership will only be able to use 5 drones/fighters them selfs meaning carriers and motherships will have the same firepower of a battlecruiser. There have been several post why this is a bad idea, but CCP thinks the critism isn't bassed on anything so as of today they put the changes on the test server.
Kyoi Shuttles Dont Tank Well	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:20:00 - [3] In before Goonswarm
Kyoi Shuttles Dont Tank Well	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:20:00 - [4] In before Goonswarm
Stoffer Ninjapirate Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:21:00 - [5] Edited by: Stoffer Ninjapirate on 23/10/2007 18:23:22 It's posts like these that ruin COAD. This is a smack free forum for people who wish do debate the political scene, not somewhere you can campaign against changes in the game you don't like.
Virtuality Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:21:00 - [6] Band of Brothers has never lost a major fleet battle.
Stoffer Ninjapirate Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:21:00 - [7] Edited by: Stoffer Ninjapirate on 23/10/2007 18:23:22 It's posts like these that ruin COAD. This is a smack free forum for people who wish do debate the political scene, not somewhere you can campaign against changes in the game you don't like.
Virtuality Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:21:00 - [8] Band of Brothers has never lost a major fleet battle.
touchvill D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:22:00 - [9] It's not a bug fix, it's nothing but a big kick in the balls to everyone who has trained to fly a carrier or mothership. ----------
touchvill D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:22:00 - [10] It's not a bug fix, it's nothing but a big kick in the balls to everyone who has trained to fly a carrier or mothership. ----------
zilllii Squirrel Power	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:23:00 - [11] but bob didnt need their gazillion fighters causing lag anyway right? gimme bigger letter count in my sig so it wont cut off everything damnit!!!!
zilllii Squirrel Power	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:23:00 - [12] but bob didnt need their gazillion fighters causing lag anyway right? gimme bigger letter count in my sig so it wont cut off everything damnit!!!!
maria stallion Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:24:00 - [13] Originally by: Stoffer Ninjapirate It's posts like these that ruin COAD. This is a smack free forum for people who wish do debate the political scene, not somewhere you can campaign for bug fixes you don't like. sorry if you feel that way, I think the changes are of great affect for coperations and alliances. Goonswarm also uses a fair amount of carriers and motherships and this will affect your alliance aswell. this forum is for everything that aplies to corp and alliances, this is one of those things I believe.
maria stallion Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:24:00 - [14] Originally by: Stoffer Ninjapirate It's posts like these that ruin COAD. This is a smack free forum for people who wish do debate the political scene, not somewhere you can campaign for bug fixes you don't like. sorry if you feel that way, I think the changes are of great affect for coperations and alliances. Goonswarm also uses a fair amount of carriers and motherships and this will affect your alliance aswell. this forum is for everything that aplies to corp and alliances, this is one of those things I believe.
katz3 PPN United Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:27:00 - [15] wrong forum ? ___________________ Originally by: Kasak Black ...in EVE people die!
katz3 PPN United Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:27:00 - [16] wrong forum ? ___________________ Originally by: Kasak Black ...in EVE people die!
Jonathan Peterbilt Caldari Damage Unlimited Inc	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:27:00 - [17] I hope you understand the only thing CCP cares about is the number of subscribers right?
Svetlanna The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:28:00 - [18] Have you ever heard of recycling? Go green, try it.
Imperator Palpatine666 YouWhat	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:30:00 - [19] Originally by: Jonathan Peterbilt I hope you understand the only thing CCP cares about is the number of subscribers right? whit this movement ccp lose a loth of subscribers
Stoffer Ninjapirate Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:30:00 - [20] Originally by: maria stallion Originally by: Stoffer Ninjapirate It's posts like these that ruin COAD. This is a smack free forum for people who wish do debate the political scene, not somewhere you can campaign for bug fixes you don't like. sorry if you feel that way, I think the changes are of great affect for coperations and alliances. Goonswarm also uses a fair amount of carriers and motherships and this will affect your alliance aswell. this forum is for everything that aplies to corp and alliances, this is one of those things I believe. Understandable good sir, but some of us work hard to keep the standard of this forum high, with political material, relevant alliance info etc.
JeanPaul Sartre 26th of July Movement	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:30:00 - [21] Will a Goon claim this as a victory for all Goonkind? -- Quote: If a victory is told in detail, one can no longer distinguish it from a defeat.
Mr Broker Amarr Station Gremlings	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:31:00 - [22] Every change affects everyone, and I for one hope CCP will continue being the developpers. You guys are being selfish, it's not just about you, it's also about new people joining the game. They won't be in carriers and they will be quite useless versus a capital blob, it's even starting to happen in low-sec. CCP is thinking of the future. They always nerf stuff, and people always whine, and I know this is the one nerf that will break the camel's back. Sorry but CCP has heard that a thousand times and you're still here, and you will simply find another way to enjoy the game in a fair manner.
Blood Ghost Occam's Razor Combine	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:33:00 - [23] Originally by: Mr Broker Every change affects everyone, and I for one hope CCP will continue being the developpers. You guys are being selfish, it's not just about you, it's also about new people joining the game. They won't be in carriers and they will be quite useless versus a capital blob, it's even starting to happen in low-sec. CCP is thinking of the future. They always nerf stuff, and people always whine, and I know this is the one nerf that will break the camel's back. Sorry but CCP has heard that a thousand times and you're still here, and you will simply find another way to enjoy the game in a fair manner. So what exactly is the problem with carriers? New players will always be outmatched, they going to nerf battleships next?? Instead of fielding a carrier, players will field 10-15 battleships at the same price, meaning doing damage to the enemy requires thousands and thousands of loses. Old players can still afford those losses, new players canÆt û carriers or no carriers. Nerf old players???
Local Her0 Minmatar La Mancha Corp	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:34:00 - [24] Edited by: Local Her0 on 23/10/2007 18:35:18 we from La Manacha Corp welcome these carrier changes, because 'cap-ships-online' is not what eve should be
Gama24 No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:39:00 - [25] Just sign the damn petition and show to CCP that you care. Will it do any good? We will know, with time. -------------------------------------- g24
sophisticatedlimabean Gallente The JORG Corporation Methods of Mayhem Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:44:00 - [26] Theres 3-4 threads on this in the development forum a few threads have got to 20-30 pages of ppl saying the idea sucks. One of the threads has not got to even a single page and its pro-carrier nerf lol and most of the posts on it are talling the OP to stfu. My views may represent those of my corp/alliance but you will have to ask em to be sure.
Toffles GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:44:00 - [27] Edited by: Toffles on 23/10/2007 18:47:28 I'm a carrier/dread pilot and was opposed to this at first but now I'm thinking it will be a good thing. It seems like they're trying to stop the trend of carriers/motherships becoming the new t2 sniping bs for fleet fights. Without any changes we'll gradually see more and more of what we've already started to see, fleets that are almost entirely carriers/motherships with anything below serving as weak fodder. They want capitals used in fleet fights but they also want to see other ships being useful and filling a role. So basically the changes will limit the amount of carriers/motherships you would want to bring to a fight and necessitate more variety in fleet composition. But yeah, CCP deserves all the **** they're getting right now, this change might have been okay a year or two ago but so many people have invested in training carriers up, you can't blame them.
Cyllaina Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:47:00 - [28] Originally by: Local Her0 Edited by: Local Her0 on 23/10/2007 18:35:18 we from La Manacha Corp welcome these carrier changes, because 'cap-ships-online' is not what eve should be Yeah I agree, next " feature " CCP unleashes should take away all sovreign space and turn all player built outposts into NPC faction controlled stations that are NOT conquerable. Players shouldnt be allowed to achieve larger and more powerful vessels that dwarf the capacity of a fresh subscriber. Veterans of this game should be forever locked in the same ships with the same hull designs as the rookie ships new players get upon creating their character just to make things fair. Also.... All current ingame POS's should be turned into quafe vending machines. Thanks.
King4aDay Minmatar Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:50:00 - [29] Originally by: Stoffer Ninjapirate Edited by: Stoffer Ninjapirate on 23/10/2007 18:23:22 It's posts like these that ruin COAD. This is a smack free forum for people who wish do debate the political scene, not somewhere you can campaign against changes in the game you don't like. :icetroll:
Ramlir 0.0 Corp	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:50:00 - [30] Originally by: Cyllaina Yeah I agree, next " feature " CCP unleashes should take away all sovreign space and turn all player built outposts into NPC faction controlled stations that are NOT conquerable. Players shouldnt be allowed to achieve larger and more powerful vessels that dwarf the capacity of a fresh subscriber. Veterans of this game should be forever locked in the same ships with the same hull designs as the rookie ships new players get upon creating their character just to make things fair. Also.... All current ingame POS's should be turned into quafe vending machines. Thanks. d[O_o]b Calm down.
Dungar Loghoth Caldari Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:50:00 - [31] Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 23/10/2007 18:50:29 Originally by: Jonathan Peterbilt I hope you understand the only thing CCP cares about is the number of subscribers right? If this were true they would have already caved to your whiny alt-posts about high-sec ganking and how unfair it is.
Cyllaina Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:51:00 - [32] Originally by: Ramlir Originally by: Cyllaina Yeah I agree, next " feature " CCP unleashes should take away all sovreign space and turn all player built outposts into NPC faction controlled stations that are NOT conquerable. Players shouldnt be allowed to achieve larger and more powerful vessels that dwarf the capacity of a fresh subscriber. Veterans of this game should be forever locked in the same ships with the same hull designs as the rookie ships new players get upon creating their character just to make things fair. Also.... All current ingame POS's should be turned into quafe vending machines. Thanks. d[O_o]b Calm down.
Dr Kojak Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:52:00 - [33] The doctor prescribes: These changes, if set into life, will most likely change gameplay for most of us. For the alliances that roam around in spankin' big fleets of carriers and dreads (and bigger...) it might not mean a lot, however groups with a reasonable (and not insane) number of capital ships might find that they need to increase their support fleet significantly. If the effectivity of a capital is increased when sprinkling them with battleship support, we might start seeing downsized blobs, balanced between the firepower of a large gang and the controlability/lag. For the really large alliances this might mean that they will be more effective attacking simultaneously, with several trimmed gangs, as opposed to just locking down one system with hundreds of players, causing the server to barrell-roll. However, for the majority of us, I do believe this to be a good change. It will most probably increase the number of fights including carriers on the grid; meaning cooler, longer fights for all the cool people not hiding in highsec (yes, in your face high-sec chickens!). More importantly it encourage us to use carriers as they were intended to be used; on the frickin' front lines! Dr Kojak Infinitus Odium
Gama24 No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:53:00 - [34] Originally by: Toffles Edited by: Toffles on 23/10/2007 18:47:16 Edited by: Toffles on 23/10/2007 18:44:35 I'm a carrier/dread pilot and was opposed to this at first but now I'm thinking it will be a good thing. It seems like they're trying to stop the trend of carriers/motherships becoming the new t2 sniping bs for fleet fights. Without any changes we'll gradually see more and more of what we've already started to see, fleets that are almost entirely carriers/motherships with anything below serving as weak fodder. They want capitals used in fleet fights but they also want to see other ships being useful and filling a role. So basically the changes will limit the amount of carriers/motherships you would want to bring to a fight and necessitate more variety in fleet composition. But yeah, CCP deserves all the **** they're getting right now, this change might have been okay a year or two ago but so many people have invested in training carriers up, you can't blame them. I'm not going to finish training or put some more hundreds million isk in training for a neutered ship. Carriers and motherships cost a lot of rl money to train and to keep and they should give you allot of bang for your buck. -------------------------------------- g24
Vaarmoth Malinigvious Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:56:00 - [35] Originally by: Local Her0 Edited by: Local Her0 on 23/10/2007 18:35:18 we from La Manacha Corp welcome these carrier changes, because 'cap-ships-online' is not what eve should be This just shows how damn ignorant you are. The problem isnt carriers/fighters. The problem is POS ****. I wish they'd really change this or get rid of it.
Ramlir 0.0 Corp	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:00:00 - [36] Originally by: Vaarmoth Malinigvious Originally by: Local Her0 Edited by: Local Her0 on 23/10/2007 18:35:18 we from La Manacha Corp welcome these carrier changes, because 'cap-ships-online' is not what eve should be This just shows how damn ignorant you are. The problem isnt carriers/fighters. The problem is POS ****. I wish they'd really change this or get rid of it. good post
Cyllaina Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:01:00 - [37] Originally by: Dr Kojak The doctor prescribes: These changes, if set into life, will most likely change gameplay for most of us. For the alliances that roam around in spankin' big fleets of carriers and dreads (and bigger...) it might not mean a lot, however groups with a reasonable (and not insane) number of capital ships might find that they need to increase their support fleet significantly. If the effectivity of a capital is increased when sprinkling them with battleship support, we might start seeing downsized blobs, balanced between the firepower of a large gang and the controlability/lag. For the really large alliances this might mean that they will be more effective attacking simultaneously, with several trimmed gangs, as opposed to just locking down one system with hundreds of players, causing the server to barrell-roll. However, for the majority of us, I do believe this to be a good change. It will most probably increase the number of fights including carriers on the grid; meaning cooler, longer fights for all the cool people not hiding in highsec (yes, in your face high-sec chickens!). More importantly it encourage us to use carriers as they were intended to be used; on the frickin' front lines! Dr Kojak Infinitus Odium I'm sorry but you're horribly wrong here. This encourages carriers to sit outside POS shields assigning fighters and to remain there. This won't stop blobbing, alliances will continue to grow in populations and fleet sizes will only get bigger with the growing number of subscribers coming into the game. Carriers or not.
Local Her0 Minmatar La Mancha Corp	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:05:00 - [38] Originally by: Cyllaina Originally by: Local Her0 Edited by: Local Her0 on 23/10/2007 18:35:18 we from La Manacha Corp welcome these carrier changes, because 'cap-ships-online' is not what eve should be Yeah I agree, next " feature " CCP unleashes should take away all sovreign space and turn all player built outposts into NPC faction controlled stations that are NOT conquerable. Players shouldnt be allowed to achieve larger and more powerful vessels that dwarf the capacity of a fresh subscriber. Veterans of this game should be forever locked in the same ships with the same hull designs as the rookie ships new players get upon creating their character just to make things fair. Also.... All current ingame POS's should be turned into quafe vending machines. Thanks. uh? A carrier has a role in eve, and these changes force a carrier pilot to use the carrier in its roll, and not as a solo-mobile, kthnxbye
Cyllaina Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:07:00 - [39] Originally by: Local Her0 uh? A carrier has a role in eve, and these changes force a carrier pilot to use the carrier in its roll, and not as a solo-mobile, kthnxbye[/quote Thanks for defining how we should fly our ships..... Could you please tell me where I should take a **** while you're at it? Plenty of carriers die to small ships when theyre solo. Even a mothership or two, so tell me how theyre solopwnmobiles again?
sophisticatedlimabean Gallente The JORG Corporation Methods of Mayhem Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:11:00 - [40] Originally by: Local Her0 Originally by: Cyllaina Originally by: Local Her0 Edited by: Local Her0 on 23/10/2007 18:35:18 we from La Manacha Corp welcome these carrier changes, because 'cap-ships-online' is not what eve should be Yeah I agree, next " feature " CCP unleashes should take away all sovreign space and turn all player built outposts into NPC faction controlled stations that are NOT conquerable. Players shouldnt be allowed to achieve larger and more powerful vessels that dwarf the capacity of a fresh subscriber. Veterans of this game should be forever locked in the same ships with the same hull designs as the rookie ships new players get upon creating their character just to make things fair. Also.... All current ingame POS's should be turned into quafe vending machines. Thanks. uh? A carrier has a role in eve, and these changes force a carrier pilot to use the carrier in its roll, and not as a solo-mobile, kthnxbye A carriers role is to carry fighter craft to the battle then launch them and kill the enemy and in fact it should be able to launch them all without a cap on how many if you think about it. It is not a gloryfied hauler with the ability to launch a few fighters to defend its self or to assign them or only be able to launch a limited number. My views may represent those of my corp/alliance but you will have to ask em to be sure.
Shilok AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:11:00 - [41] Personally I don't mind the changes so long as Carriers/MSs are given a very solid boost in some other way.
RisenPhoenix Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:17:00 - [42] Having carriers become the only ships you need in a fleet op is bad but turining them into POS attachments is dumb, there has to be a much much better way yo do this than hitting them with the nerf bat. I think the many suggestions to create a capital hunter class ship or weapon would help alot, these ships would be counterable with a good support fleet but could decimate the large capital ships. ------------------------------------------------
Nero Winger Most Wanted INC	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:18:00 - [43] Edited by: Nero Winger on 23/10/2007 19:21:55 Edited by: Nero Winger on 23/10/2007 19:18:54 Originally by: maria stallion Edited by: maria stallion on 23/10/2007 18:19:37 I think it's important to point everybody to the carrier changes post: Linkage ,this probally aplies to a lot of us. In short carrier role will change from a ship with firepower to a ship that can delegate fire power to gang members. The carrier and mothership will only be able to use 5 drones/fighters them selfs meaning carriers and motherships will have the same firepower of a battlecruiser. There have been several post why this is a bad idea, but CCP thinks the critism isn't bassed on anything so as of today they put the changes on the test server. I have heard of this change a longer time ago. I doubted that they will take this step as long as it were only rumors. Now they did it and I have to admit it is the worst idea of game change CCP ever had. Reducing capitals of some billion isk worth to battleships/cruisers. It is very interesting how CCP ever again throw away the ideas, wants and needs of their customers and do what they want. With this development you will never reach six-sigma.
Dr Kojak Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:21:00 - [44] Cyllaina: Well you are right in what you say about the big alliances, nothing to be done about that. It is evident that you guys have been on the defensive for some time now when using a carrier at a pos is all that comes into your mind. For corps like Infod however, we are mostly on the attack/roaming and then we are off again, seldom attacking alliances with pos networks. For us, having a carrier in the midst of the battlefield is usually a good thing. Anton: You have just been waiting for an excuse to stop playing. Dr Kojak Vaseline usurper
Chaomos Skynard The Flaming Sideburn's Hedonistic Imperative	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:23:00 - [45] So CCP think that paying back loyalty to this game by making peeps train 6 months or more and then say, sc**w you, bad luck for specialising. If they do this how do I get 6 months of my character not developing back... this nerf is more damaging than any other I have seen.
Anton March United Space Republic	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:30:00 - [46] Originally by: Dr Kojak Anton: You have just been waiting for an excuse to stop playing. What exactly makes you think that? I have 2 non-capital accounts that I'm keeping. I have no intention of stopping playing. I've trained nothing but carrier related skills on this account for the past 10 months, only to have it nerfed out from under me. Why continue paying for an account that now has ten months worth of SP in essentially useless skills?
Natas Dog GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:33:00 - [47] Originally by: Cyllaina Thanks for defining how we should fly our ships..... Could you please tell me where I should take a **** while you're at it? Technically it's not him telling you how to fly your carrier, it's CCP. He just agrees with them, as do I. I don't see this change hitting goons much at all, we tend to use a lot of support ships anyway. _______________________________________________________________ He who laughs last is usually the one the joke was about.
Future Thing Ninja Warriors of the Round Table	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:34:00 - [48] I agree, this nerf is going to be horrible.
Dr Kojak Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:37:00 - [49] Originally by: Anton March Originally by: Dr Kojak Anton: You have just been waiting for an excuse to stop playing. What exactly makes you think that? I have 2 non-capital accounts that I'm keeping. I have no intention of stopping playing. I've trained nothing but carrier related skills on this account for the past 10 months, only to have it nerfed out from under me. Why continue paying for an account that now has ten months worth of SP in essentially useless skills? Well, you will still be able to use your carrier; repping your friends and sharing your fighters (depends on how much they are gonna nerf em though.) when the church are out fighting. When it comes to CCP, I couldnt care less; they have been nerfing veterans, cap pilots and pirates in particular for the last couple of years now; The only thing making me keep my accounts are my friends. Dr K Emokid
Dr Kojak Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:38:00 - [50] Also; fueling flamefests on the forums makes me happy; and I got to keep my accounts to be able to do that.
Adeptus mecanicus The Flaming Sideburn's Hedonistic Imperative	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:44:00 - [51] Originally by: Chaomos Skynard So CCP think that paying back loyalty to this game by making peeps train 6 months or more and then say, sc**w you, bad luck for specialising. If they do this how do I get 6 months of my character not developing back... this nerf is more damaging than any other I have seen. ah no worries chaomos you can sit at the pos and scream on TS "you fellas be carefull of my fighters ya hear! or ill pull em back!!"
Jonathan Peterbilt Caldari Damage Unlimited Inc	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:44:00 - [52] Originally by: Local Her0 Edited by: Local Her0 on 23/10/2007 18:35:18 we from La Manacha Corp welcome these carrier changes, because 'cap-ships-online' is not what eve should be There you go, whines like this made CCP think about this change and we all know who whines about capital ships, there is at least 5000 of them.

ISD BH Kreul Intentions ISD BH	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:45:00 - [53] Please do not cross post, there are at least two posts going about this, EIP and the Game Development forum, please use those. Thank you. forum rules \| [email protected]


Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.