EVE Search - Amarr Recon

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Amarr Recon - Current state

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Depp Knight Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.03 14:21:00 - [931] Thing is with that setup, if you fight your in it to die or to kill. No flee bonus at all. ALl other recons have a ability to run.
Kingwood Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2008.05.03 15:12:00 - [932] I think everyone who flies Pilgrims knows that. Caelum gave me the idea to just do away with the Afterburner, because it's useless anyway when I have to sneak up on somebody cloaked. I guess that means goodbye 0.0 for now, until CCP fixes this ship.
Zinrix GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.03 20:42:00 - [933] Originally by: Caelum Dominus Edited by: Caelum Dominus on 02/05/2008 19:04:28 I've never flown and probably never will fly the Pilgrim in a fleet (unless I for some odd reason decide to nano it, in which case I might as well go with an Arbitrator). I find the Curse to be a much more reasonable choice for this purpose. Here's the setup I've been using for the odd bit of solo PvP. Quote: 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Adaptive Nano Plating II X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator Warp Scrambler II Cap Recharger II Medium Capacitor Battery II Medium Energy Neutralizer II Medium Energy Neutralizer II Medium Energy Neutralizer II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I Hammerhead II x10 Vespa EC-600 It perma-runs with two neutralizers active, and for a solid 4 minutes with all three. It's no more than 45 000 effective HP (which is considerably less than 1600mm + trimark-tanked HACs), so your targets become limited accordingly. It takes ages to kill anyone, but the vast majority of that time is spent sneaking within web range. ^^ Targets? Active-tanked Ishtar. Any Zealot. Any Deimos. Any Eagle. Most active-tanked battlecruisers. Any nano ship that somehow lets you sneak up on them. There are many more ships that you won't be able to take on, but that seems to be the situation for most Force Recons. This is stupid. Any setup without an MWD is stupid. Don't use it unless you plan on losing it to the first guy you run into who has a buddy nearby. If you want to use medium neuts, use a Curse.
Alekseyev Karrde Noir. Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.03 21:36:00 - [934] 32 pages on S+M and no word from CCP on what, if any, changes they would be willing to entertain or are out of the question. Interesting...
Kingwood Amarr Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Star Buccaneers	Posted - 2008.05.03 21:39:00 - [935] Originally by: Zinrix This is stupid. Any setup without an MWD is stupid. Don't use it unless you plan on losing it to the first guy you run into who has a buddy nearby. If you want to use medium neuts, use a Curse. Truth, thus screams for fix, 'coz MWD gimps your setup and cap way too much. Unless you plan on downgrading to small neuts/nos and fit a 1600mm plate with MWD.
Zinrix GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.03 22:52:00 - [936] Originally by: Kingwood Unless you plan on downgrading to small neuts/nos and fit a 1600mm plate with MWD. Yes, and you can also fit a Large Cap Battery to mitigate the effect of the MWD. It has worked well for me in the past, though I don't use an armor tank or any neuts anymore. I like the Pilgrim as is, though I wish CCP would just drop the nos/neut bonus and give it something else.
Grytok moon7empler Ev0ke	Posted - 2008.05.03 23:52:00 - [937] So many pages and still so many people who know **** about soloing in zero-zero. A Pilgrim can't solo very effectively in 0.0 as every competent gatecamp will kill you, because you won't make it back to the gate or out of the Dictor-Bubble (HIC or usual Dictor). A Pilgrim can't take on the usual Raven in the Belts, as a competent Ratter in a Raven has a Large Neutralizer fitted these days and dealing more damage with it's Cruises then you'll be able to tank for a long time. A Pilgrim will loose against any other shortrange BS with a Heavy CapBooster and/or Heavy Neutralizer itself. A Pilgrim can't take on nano-Ships, as you've 5 seconds targeting-delay, which is 10 times enough to get out of Web-Range. A Pilgrim can't run away, after it has engaged, as it's simply to slow, even with a MWD to run from anything else, then a PvE-fitted Ratter without MWD. MaxSpeed for a plated Pilgrim is slower then a MWDing Blasterthron o.O So you're reduced to soloing in low-sec, when you wanna have fun, but there you'll only find poorly fitted Cruisers or n00bs to gank, which is no competition. Forget about using it in Fleets, where the Pilgrim is no comparison for Arazu, Rapier or Falcon in usability. Do something CCP!
no013 Minmatar Stormwolf Holdings LLC	Posted - 2008.05.03 23:59:00 - [938] Originally by: Grytok So many pages and still so many people who know **** about soloing in zero-zero. A Pilgrim can't solo very effectively in 0.0 as every competent gatecamp will kill you, because you won't make it back to the gate or out of the Dictor-Bubble (HIC or usual Dictor). A Pilgrim can't take on the usual Raven in the Belts, as a competent Ratter in a Raven has a Large Neutralizer fitted these days and dealing more damage with it's Cruises then you'll be able to tank for a long time. A Pilgrim will loose against any other shortrange BS with a Heavy CapBooster and/or Heavy Neutralizer itself. A Pilgrim can't take on nano-Ships, as you've 5 seconds targeting-delay, which is 10 times enough to get out of Web-Range. A Pilgrim can't run away, after it has engaged, as it's simply to slow, even with a MWD to run from anything else, then a PvE-fitted Ratter without MWD. MaxSpeed for a plated Pilgrim is slower then a MWDing Blasterthron o.O So you're reduced to soloing in low-sec, when you wanna have fun, but there you'll only find poorly fitted Cruisers or n00bs to gank, which is no competition. Forget about using it in Fleets, where the Pilgrim is no comparison for Arazu, Rapier or Falcon in usability. Do something CCP! I thought Eve was a team game. And isn't recon support ships? If you want a one ship pwn all i think there are other games for that.
Kingwood Amarr Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Star Buccaneers	Posted - 2008.05.04 00:01:00 - [939] Originally by: no013 Originally by: Grytok So many pages and still so many people who know **** about soloing in zero-zero. A Pilgrim can't solo very effectively in 0.0 as every competent gatecamp will kill you, because you won't make it back to the gate or out of the Dictor-Bubble (HIC or usual Dictor). A Pilgrim can't take on the usual Raven in the Belts, as a competent Ratter in a Raven has a Large Neutralizer fitted these days and dealing more damage with it's Cruises then you'll be able to tank for a long time. A Pilgrim will loose against any other shortrange BS with a Heavy CapBooster and/or Heavy Neutralizer itself. A Pilgrim can't take on nano-Ships, as you've 5 seconds targeting-delay, which is 10 times enough to get out of Web-Range. A Pilgrim can't run away, after it has engaged, as it's simply to slow, even with a MWD to run from anything else, then a PvE-fitted Ratter without MWD. MaxSpeed for a plated Pilgrim is slower then a MWDing Blasterthron o.O So you're reduced to soloing in low-sec, when you wanna have fun, but there you'll only find poorly fitted Cruisers or n00bs to gank, which is no competition. Forget about using it in Fleets, where the Pilgrim is no comparison for Arazu, Rapier or Falcon in usability. Do something CCP! I thought Eve was a team game. And isn't recon support ships? If you want a one ship pwn all i think there are other games for that. I thought only intelligent people are attracted to Eve.
Grytok moon7empler Ev0ke	Posted - 2008.05.04 00:04:00 - [940] Originally by: no013 Originally by: Grytok snip I thought Eve was a team game. And isn't recon support ships? If you want a one ship pwn all i think there are other games for that. Sure it's a team-game, but the Pilgrim is'nt really benefiting for a gang, compared to the other races Force Recons. Curse does this far better, because of the range-advantage.

Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.05.04 00:53:00 - [941] Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde 32 pages on S+M and no word from CCP on what, if any, changes they would be willing to entertain or are out of the question. Interesting... Seriously. Can we get them to at least acknowledge that the pilgrim is outright garbage and needs some tweaking? Come on CCP, a SINGLE dev post per 30 pages would be nice.
Mrski Okupator Amarr The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.04 05:31:00 - [942] Pilgrim is a solo ship. Unless scouting/cynoing you won't see them outside lowsec much. That's what I meant to say. And new post beats editing old one as it is a bump as well. Back to the top with this thread!
Kingwood Amarr Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Star Buccaneers	Posted - 2008.05.04 12:55:00 - [943] Pilgrim can still kill awesomely fitted ships like these. (I was with buddy, but I think I could've taken that one alone. Maybe ) Bumping this thread.
Caelum Dominus Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.04 13:00:00 - [944] Edited by: Caelum Dominus on 04/05/2008 13:03:09 Originally by: Zinrix This is stupid. Any setup without an MWD is stupid. Don't use it unless you plan on losing it to the first guy you run into who has a buddy nearby. If you want to use medium neuts, use a Curse. Nevertheless, I've found it to be the only fit that's worthwhile in terms of solo PvP. I have escaped a few scenarios where someone has had friends nearby, seeing that it's hard to keep a point on me when I'm draining such a ridiculous amount of capacitor. You could go with a MWD, but then you're going to have a hard time running the aforementioned and you end up being an overly expensive Arbitrator. Make your pick. EDIT: This obviously doesn't work in 0.0, as I stated earlier.
Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.05.05 00:55:00 - [945] I refuse to let this topic die. The pilgrim is garbage. It is outclassed by every other recon. Compare the power of a falcon (shut down 4-5 peeps fairly reliably) to that of a god awful pilgrim. I'm not telling you HOW to boost it ccp - only that this ship is utter and complete rubbish. 1 dev post, it's all I ask. SOME kind of acknowledgment of what we all know to be true. Oh, and laffo to all those people and these ridiculous setups. The pilgrim is crap, no way around it.
Storm Strike	Posted - 2008.05.05 02:13:00 - [946] While I agree that the pilgrim could use some love I would have to say no to all these ideas that change the fundamental nature of the ship. The pilgrim is unique and I would rather fly it as a unique, and to some people subpar, ship than turn it into another nanofag ship making it a curse with a cloak.
Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.05.05 02:34:00 - [947] Originally by: Storm Strike While I agree that the pilgrim could use some love I would have to say no to all these ideas that change the fundamental nature of the ship. The pilgrim is unique and I would rather fly it as a unique, and to some people subpar, ship than turn it into another nanofag ship making it a curse with a cloak. I don't want it to be a cloaking curse - I think there were a lot of good suggestions over the course of the 30 odd pages. Boost it. Tweak it. Whatever. I'm just tired of the pilgrim sucking, and CCP not saying a word about it.
Cerundir	Posted - 2008.05.05 07:49:00 - [948] Originally by: Angelonico I don't want it to be a cloaking curse - I think there were a lot of good suggestions over the course of the 30 odd pages. Boost it. Tweak it. Whatever. I'm just tired of the pilgrim sucking, and CCP not saying a word about it. http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Angelonico&filter=losses&page=1#recent 16 pages of losses and not a single Pilgrim. Somehow I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
Brother Welcome Amarr Icarus' Wings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.05.06 12:23:00 - [949] Originally by: Angelonico Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde 32 pages on S+M and no word from CCP on what, if any, changes they would be willing to entertain or are out of the question. Interesting... Seriously. Can we get them to at least acknowledge that the pilgrim is outright garbage and needs some tweaking? Come on CCP, a SINGLE dev post per 30 pages would be nice. Yet more hours of flight behind me. No more kills, no more losses. Some pew-pew and general griefing. Specifics: --Curse has 50 more CPU than I ever use, and 100 Grid less than I need to have decent choice over fits. --I never know if my TDs or Neuts are doing much. Choice of targets is limited. --Seems like the key to winning fights is more friends or very, very careful choice of targets. --WTF doesn't Pilgrim have the range bonus instead of the amount bonus on Cap Drain modules? These ships feel like they no longer mesh with the game system. A little designer time could make 'em much better with trivial work. -vk
Depp Knight Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.06 12:36:00 - [950] Originally by: Brother Welcome --WTF doesn't Pilgrim have the range bonus instead of the amount bonus on Cap Drain modules? -vk We have been through this. Nos/neuts have sizes. No one has ever been scared of an un bonused medium nos/neuts. EVER.

Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.06 12:42:00 - [951] Originally by: Brother Welcome Originally by: Angelonico Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde --WTF doesn't Pilgrim have the range bonus instead of the amount bonus on Cap Drain modules? These ships feel like they no longer mesh with the game system. A little designer time could make 'em much better with trivial work. -vk Why do ppl believe that the range bonus worths more than the drain amount bonus? Can't you see that it would be impossible for a cruiser / recon to "damage" anything bigger (read with bigger capacitor to start with, and larger cargo bay for cap boosters) after NOS changes? Why don't you fly a Myrmidon with 2-3 Neuts and see how "effective" it is for a ship designed to active tank, sacrificing its own cap to kill it's opponents cap...? It would be more or less "the man with more cap boosters wins" against other BCs with active tanks and suicidal vs. passively or buffer tanked BCs. Now try it against a proper BS and cry...even PVE fitted BSs could kill you, as just like the Pilgrim a BC cannot "nano" to avoid dmg effectively, and it's quite difficult trying to sustain MWD and your neuts for more than a few circles. Range bonus instead of drain amount bonus would only be "better" should you try to nano the Pilgrim and that's not even remotely the right way to fix that ship. You would get some versatility versus other nano-cruisers or ceptors, by sacrificing the ability (possibility) to kill a stronger than yourself tanking ship. I really think that this trade off hurts way more than it helps the Pilgrim.
Imaos	Posted - 2008.05.06 12:51:00 - [952] Originally by: Angelonico I refuse to let this topic die. The pilgrim is garbage. It is outclassed by every other recon. Compare the power of a falcon (shut down 4-5 peeps fairly reliably) to that of a god awful pilgrim. I'm not telling you HOW to boost it ccp - only that this ship is utter and complete rubbish. 1 dev post, it's all I ask. SOME kind of acknowledgment of what we all know to be true. Oh, and laffo to all those people and these ridiculous setups. The pilgrim is crap, no way around it. The falcon can't fairly reliable shut down 4-5 ships unless you have a new and novel definition of fairly reliable. It also lacks damage. The pilgrim is at an all time low, but there is no need to make ridiculous comparisions. The problem is the short range and the lack of use for the tracking disruptors. Imaos
Kingwood Amarr Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Star Buccaneers	Posted - 2008.05.06 13:08:00 - [953] Pilgrim doesn't have the tank needed to survive in the close range it needs to engage in against a competent player. Increase resists and boost Cap.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.06 14:01:00 - [954] Originally by: Imaos The falcon can't fairly reliable shut down 4-5 ships unless you have a new and novel definition of fairly reliable. It also lacks damage. The pilgrim is at an all time low, but there is no need to make ridiculous comparisions. The problem is the short range and the lack of use for the tracking disruptors. I disagree with Angelonico - the Pilgrim is not totally useless, neither are the setups posted ridiculous. What could - understandably - seem ridiculous to some players the amount of micro-management and target selectivity required for flying the Pilgrim, compared to other Recons, and that's where the Falcon comparison could be brought up. The Problem of the Pilgrim is the mediocrity of it's ewar. It's not the Pilgrim that's broken, it's the modules. Amarr Recons not only use the the most "picky" ewar modules that affect way less setups and weapon platforms than other Recons, but their effect is not easy to either pre-plan or understand. You cannot WTFPWN an enemy's capacitor unless he is either way smaller than you or totally unpreperred for it (no cap booster). You cannot shut down enemy's dmg capabilities, just "disrupt" some of it IF you are far enough, IF you are moving fast enough and IF you enemy uses mainly Turrets. There are too many "IF's" in the Amarr Recons, and especially the Pilgrim. On the other hand a Falcon or Rook can RELIABLY shut down at least 1 target's both ewar and dmg for a considerable amount of time - even perma. You can miss, yet you get a huge range advantage over other ewar (and points), and just as you could be unlucky to fail 1 circle against a single ship, you could also be lucky enough to lock down 2-3 or more. And the later must be the norm, or ECM ships wouldn't be primaries all the time. A Gallente Recon can RELIABLY damp (thus postpone or even shut down) a sinle ship's ewar and dps while pointing at usefull ranges, where their bonused ewar modules complement each other. And of course each Minmatar Recon can almost insta-stop every ship in the game, independently of size, tank, cap stability etc. Even TPs are way more useful than believed or "advertised" through the forums, especially versus small targets with silly sig radius. Surely you cannot say that the Curse is an utterly unreliable ship. But you cannot hide the fact that the way this ship is used could be described as "a nano Ishtar with silly dps yet bonused Neuts/NOS". No other ewar ships require so much fitting "resourcefulness" and racial module "crossing". No other Ewar Ship pilot could ever think putting a non-bonused ewar module apart from a warp jammer in their mid slots to make it work "better", just like Amarr Recons desperately tried with ECM, damps etc, even after these modules got massively nerfed. Yet before scripts, Damps where still better in most cases than TD's in a Curse...pathetic... CCP has to deside: Does NOS assist TDs? Then make TDs WTFPWN turrets and demand huge cap, so that the NOS bonus makes up for it. The Amarrian anti-turret ships could still affect reliably just turrets, and would require huge cap ammounts, but at least THIS COULD BE THOUGHT AS ELECTRONIC SUPERIORITY. Does NOS assist tanking? Then alter the hulls so that they can fit serious tanks or can more effectively nano-tank without snakes and faction mods. That's NOT electronic superiority, but shouldn't Amarr Recons excell to sth for a change? Jack of all trades, master to none - that's the sad truth about Amarr Recons. Join the Biggest Greek Corp! www.Mythos-eve.com - Join Mythos Channel in game! Introduce HEAT EMMITERÖ for the Pilgrim
Madla Mafia The Dead Man's Hand	Posted - 2008.05.06 21:57:00 - [955] Pilgrim is not completely useless, it is very limited. You really have to pick your targets. (And wtf is up with the Pilgrim being the only recon that does not have a range bonus?!?) The Curse has more "options"/uses due to its range bonus. I agree with the above poster, the problem is not the Amarr recons, it's the modules they have bonuses for. They are simply not nearly as reliable as the modules other races have bonuses for.
Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.05.06 22:43:00 - [956] Originally by: Cerundir Edited by: Cerundir on 05/05/2008 08:21:03 Originally by: Angelonico [...] The pilgrim is garbage. [...] Is that why you've never lost one? The only other logical explanation doesn't warrant any conclusion on behalf of the Pilgrim's viability on your part. If you think I pvp with just this character, you're nuts. Alright fine fine. Good points raised, particularly by the razor guy. The pilgrim is not totally useless (eg. garbage) however it is the worst of its ship class. The modules are indeed what kill the thing and it needs a bit of a tweaking to become viable again. Yes, the falcon with max skills can shut down 4 cruiser size ships reliably. Convo me in game for my setup if you'd like. The purpose of my choice of language to vent my frustration ("this ship is garbage") is to spur debate and get some attention given to the little guy. Sure it's a serviceable ship if you fit and micromanage it properly, but the same could be said of any of the "bad" ships in eve. You and I (speaking generally of course) both know the pilgrim needs a tweak or two. I'd appreciate some dev comments on any of the suggestions so far, particularly the boost to it's range.
Brother Welcome Amarr Icarus' Wings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.05.08 11:09:00 - [957] Originally by: Diomidis Originally by: Brother Welcome Originally by: Angelonico Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde --WTF doesn't Pilgrim have the range bonus instead of the amount bonus on Cap Drain modules? These ships feel like they no longer mesh with the game system. A little designer time could make 'em much better with trivial work. -vk Why do ppl believe that the range bonus worths more than the drain amount bonus? Can't you see that it would be impossible for a cruiser / recon to "damage" anything bigger (read with bigger capacitor to start with, and larger cargo bay for cap boosters) after NOS changes? Range bonus instead of drain amount bonus would only be "better" should you try to nano the Pilgrim and that's not even remotely the right way to fix that ship. You would get some versatility versus other nano-cruisers or ceptors, by sacrificing the ability (possibility) to kill a stronger than yourself tanking ship. I really think that this trade off hurts way more than it helps the Pilgrim. Actually, I agree with you and should say that to my taste I would prefer range bonus to drain bonus. The lack of range commits the Pilgrim to close in body-blow trading. I don't like being forced into that... as a Recon! Some pilots talk about 'doing X if your opponent is cap boosting', but I find it very hard to tell if they are cap boosting. At least ECM you can see for sure whether you are locked or not. Couldn't we at least know if their cap is out? I'm also finding my Pilgrim quite different from my Curse for CPU. Unless you have Recon 5 the cloak - the goddamned purpose of this ship - makes it very tough to fit a tank and solid mid-slot ewar. Or perhaps I should blame the sheer heaviness of neuts and nos as modules. What bugs me is that it would be trivial to put these ships closer to other Recons. C'mon CCP. -vk
Phoenix492 Orion Expeditions	Posted - 2008.05.09 15:43:00 - [958] I'm currently training for a pilgrim, and all this is really worrrying! Come on CCP...any help? WHAT IS WRITTEN ABOVE IS MY OWN OPINION, AND IS IN NO WAY THE VIEWS OF MY CORP / ALLIANCE. ANY PROBLEMS - SEE ME
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.05.09 17:56:00 - [959] Originally by: Phoenix492 I'm currently training for a pilgrim, and all this is really worrrying! Come on CCP...any help? Forget the pilgrim. It's garbage. The curse is awesome though. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.05.09 18:00:00 - [960] Originally by: Caelum Dominus I've never flown and probably never will fly the Pilgrim in a fleet (unless I for some odd reason decide to nano it, in which case I might as well go with an Arbitrator). I find the Curse to be a much more reasonable choice for this purpose. Here's the setup I've been using for the odd bit of solo PvP. Quote: 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Adaptive Nano Plating II X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator Warp Scrambler II Cap Recharger II Medium Capacitor Battery II Medium Energy Neutralizer II Medium Energy Neutralizer II Medium Energy Neutralizer II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I Hammerhead II x10 Vespa EC-600 It perma-runs with two neutralizers active, and for a solid 4 minutes with all three. It's no more than 45 000 effective HP (which is considerably less than 1600mm + trimark-tanked HACs), so your targets become limited accordingly. It takes ages to kill anyone, but the vast majority of that time is spent sneaking within web range. ^^ Targets? Active-tanked Ishtar. Any Zealot. Any Deimos. Any Eagle. Most active-tanked battlecruisers. Any nano ship that somehow lets you sneak up on them. There are many more ships that you won't be able to take on, but that seems to be the situation for most Force Recons. /me lols at the failboat That thing has great potential, if only you knew wtf you were doing. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: 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.