EVE Search - CCP, Where are you going wiith all of these changes?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP, Where are you going wiith all of these changes?

» 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 .. 24 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 96 post(s)

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:59:00 - [331] Originally by: Cailais Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!! /me sobs C. OK, really last reply here: I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo. Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets.

Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:02:00 - [332] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cailais Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!! /me sobs C. OK, really last reply here: I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo. Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets. Woot!! A reply!!! Thx dude you rawk! (not sure I entirely agree with you - but THANKYOU for replying!!) C. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:02:00 - [333] For the record, i have no affiliation or association with that guy or his claim, I am just incredulous as to how anybody could not see how people can come to the conclusion that "the devs are out of touch with their game" The players cry "lasers and laser ships suck" and they reply "Amarr missile ships are O.K. and drone ships used to be great!"

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:05:00 - [334] Originally by: Goumindong For the record, i have no affiliation or association with that guy or his claim, I am just incredulous as to how anybody could not see how people can come to the conclusion that "the devs are out of touch with their game" The players cry "lasers and laser ships suck" and they reply "Amarr missile ships are O.K. and drone ships used to be great!" There are a few replies in this thread both from Nozh and myself where we state that we want to look into giving Amarr more oomph.

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:06:00 - [335] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cailais Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!! /me sobs C. OK, really last reply here: I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo. Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets. Actually, since they get to use their high slots they are typicially running about the same DPS. Now enforced with the bandwidth changes. The curse and Pilgrim do get spares though, but they arent really out-damaging the competition. Change the pilgrims damage bonus to a nos/neut range bonus
KaptnSparrow Caldari R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:07:00 - [336] give the pilgrim one more mid slot and its wounderfull. no increase in pg or cpu needed. (ok maybe a little cpu) But otherwise I just love it as it is. Just wish for this one tiny mid more to make it perfect... btw are you doing anything about the lock bug? with lock bug I mean I target something, lock bar fills up and fails, and I need to keep locking. It makes the live of a pirate so much harder to browse lowsec, sneak up on this ratting/mining ship and than start locking and it keeps failing. I mean an apoc warped out on me before I finally got a lock on him and he told me he had no fancy modules or counter measures and was not aligned. (specially as dedicated ceptor and recon pilot in gangs it give me really grief if all my gang mates are making fun about my inability to lock...) --- we are open for applications convo me ---

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:07:00 - [337] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cailais Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!! /me sobs C. OK, really last reply here: I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo. Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets. Actually, since they get to use their high slots they are typicially running about the same DPS. Now enforced with the bandwidth changes. The curse and Pilgrim do get spares though, but they arent really out-damaging the competition. Change the pilgrims damage bonus to a nos/neut range bonus Then we'd just end up with a cloaking curse, I'm sure we can do better than that. Like Zulu said earlier we understand the problem, we've encountered it ourselves, it will get looked into. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Tarminic Forsaken Resistance	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:08:00 - [338] Originally by: KaptnSparrow btw are you doing anything about the lock bug? They work on game balance, I don't think they can answer questions on bug fixing... ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare
KaptnSparrow Caldari R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:13:00 - [339] so does this mean I'm not the only one with this problem? I swear its not related to the amount of alcohol in your blood. Could be a synchronisation issue. but i had to try --- we are open for applications convo me ---
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:14:00 - [340] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Goumindong For the record, i have no affiliation or association with that guy or his claim, I am just incredulous as to how anybody could not see how people can come to the conclusion that "the devs are out of touch with their game" The players cry "lasers and laser ships suck" and they reply "Amarr missile ships are O.K. and drone ships used to be great!" There are a few replies in this thread both from Nozh and myself where we state that we want to look into giving Amarr more oomph. Yes, i read them, but its so non-specific it doesnt mean anything. As well, you[in the general sense] keep making changes and making statements that simply do not jive with the way the game is going and how balance works. You even have a lot of good ideas floating around in your heads and on the boards for how to look at the problem and what the problem is, but still you make changes and statements that make no sense. I mean, the Geddon, Abaddon, and Harbinger could use some "oomph" if "oomph" is something to be a small tweak that gives them an interesting role in addition to dealing dps. The Prophecy, Punisher, Zealot, Absolution, Maller, Omen, Devoter, Sentinel[i know its not a laser ship], Executioner, and Apoc could use oomph as in "a complete redesign or changes so radical they arent anywhere near the same ship anymore, holy lord these ships need more work than Oprah has makeup." And its clear why the changes are needed to. And if the Torp changes go in, then the Geddon, and Abaddon, are going to need the same work[seriously how could you make those changes, ridiculous!], as well as pretty much any small gang damage dealing battleship.
Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:16:00 - [341] Zulupark and Nozh, many thanks for coming back to the forums - I think alot of us were wondering if the dev team had given up on us! With regard tot he pilgrim there's a great thread (pretty much flame free) here. If you get a chance please drop by and say hi While I'll admit the curse isnt exactly awful (oh ok its quite good really, im just whinging) the pilgrim is having a hard time in the current environment. Stuck in at close range it just can't tank for long, and its dps isnt that great (unlike the curse that can fit extra launchers and neuts). So, you either fit nos to run your tank (and therefore no neuts, mitigating against your potential dps) - or - you fit neuts and run out of cap (thus no tank). With no option to make a run for it (like the other force recons) youre really up against it. A bonus to neut/nos range might go some way to helping this ship out - especially when you consider that the other force recons can all use their abilities (ecm jamming, web, scramble) at quite long ranges. Thanks again. C. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:17:00 - [342] Originally by: Maltitol any comments about items like: - dna - corpses - drugs (mission type drugs) i think you see where im going here... so much in this game is not used/useless and it just stacks up... any plans in the books? Well, I'd really like to see smuggling as a viable profession. I remember we had some discussions about it a while back and we came up with some pretty interesting ideas, but nothing has been decided. As for dna and corpses, nope we've got nothing planned as far as I know. My last post also, still at work and it's 22:15. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

CyberChick The Ghost Riders Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:21:00 - [343] Originally by: CCP Nozh Edited by: CCP Nozh on 08/11/2007 21:22:14 I think Chronotis did some magic to the BPO's to increase the success rate up to almost 100% as with the invention success rate, I'm not entirely sure about it, I'll ask him tomorrow (everyone has gone home) and get the info to you. The BPO idea sounds swell, I'll also run that by the industry guys. (They'll probably just shoot it down though) Any chance the copy time can be reduced on the t1 freighter bpo's to 1 or 2 weeks tops? I am I getting what you said right - that the success rate of these invention jobs should be around 80 to 100% when trinity hits tq?
magnus amadeus Amarr Hammer Of Light	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:23:00 - [344] Originally by: Cailais Hmm.. Im not sure you would get just another cloaking curse. The curse has enough mids to run multiple damps and shield tank a bit. The pilgrim doesnt: so it would have to fit an armor tank: thus be much much slower. Also isnt the arazu a cloaking lachesis? Couldnt we say the same about the other recons? C. Isn't this part of the problem though? You just mentioned using the mids in a curse for more damps... _________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience.
I SoStoned	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:23:00 - [345] Originally by: CCP Nozh And I think I'm pretty much boned if I want the players to like me, it's been like this forever, you all hate the man with the nerfstick. Wrong. We do not hate the person with the nerfstick, as long as we have some forwarning of the upcoming nerf. Not an out-of-left-field change that is only brought to us by the players using the test server. The patch notes 'in testing' page has not been updated in months, but unexpected changes are in testing. 'Nerfs' (or more rarely so 'buffs') should come in response to a percieved and arguably blatant fault with a game feature, such as the uproar that caused the wardec changes, the highway changes (removal of empire lowsec border regions), the introduction of CONCORD and sentry guns. Not, under any circumstance, should a 'nerf' be laid down that has no basis. No one said the Sabre was 'too fast', which it is not compared to the ships it's intended to overtake (nanointies). It's only protection (as well the slightly slower interdictor models) was that speed. No one had a huge hue and cry about carrier logistics... it was a stepping stone that many players looked to make use of when they couldn't fly freighters. This one feature alone allowed small & medium alliances/corps to bypass the jackass lowsec gatecamps with smartbombing moms (I see you haven't done anything about that glaring exploit) and fuel their lowsec POS or move from region to region around the chokepoints. These unannounced and unwarranted changes are why we want your head on a silver platter, preferrably well boiled in advance. No forwarning, no announcments, and no options requested concerning alternative approaches to limitations. As I said before, nerfing logistics capability of freighers was completely unnecessary. Once jump-freighers are introduced they will eventually take over the workload of logistics for the megalliances that can afford them. The small/medium corps are suddenly stuck with trying to get haulers/freighters through idiot gatecamps. That's what has people peeved off.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:24:00 - [346] Originally by: CCP Nozh Because we've never considered the hauling capability of carriers an intended role So why has it survived dozens of patches, major expansions and alterations only to be removed entirely for no reason other than "We think it makes logistics too easy" and "we never liked it anyway". Why not 2 years ago when all the bugs with the infinite hauling tricks were fixed? Why not 6 months ago when sovereignty was overhauled? Why suddenly now with no alternatives and in total opposition to your stated direction of selectable flexibility? Why force it. It's been stated with reference to another matter in this thread that you don't want to force players into anything. Just give haulers a big volume increase. That way, if i want to use my carrier as a ridiculously innefficient hauler over the intended jump freighter, i can - just like there's nothing stopping me using an expanded BS over an iteron 5. Quote: I've always wanted carriers to be a bit more logistic focused but not as haulers, but rather as remote repairers etc., with spare ships and modules for the fleet. Well, the cargo nerf isnt going to help much there, is it? Combined with the capital mod size increase, your corp hangar will now be perpetually full of fuel and alternate fits (now a requisite). Without the ability to carry mods inside the ships, you simply will not be able to bring alternate fits to a fight. Your SMA becomes pretty much useless. And as for remote repping? Well. The sensor booster nerf, no, wait, sorry, it's not a nerf. The introduction of scripts to sensor boosters should really help with remote repping .
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:28:00 - [347] Originally by: magnus amadeus Originally by: Goumindong you used the 4000 character limit!!! Goum, as much as your points are valid, please don't badger then devs. I am pretty sure they are answering these question on their own time (if they are in Iceland its like 10:00p.m.). I think a more effective use of your time and words would be to link your ideas on the matter. Maybe try to bump them back to the top to re-initiate discussion on them too. Ask the devs to look at them. You get more with sugar than you do with salt right? From my edit: Magnus, the devs have looked at my ideas, they do read the forums, they just dont always comment for obvious reason. If they comment on a specific idea in the negative it means that people will think they wont do it and get mad. If they comment on an idea in the positive it means people will think they will do it and if it doesnt happen they will get mad. In short, commenting on player Ideas is a no-win situation that only happens very rarely, ive pointed these fine folks in the direction of my ideas before, no need to dredge them up again, especially as new changes to the game always make old balancing ideas slightly out of date. For instance if i were to run down an Amarr linup again, i would run in the sansha model. Then modulate the specific bonus to however many base turrets i was shooting for. For instance, a Harbinger could either be 4 turrets with a 75% damage bonus built in, or 3 turrets with a 133% damage bonus built in. Each way you hit 7 turrets before the damage bonus and can run with as many or as few utility slots as you want to give the ship. This also opens up new and interesting avenues for the tanking ships since you can give them more useable missile high slots[essentially doing the phoon thing, which i can explain why and how it works if anyone wants]. It also brings into issue difficulties in tank balance, and heat balance[free high slots==heat dispersion] which i havent looked into enough to really make determinations on. But its what i would be looking at right now.
Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:29:00 - [348] Originally by: magnus amadeus Originally by: Cailais Hmm.. Im not sure you would get just another cloaking curse. The curse has enough mids to run multiple damps and shield tank a bit. The pilgrim doesnt: so it would have to fit an armor tank: thus be much much slower. Also isnt the arazu a cloaking lachesis? Couldnt we say the same about the other recons? C. Isn't this part of the problem though? You just mentioned using the mids in a curse for more damps... No, not realy. A pilgrim has just 5 mids: lets say you want to fit a 'nano damp' set up like a curse: 1MWD 1 Warp Disruptor 1 Cap Inj 1 Shield Booster (or extender) 1 Damp 1 Damp isn't going to drop pretty much anything below its targeting range. Plus the Curse has 1238 base shield hp, to the pilgrims 788. So in order to fit enough damps, you'll have to fit more armour, hence less 'speed' modules like an overdrive or nano. So the Pilgrim would be much much slower: more of a heavy armor curse. C. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:35:00 - [349] Originally by: Moraguth Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Moraguth You said that "we've never really had a meeting where we sat down to try and tinker with amarr"... paraphrased. And yet, I don't remember how long ago it was (6 months? a year?) one of the devs posted a blog about giving amarr more "oomph". Please have that meeting. I meant: Most of us agree that Amarr need oomph. We didn't have time to do it now, but we'll start looking at it soon. Originally by: Moraguth Okay, I hate the nano fleets and gank squads. Probably because of my mentality of if you're gonna fight, fight and die (even though I'd run away/warp out if I could.... meh). So, I realize that sounds like a pretty weak arguement, so here's a better one: Please take a look at "speed tanking" in general, and here's why I'm mad at it. A speed tanked ship can theoretically tank "infinate damage" by nature because it just doesn't get hit. I've seen the speed tankers outrun missiles, they DEFINATELY outrun drones (a little love for my gallente friends) and when guns/missiles do it, they very often do almost no damage. (my cruise missiles from my purifier hit a vaga for 0.0 damage.... i was so ****ed). A shield/armor tanker can only take so much DPS before the tank breaks and the ship goes boom. This disparity between the two types of tanking seems VERY unballanced to me. With the introduction of the new T2 frigates, it'll be easier for many people to get into ships that have a range bonus to webbing, which I hope will be enough. Probably not though. Are there any plans to take a look at the "speed tank" in general? Some ships are meant to go fast, some ships shouldn't. There are some modules out there that may need minor tweaking, but remember. If you meet a ship that has low base speed and is "speed tanking" it's sacrificing almost everything else to be able to do so. One simple web, or one mistake on that pilots behalf, and he's pretty skewered. Yes... that's pretty true. Webs are the counter. And yes, I know that they have pretty much no "damage tanking ability" (If they get hit), and their damage doesn't really scare me if i'm in a tanked ship. BUT: It's still not ballanced. My armor tanked ship can only handle so much DPS before it goes boom. I was in a carrier fight a couple weeks ago and even with the might of many remote reps trying to keep someone alive, once someone gets called primary in the fleet fight, they're pretty much done for if they try to tank. We were going up against a mostly speed tanked fleet. We couldn't hit them, but they could do the hit and run thing (with enough numbers to cause alot of damage) without taking many losses themselves. The point is that speed tanked setups (if done really well) will allow someone to use their momentum to take them back outside of web range very quickly. But, like i said, with the new recon frigs, things might be a little more manageable. There's been alot of talk about nerfing things based on their intended role. Would it be possible for the devs to share with the playerbase what they have as the intended role for all the ship classes somewhere? Okay, if not all... how about for the ships getting nerfed (or are underused). I'd like to see what you think should be able to kill what (in a very general way). Should a dictor be able to kill anything besides 1 T1 frig on its own? Should a stealth bomber be able to kill anything on it's own? etc... So, you would like to see nanoships nerfed under the principle that they can tank better than you do, regardless of their pathetic DPS. However, you never talk about lowering your own DPS in exchange. That's your definition of balance ?
I SoStoned	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:38:00 - [350] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Christari Zuborov Interdictor > T2 Frig > Destroyer > T1 frig. Well, we felt they were removing the tackling role almost completely from the interceptors. I think you understand why we did it, but I guess we have to agree to disagree this time. I'm also not sure about that pecking order, many of the interceptors are f.ex. inferior to even T1 frigates in combat. WTF are you thinking? Interceptors inferior to a T1 frig in combat? What on this planet have you been smoking? I'd like to see a Condor try to take on a Crow, or an Executioner take on a Crusader and have even a ghost's chance of getting out alive before the inty's even through shield. A Claw is so vastly superior to a Slasher there's just no comparison whatsoever, regardless of the combat situation both find themselves in. And let's not say anything about the Taranis... You're off your bloody rocker. Interdictors should never have had their speed reduced, it's the modules that make them (and for that matter Interceptors) so OMGZOOM fast. Nerf those just like you did to bring BS back down into the realm of reality in terms of speed. And for two of the interdictors loading it with any sort of decently ranged ammo means it's pretty much a sitting duck, or can't even run any EW/Tackle it might have fitted (Heretic/Flycatcher). The Eris is just plain broken, period. This leaves the Sabre as the only viable Interdictor to do anything more than drop a bubble and die. Get off the drugs and rethink your nerfs, or put down the bat and go home. You're supposted to swing at the ball, not the umpire.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:40:00 - [351] Originally by: I SoStoned You're off your bloody rocker. And you're being needlessly obtuse. Take a rifter versus a craptor or an ares. The rifter would probably win either fight without breaking a sweat. Admittedly that's the worst interceptors against the best frigate, but the point still stands. the crap ceptors needed a boost, and the dictors needed to be edged away from their role as oversized interceptors.
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:44:00 - [352] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Some ships are meant to go fast, some ships shouldn't. There are some modules out there that may need minor tweaking, but remember. If you meet a ship that has low base speed and is "speed tanking" it's sacrificing almost everything else to be able to do so. One simple web, or one mistake on that pilots behalf, and he's pretty skewered. That's what a few other players and myself have attempted to explain repeatedly and extensively on these forums in multiple threads. Btw, it's very refreshing to finally see devs interacting with the community. You guys should create a forum section specifically dedicated to these discussions, because when this thread will hit 30 pages with questions ranging from the color of jovian pants to the date of introduction of explosive crystals for lasers, all this will become unmanageable.
missionalt GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:45:00 - [353] Edited by: missionalt on 08/11/2007 22:45:10 Edited by: missionalt on 08/11/2007 22:44:57 ok since this is now ask the devs: what gameplay change are you guys (personally) most waiting on?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:46:00 - [354] Originally by: Goumindong The poorly designed split weapon ships were changed into missile ships fixing any problems not associated with ship class. I.E. The Malediction, Sacriledge, and Damnation were good ships, and the Vengeance still sucked because it was an assault frigate[not much you can do about that, so its not a black mark] Totally forgot to mention this, not that I had space left. After you changed the Malediction to be good, you completly redesigned the roles of the tier 2 interceptors to be dedicated tacklers, which entirely took away the benefit of the Malediction by removing its second damage bonus and turning it into a weak version of the crow and making it obsolete for tackling things[stilletto/ares ==better in all ways as a tackler]
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:47:00 - [355] Originally by: Elmicker Originally by: I SoStoned You're off your bloody rocker. And you're being needlessly obtuse. Take a rifter versus a craptor or an ares. The rifter would probably win either fight without breaking a sweat. Admittedly that's the worst interceptors against the best frigate, but the point still stands. the crap ceptors needed a boost, and the dictors needed to be edged away from their role as oversized interceptors. The ares is fantastic now
missionalt GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:47:00 - [356] ps i hope you're getting kieron's pay for the next month
missionalt GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:48:00 - [357] 'cause y'know this is what CSRs should be doing
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:50:00 - [358] Originally by: Goumindong The ares is fantastic now That's why i said they "needed" a boost . My acceleration control 5 and zor's hyperlink are drooling.
Jakus Cemendur Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:59:00 - [359] Originally by: missionalt 'cause y'know this is what CSRs should be doing It'd be pretty difficult for Kieron to talk about design changes as well as the actual designers can, or as quickly respond to questions.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.11.08 23:04:00 - [360] I'd just like to thank you Zulu and Nozh for clearing up a lot of these questions (either completely or to a degree). The community seems to be pretty worried by all this oncoming change so any positive interaction with the Devs is going to help cool things down a little.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: 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.