EVE Search - New Ship Idea

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

New Ship Idea

» 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 .. 31 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
CptEav1s Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.16 05:12:00 - [61] Very nice I must say this is interesting. But, and I must say this, firstly some ships have useless bonuses (eg: Gallente Flagship with 100mb drone bandwidth getting 25m3 of drone space is a complete waste) Other than that there are a few minor inconsistancies with the bonuses (eg: the standard for turret falloff and some other bonuses is 10% not 5%) Just some collective criticism. Cheers - CptEavis Sarge "Hey, Grif chupathingy how bout it? I like it got a ring to it" I BRAKE FOR PUMAS!
delta phi	Posted - 2007.12.16 07:29:00 - [62] /sighned
Rashmika Sky	Posted - 2007.12.16 07:31:00 - [63] Originally by: Rjaiajik Kajvoril As for them being overpowered, I don't think they are. I think they are Flagships. Exactly what they should be, only barely below capital ships in force. They should be the kind of things that can take on 3-4 battleships singlehandedly and win hands down. Originally by: Rjaiajik Kajvoril Not really. It's powerful compared to other ships however when you consider you need a level of skill approaching that of a capital ship to pilot it it's really not that powerful when you really think about it. Look at a dread or carrier, they have hundreds of thousands of HP where as the average battleship has what about 8 thousand... that's without tanking at all. If you can justify something with the "health" (for lack of a better word) of more than 200 battleships then you should be able to justify this ship for a very similar level of skill training. There is a huge difference between battleships and capitals - and between these ships and capitals, because all these are, are battleships with extra bonuses. There is nothing "capital" about these ships, in terms of their role in combat, so comparing them to capital ships, or describing them as a bridge between battleships and capitals, is inaccurate. The thing with capital ships is, they don't get those extra hundreds of thousands of hitpoints, or their extra damage, or any of the other things they get, because of the skillpoints invested in them. They get it because of their increased size, basically, and they receive many disadvantages along with the advantages. They are slower, less maneuverable, have longer locking times, have greatly reduced effectiveness against sub-capital sized targets... These ships receive no such penalties, and simply become better battleships. You said one should be able to defeat 3-4 battleships - "hands down", in other words they don't even have to raise a hand to defeat them. So it'd be necessary to have 5 battleships to even have a chance to beat it, and it'd still probably destroy most of them, if not all. Welcome to Flagships Online. You know a ship is overpowered when you have to justify its power by comparing it to the next ship size up, or by high prices or long training times. Neither a pricetag or training time balances the effect a ship has once you undock in it. When balancing a ship, the skillpoints or isk required to use them is irrelevant. If that weren't the case, frigates would lose to everything, cruisers would lose to everything larger than a frigate, and so on. Instead everything has or is meant to have a niche. These ships could have a niche - I think the idea of Flagships is great, but I think the proposed implementation is overpowered. Personally, I would make Flagships capital sized. They'd tank far, far better, without having any chance of being solo ships, which is good because Flagships should be leading fleets. But as is? These ships are so overpowered, you could kill a fleet just by linking the blueprints in Local. -Rash
marie claude	Posted - 2007.12.16 07:45:00 - [64] have to say i like that how about make them incapable of locking a frigate? make the 2.5 x bigger than a battle ship? only 3 turret hard points. the other high slots are for logistics. it is supposed to be a logistic ship isnt it? say a range bonus to remote reps and not guns lasers ect.top speed say 89 mps. trinity = EPIC FAIL
Rjaiajik Kajvoril Amarr Autonomous Systems	Posted - 2007.12.16 08:06:00 - [65] Some interesting points, perhaps making the ships less combat capable would balance them, I'm not sure. As I suggested I would prefer for leadership skill and gang assist module bonuses as I described earlier. RickRoll Avoidance Trolling EVE Knowledge
Korran Minare Gallente Spaced Cowboys	Posted - 2007.12.17 14:59:00 - [66] giving them more of a command role is a good idea, possibly limit the number of weapons turrets to be able to fit link modules and such? Originally by: Korran Minare what would you put on space pizza anyway????
Balor Haliquin	Posted - 2007.12.17 16:43:00 - [67] What my intention was with these ships was not to make a new PvP gank platfrom, but i can not say that people in the game would use them as such. What i was thinking they would be used for is 3 fold. One was to be used in a role as the flagship or command ship of a fleet or small gang. As such the ship must be suriviable enough to make sure that the ships its is supporting with its modules can save the ship if the flagship is declared primary target. So i decided to give the ship a better tank to help it survival. Also required for the role of flagships, it needed to be able to fulfill the role of a command ship. So i gave the ship the needed bonuses to using warfare link modules. Second was the idea of the ship being used in high sec wars in the assitance of taking down player owned stations. In that light the ship had to have a way of dealing damage, so it got a bonus to its damage or rate of fire. Either way i made the ships do more damage. Final was the idea that these ships are evolutions of their base ships. So to show that they are better able to do the job given they got another damage bonus of some kind for some , or another kind of bonus to some part of the ships systems. As for ensuring that they are balanced, i made sure to keep all of the bonuses to what the base ship was and then look at the command ship bonuses for each race and gave the flagships the same style bonus. There were some changes to the bonuses given to each ship but all in all they are the same. I then went through and made sure that anywhere it said "10% bonus" it was reduced to "5% bonus" Another comment; it is in my opinion imposible not to compare and contrast between exsiting and proposed ships. I wanted to provide people with examples in a way that i thought would help in the discussion. If one would like a reasoning why these ships have a valid reason to be in the game, then let me try my best to give a reason. I belive that these ships would provide an important role in the gang and feet warfare area. They are designed to be support ships in the same concept as command ships. These ships are not designed to be just another Heavy Assault Ship. U wanted to create something that would go along with CCP's continuing desire to move away from solo combat and toward groups of ships working together. AS far as these ships being a step between battleships and dreadnoughts, i was refering to the skills required instead of actual power of the ship. These ships are powerful and could take on 1 or 2 dedicated PvP battleships and stand a good chance of winning. But, i belive that the flagship would be more likely to loose engagements, because of how valuble a target it is. In referance to limiting the number of turret and launcher hard points on the ship. I would rather not. I like the idea of versatility over extreme specialization. Versatility has its own massive failures when it comes to combat. For example, setting up you ship for one sircumstance and then finding youself in another gets your ship destroyed.
Korran Minare Gallente Spaced Cowboys	Posted - 2007.12.17 18:16:00 - [68] These would be good for high sec pos warfare since you cant take dreds and cap ships into empire space, then these ships would be the leaders of the fleets Originally by: Korran Minare what would you put on space pizza anyway????
Balor Haliquin	Posted - 2007.12.17 18:36:00 - [69] One of the jobs i had invisioned for them.
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2007.12.18 02:23:00 - [70] Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 18/12/2007 02:24:42 It seems like what you've really done is made battleships obsolete for anyone who has the skills and isk to fly these. More gank, more tank, no real downside. I think everyone is so excited because they want new toys to play with, and these seem like damn fine toys, I'll admit that. How does your design combat the battleship deflation that I think would happen if these were released? You stated "value" of their kill as one possible reason. What else? Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Stakhanov Metafarmers	Posted - 2007.12.18 03:10:00 - [71] Edited by: Stakhanov on 18/12/2007 03:15:05 Edited by: Stakhanov on 18/12/2007 03:14:39 Command ships weren't meant to become gank platforms , yet they are mainly trained for their T2 aspects , not their bonus to warfare links. Look at the number of sleipnirs around. Command BS would "suffer" (balance wise) from the same issue. Current T2 BS are heavily pre-nerfed , yet many people will train for them just because they're better than T1 and possibly do something faction BS can't. Besides , I don't see the point of that class. Interdictors are very different from interceptors , HACs are much more powerful than assault frigates (people already complain about their lack of role) Electronic Attack Frigates seem slightly redundant to me considering combat recons , but at least they have significantly different attributes. Command ships are slow , so would be command BS. For very long , the difference between a myrmidon and a dominix was rather thin , both typically using the same weapon systems (5 heavy drones and 6 med guns , or nos) and strong tank for their classes. T2 BS should have powerful special abilities nothing else has. Black ops' were predictable , not bad in themselves but nothing too thrilling tactically. Marauders look funny , but since CCP sells them as mission running ships , more power to them The last class of T2 BS should have something shockingly new. I'm sure there are a few good ideas for that burried in this forum somewhere. Please , bring something original.
Balor Haliquin	Posted - 2007.12.18 04:08:00 - [72] I don't think battleships would become obsolite because of this ship class. Yes this ship is more powerful and yes it has some greater capabilities that a standard battleship. But two things in my opinion will prevent the battleship from becoming obsolite. First, these ships will be very expensive to get, insure, and fly properly. If anyone is willing to risk a ship like that for every little gank they go on, they have more money that i can possibly imagine. Second, battleships are still very competent ships when flown by people who have the skills to do so. I have no desire to get myself into a Paladin, frankly from what i have scene the Abaddon i fly is a better platform for mission running and, if i could afford to, ganking. As far as the Black-Ops ship is concerned, it nice but not on my list of got to haves. Battleships provide a very good reliable and relitivley cheep way of palying eve. As far as balance goes, Black-Ops ships have their own very unique set of areas where they are second to none. I was atempting to make a ship that could attempet to be used in a fleet situation, and because of it being a very good target for the rest of the opposing fleet, i was trying to give the ships a reasonable chance of survival. As you will note some of the bonuses i gave to the ships are not a s good as the ships base hull. I would argue that if one was to make a ship that was nothing but bonuses to gang modules and thats it. No one would fly it because it would die faster than a frigate. Making the ships skill requirements geared toward fleet and wing command was a way of forcing the person skilling for the ship to get into the whole command idea. Not a solo gank platform. To be honest i have no way of saying that people will not use these ships for anything other than what they are intended for. But that is true of any ship put forth by CCP. All i can do is make a ship that is geared towards a particular job and go from there.
Korran Minare Gallente Spaced Cowboys	Posted - 2007.12.18 19:17:00 - [73] bump, trying to keep this one up near the top as it is one of the most detailed and thought out threads about a new ship that i have seen so far Originally by: Korran Minare what would you put on space pizza anyway????
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2007.12.18 21:23:00 - [74] Originally by: Balor Haliquin To be honest i have no way of saying that people will not use these ships for anything other than what they are intended for. But that is true of any ship put forth by CCP. All i can do is make a ship that is geared towards a particular job and go from there. You could reduce the dps to less than their t1 counterparts. Carriers are supposed to fulfill this role you know. Huge capital ships that have insane tanks compared to non-capitals, yet (supposed to ) have very little damage potential unless their fighters are supporting other ships. The reason their damage potential is supposed to be low is to keep them from being an attack ship. You've essentially created a battleship with more dps, and a rediculous tank, and you've pretty much guaranteed That people will use it as an attack ship. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Korran Minare Gallente Spaced Cowboys	Posted - 2007.12.18 21:25:00 - [75] but carriers arent allowed in empire space, this ship would take over the carrier role when carriers are unavaliable Originally by: Korran Minare what would you put on space pizza anyway????
Balor Haliquin	Posted - 2007.12.18 23:07:00 - [76] A second issue with carriers is the growing debate about what their actual role is. As many people know about the changes that CCP wished to instill upon the carriers about 2 months ago now. They were going to reduce the use of the fighters and also make them less capable of transporting ships and gear in and out of low sec. To be honest reducing the DPS on these ships means that they may make it into the game but they will almost certainly never be used by players in a widespread manner. I would like these ships to be able to defend themselves and even be able to fight back. Reducing their DPS would ensure that they would be nothing more than over sized and, due to their increased signiture radius and there for the larger amount of damage they would take, very vulnurable targets. I belive that these ships as they are currently designed are close to filling the role that they are ment for. That is as a command ships and evolution to the battleship platform. But their primary use would be for command and control of fleets. and as such they need to be able to take and deal some damage. Considering there are bound to be ships in the opposing fleet which could wipe the floor with them. I'm speaking of other battleships, which I'm sure would be found in much larger numbers, and even command ships and battlecruisers. One on one the Combat varients are more than likely to kill a battleship of the same hull, i can admit to that. But the issue is still that of numbers. As i have seen and learned in PvP, there are very few times where the battle is one on one, and when it is, it is very few times that it is the same class verses the same class. I am starting to like the idea of reducing the number of hard points on the ships that are more directed toward warfare links. Maybe force them to put a gang link of some kind on. But then again, that might have the opposite effect and make people not want to fly that particular varient of the ship. Hope to hear more ideas about the ships, thanks for the responses so far.
Rjaiajik Kajvoril Amarr Autonomous Systems	Posted - 2007.12.18 23:14:00 - [77] Originally by: Korran Minare but carriers arent allowed in empire space, this ship would take over the carrier role when carriers are unavaliable Agreed. Also this isn't a capital ship meaning its a solid aim for corps too small to realistically consider capital ships yet. It's also useful for high sec mining/missioning corps. RickRoll Avoidance Trolling EVE Knowledge
Balor Haliquin	Posted - 2007.12.18 23:44:00 - [78] Sorry i just had this horrible mental image, when i read minning, of a Flagship decked out with civilian mining lasers. But yes this is one of the markets that this ship is aimed at.
Rjaiajik Kajvoril Amarr Autonomous Systems	Posted - 2007.12.18 23:56:00 - [79] I was thinking more of someone sitting in a Flagship with 3 Mining Barges, a Cruiser Bodyguard (to kill rats) and an Industrial ship hauling the goods. Sitting there with Gang Assist modules and Mining Foreman/Leadership bonuses in effect. RickRoll Avoidance Trolling EVE Knowledge
Balor Haliquin	Posted - 2007.12.19 00:03:00 - [80] Ahh good point, the ship has more uses than i intended.
Balor Haliquin	Posted - 2007.12.19 01:12:00 - [81] I just noticed that the Athena has 2 of the same bonuses. I need to change this.
Rjaiajik Kajvoril Amarr Autonomous Systems	Posted - 2007.12.19 04:11:00 - [82] I've always seen these as being leadership boat, not all groups are combat. I personally feel that these ships would get a better overall response without combat bonuses. As nice as they are, they shouldn't out-gun a battleship, not really. They should support better than anything. I think all of the ships should get the Command Ship Bonus: "99% reduction in CPU cost for warfare link modules, activate 3 warfare link modules simultaneously." I don't see why you've only given this to half of the ships. I would consider these change to the designs for each ship; I've also included a new max speed which I think makes sense. These ships should be slow, they lead the fleets, they don't charge on ahead into battle so they don't need to be fast. AMARR Requiem - Amarr Battleship Bonus : +20% to Armoured Warfare skill bonus per level. 5% bonus to armour resistances per level Max Velocity : 90m/s Signature Radius : 540 Oblivion - Amarr Battleship Bonus : +20% to Armoured Warfare skill bonus per level. 2% bonus to capacitor capacity per level Max Velocity : 90m/s Signature Radius : 540 CALDARI Tsunami - Caldari Battleship Bonus : +20% to Siege Warfare skill bonus per level. 5% bonus to shield resistances per level Max Velocity : 90m/s Signature Radius : 540 Oni - Caldari Battleship Bonus : +20% to Siege Warfare skill bonus per level. 2% bonus to lock on range per level Max Velocity : 85m/s Signature Radius : 540 GELLENTE Athena - Gellente Battleship Bonus : +20% to Information Warfare skill bonus per level. 10% bonus to drone HP per level Max Velocity : 95m/s Signature Radius : 540 Artemus - Gellente Battleship Bonus : +20% to Information Warfare skill bonus per level. 2% bonus all resistances per level Max Velocity : 100m/s Signature Radius : 540 MINMATAR Conflagration - Minmatar Battleship Bonus : +20% to Skirmish Warfare skill bonus per level. 10% reduction to shield recharge rate per level Max Velocity : 110m/s Signature Radius : 540 Halberd - Minmatar Battleship Bonus : +20% to Skirmish Warfare skill bonus per level. 5% reduction to signature radius per level Max Velocity : 110m/s Signature Radius : 540 I've made them less of a weapons platform and more of a fleet/assist ship this way. They've all become slower (and Minmatar are the fastest which is how it should be as they prefer speed over anything else). And finally the 50 point increase to Signature Radius I calculated as a 0.25 factor increase between Battleships and Dreadnoughts. In effect what it means is they're easier to hit than Battleships and take slightly more damage from Large/Capital Weapons, making them less likely to want to go into combat solo. What do people think of these suggested alterations? RickRoll Avoidance Trolling EVE Knowledge
Balor Haliquin	Posted - 2007.12.19 17:01:00 - [83] These are good ideas, however they do suffer from some problems. First they do not fallow what has been the traditional way CCP has done their ship bonuses. With few exceptions it is primarily the tech 1 ship's bonus plus a new set of bonuses from the varient type. Second the speed change on the ships dose not match with the ships they are based off of. The reason that some of the battleships are faster or slower than the racial normal speed is because they use different tactics to fly. For example the, the Maelstrom is an artillery platform and dose not need speed to close and do damage. The Hyperion on the other hand is set up as a blaster ship, so it needs speed to close. This is not to say that either ship is stuck in that role. The ideas for the bonuses are already on the ships in some form. The issue becomes the survivability of the ship in combat. Putting a good tank on a ship ensures that it can tank more damage, but if the ship is unable to return fire effectively than it is a good as dead. Im going to be redoing all the ships soon and will post the new stats. If anyone knows a way to make the stats the front page or put in a link in the new ship stats please tell me.
Rjaiajik Kajvoril Amarr Autonomous Systems	Posted - 2007.12.19 17:22:00 - [84] The reason I made the new speeds and signature radius is that remember it's only based on the Hull of the battleship, all the guts have been pulled out meaning it can legitimately have an entirely different propelling system in place. I'd like to hear what other people think of my suggested bonus. I know they're not like the normal bonuses people would be used to however they are very much characterful for these ships at least. Much more so than any weapon bonus... As for changing the first posts, there should be an edit button in the top right corner of each of your posts. RickRoll Avoidance Trolling EVE Knowledge
Balor Haliquin	Posted - 2007.12.20 13:58:00 - [85] Im going to take some of the suggestions for the ships and redo all of the ship stats. Im going to be removing hard points for most of the ships to get people flying them to use gang warfare links. Also the Tsunami is going to become a missle boat. Other than that all of the ships are getting around 100 powergrid removed to make the fitting of an all guns flagship difficult. The last part im very hesitant on because of the already extremely tight fittings on the ships. The bonuses for the Athena and a couple of pther ships will be changed to eat into their DPS. At best the new stats will make the Flagship have anly about 5%-10% better DPS than their standard hulls. Before anyone cries wolf, not that now people would have to make a prity hard desison between the 3 main roles of the ship. Are they going to fit it primarily for Gank and forego a good tank and fleet assitance modules, or put a tank on and try to inrease ones survivability that way. Im trying not to force pleayers into one area or another by the fitting requirements. That is one of the main reasons i hate the new Murauders. So im trying to make something that, though not forcing, is suggesting that theses ships be used more for fleet command rather than gank central.
Korran Minare Gallente Spaced Cowboys	Posted - 2007.12.20 14:48:00 - [86] sounds like a good idea Originally by: Korran Minare what would you put on space pizza anyway????
Rjaiajik Kajvoril Amarr Autonomous Systems	Posted - 2007.12.20 16:17:00 - [87] Sounds good. I still think that increasing signature radius would have a good effect, it would make it a much less useful gank boat. RickRoll Avoidance Trolling EVE Knowledge
Rjaiajik Kajvoril Amarr Autonomous Systems	Posted - 2007.12.21 17:50:00 - [88] I don't want this idea forgotten and dropped into the ether. So, I guess... BUMP RickRoll Avoidance Trolling EVE Knowledge
RUSSBLADEZ	Posted - 2007.12.21 18:21:00 - [89] I really like this idea. alot of thought was put into this. now if you dont mind make me a gallente version plz, very interested to see how it turns out.
Balor Haliquin	Posted - 2007.12.21 19:04:00 - [90] CALDARI Name: Tsunami Hull: Rokh Role: Fleet Command Ship Developer: Kaalakiota As befits one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the known world, Kaalakiota's ships are very combat focused. Favoring the traditional Caldari combat strategy, they are designed around a substantial number of weapons systems, especially missile launchers. However, they have rather weak armor and structure, relying more on shields for protection. Cladari Battleship Bonus: 5% bonus to Cruise Missle velocity per lever, 5% bonus to shield Resistances per skill level Flagship Bonus: 5% bonus to Cruise Missle Launcher rate of fire per level, 2% bonus to Capacitor Capacity per level Command Ship Bonus: 99% reduction in CPU cost for warfare link modules, 10% bonus to Siege Warfare Link module effectiveness Fitting slots: 8/7/5/2 Power Grid: 14900 CPU: 770 Hard points: 3 Turret/6 Launcher Shield HP: 9000 Shield Resistances: 0/60/55/32.5 Shield Recharge: 2500.00 Armor HP: 6500 Armor Resistances: 60/10/25/45 Hull HP: 7500 Velocity: 115m/s Drone Bay: 50m^3 Drone Bandwidth: 50 Mgbits/sec Cargo Bay: 625m^3 Capacitor Capacity: 6000 Capacitor Recharge: 1250.00sec Maximum Targeting Range: 90km Maximum Lock: 6 Sensor Strength: Gravometric 24 Signature Radius: 510m Scanner Resolution: 75 Inertial Modifier: 0.155 Propulsion Strength: Magpulse 7 Required Skills Primary Skill Required > Heavy Command Ship I -> Command Ship IV --> Battlecruiser V --> Spaceship Command IV -> Fleet Command III --> Wing Command V ---> Leadership V -> Warfare Link Specialization IV Secondary Skill Required > Caldari Battleship V -> Spaceship Command IV -> Caldari Cruiser V --> Spaceship Command III ---> Caldari Frigate V ---> Spaceship Command I Tertiary Skill Required > Command Ship IV -> Heavy Assault Ship IV --> Assault Ship IV --> Mechanics V --> Engineering V --> Targeting V -> Gunnery III --> Weapon Upgrade V Name: Oni Hull: Rohk Role: Fleet Command Ship Developer: Ishukone Most of the recent designs off their assembly line have provided for a combination that the Ishukone name is becoming known for: great long-range capabilities and shield systems unmatched anywhere else. Caldari Battleship Bonus: 7.5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range per level, 5% bonus to shield Resistances per skill level Flagship Bonus: 5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage per level, 3% bonus to Siege Warfare Link module effectiveness per level Command Ship Bonus: 99% reduction in CPU cost for warfare link modules, activate 3 warfare link modules simultaneously Fitting slots: 8/6/6/2 Power Grid: 14900 CPU: 770 Hard points: 7 Turret/3 Launcher Shield HP: 9000 Shield Resistances: 0/60/55/32.5 Shield Recharge: 2500.00 Armor HP: 6750 Armor Resistances: 60/10/25/45 Hull HP: 7250 Velocity: 110m/s Drone Bay: 50m^3 Drone Bandwidth: 50 Mgbits/sec Cargo Bay: 625m^3 Capacitor Capacity: 6000 Capacitor Recharge: 1250.00sec Maximum Targeting Range: 90km Maximum Lock: 6 Sensor Strength: Gravometric 24 Signature Radius: 510m Scanner Resolution: 75 Inertial Modifier: 0.155 Propulsion Strength: Magpulse 7 Required Skills Primary Skill Required > Heavy Command Ship I -> Command Ship IV --> Battlecruiser V --> Spaceship Command IV -> Fleet Command III --> Wing Command V ---> Leadership V -> Warfare Link Specialization IV Secondary Skill Required > Caldari Battleship V -> Spaceship Command IV -> Caldari Cruiser V --> Spaceship Command III ---> Caldari Frigate V ---> Spaceship Command I Tertiary Skill Required > Logistics V -> Signiture Analysis V --> Electronics V --> Mechanics V --> Engineering V -> Long Range Targeting V --> Siege Warfare Link V

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: 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.