EVE Search - a different proposition for Assault Frigates roles

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

a different proposition for Assault Frigates roles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.07 08:57:00 - [1] Ok, as we all know asault frigates have the usefulnes sof a fat panda embedded in gasoline runnign trough a forest in flames. So I have what i think to be a very nice and balanced proposition. In place of the non existent bonus. Give the following bonus. 20% After burner bonus while webbed per level. what woudl that result? Woudl result in the heavy and slugish assault frigates being almost imune to a signle web! Giving them a role as ships that get close by bigger ones for attacking them or providing heavy tackle! AND woudl be a ship USING afterburners!!! Woudl be somethign DIFFERENT in game! That is a role no other ship has. And sicne assault ships are very heavy, this would not be unbalanced because they are not usual nanoships and a ship with AB is not somethign that will escape an interceptor or even a MWD fitted HAC. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Aneroi Amarr VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Te-Ka	Posted - 2008.01.07 09:14:00 - [2] I have a feeling that it won't be implemented because 1. It is porbably hard to code 2. Its too situational. What they need is something better in role with what their bigger brothers the HACs. Just make them better at what they do. More dmg and tank then they have now.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.01.07 09:28:00 - [3] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/01/2008 09:28:59 First off, AFs need a weight fix. Otherwise they are going to remain essentially broken ships. To make a quick comparison of AFs with Destroyers: 1) AFs have typically worse agility then Destroyers. For example, a Thrasher has better agility then a Jaguar not to mention a Wolf. Attempting to plate AFs makes this even worse. Agility-wise, Destroyers mostly win out, occasionally by a hefty margin. 2) Damage-wise, AFs mostly fall short of Destroyer DPS (talking about close-range fits). A AC Thrasher will always outdamage a Wolf, for example (in addition to actually being able to track unwebbed targets with 200mm AC IIs perfectly). I'm not sure if some AFs are marginally better, though, but in general, Destroyers mostly win out. 3) Buffer/tank-wise, AFs do better then destroyers due to T2 resists and more slots to tank with (dessies, after all, have less mids/lows then tier 3 frigs), so AFs win out here. 4) Speed wise, I find that the Jaguar outraces the Thrasher by quite a bit, but Wolf and Thrasher MWD speeds are so-so. Catalyst and Ishkur/Enyo MWD speeds are also comparable. Not sure who wins out here, but AFs definitely have little to no advantage here. 5) Price / cost-effectiveness: well, destroyer >> AF considering you can get a destroyer which is, in combat, roughly the equivalent performance of a AF for about 1/4th the price of AF+fit (or better). So, since cost-effectiveness you can't do anything about and messing with DPS isn't really going to happen, let's at the very least fix the AF mass (and therefore, both speed and agility) so it compares better with the destroyer, a widely known class of junk ships, more favorably. After all, one of the selling points of frigates is their nibleness and ability to run from sticky situations. It should at least be able to do this properly. There is no real fear of nano-AFs since, well, they still have worse base speed then T1 frigs (except the Jaguar). So, no stepping o the toes of interceptors here. Just stop them from flying like bricks, please. I won't even talk about AFs vs cruisers, which outclass AFs by such a huge margin now it's not even funny and are, in fact, quite comparable price-wise. Fix the ships themselves before trying to give them a role. Then give all the ships a actual bonus (preferably something from their base hull) and make the resists in-built, and then we can finally think about a role. Rifters!
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.07 10:16:00 - [4] Ok first i noticed that i made a miscalculation. Bonus would need to be 200% per level to cancel one web. The problem of the CLASSICAL view of reducing AF weight is. Would not give them a role! would just make them into interceptors!!! We don need more of the same. My proposal would make them a really useful ship, an IMUNE to web ship (but only while using AB as speed mod). That would make them by FAR the most survivable of the small ships. Simply giving them less weight and etc would not give them a role. they would still be inferior to inties. What i want are real ASSAULT ships Ships that are HARD to stop when they decide to get you. Also they would work wonder as secondary tackler. After an inty has gotten you the AF can get close , assume the tackling and be much harder to get rid of than a ceptor. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Tarron Sarek Gallente Endica Enterprises	Posted - 2008.01.07 13:33:00 - [5] Originally by: Kagura Nikon The problem of the CLASSICAL view of reducing AF weight is. Would not give them a role! would just make them into interceptors!!! I really really doubt that giving AF's around 15% more mass than their T1 counterparts would make them into interceptors. T1 frigs aren't interceptors to begin with, so why should a ship that's even heavier be one? Nobody suggested 'give them lower mass than T1 frigs and higher base speed'. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.01.07 13:40:00 - [6] Originally by: Kagura Nikon The problem of the CLASSICAL view of reducing AF weight is. Would not give them a role! would just make them into interceptors!!! We don need more of the same. How, pray tell, would it make them interceptors if they had the mass on the level of their T1 counterparts with less base speeds then T1 frigs (which they have, unless you've noticed)? It'd just fix their horrible agility and bad AB/MWD speed. In case you haven't noticed, Interceptors go significantly faster then T1 frigs, are cap stable while running a 24km distruptor thanks to their role bonus, have typically tracking bonuses to hit their targets better while zooming around and on top of things have a smaller sig radius so they're preety bloody hard to track? I really don't see how something with less speed then T1 frigs is stepping on the toes of interceptors in any way. It just fixes their horrible agility - currently, a Thrasher, which is a bloody destroyer handles better then the 'speed' AF - the Jaguar. I won't even get about the handling of plated AF configurations, because they handle like bloody cruisers. With all the perks that go with it (easy to catch, etc). Originally by: Kagura Nikon My proposal would make them a really useful ship, an IMUNE to web ship (but only while using AB as speed mod). That would make them by FAR the most survivable of the small ships. Your proposal (while good) leaves it a semi-broken ship class. They have a role and are still preety broken, awesome boost really. I do agree that some sort of web resistance (possibly when running a AB, although 200% AB boost per level would be silly) would be a awesome role bonus for the ships, but they need to handle like frigates first and foremost. After their mass is fixed (and some are direly in need of 10 more CPU, the Wolf and Enyo for starters) we can talk about, you know, a actual role. A sucky ship with a role is still a sucky ship; they need to stop sucking. I won't even go into the 1-midslot AF. Rifters!
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.07 14:12:00 - [7] Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 07/01/2008 14:13:35 Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Kagura Nikon The problem of the CLASSICAL view of reducing AF weight is. Would not give them a role! would just make them into interceptors!!! We don need more of the same. How, pray tell, would it make them interceptors if they had the mass on the level of their T1 counterparts with less base speeds then T1 frigs (which they have, unless you've noticed)? It'd just fix their horrible agility and bad AB/MWD speed. In case you haven't noticed, Interceptors go significantly faster then T1 frigs, are cap stable while running a 24km distruptor thanks to their role bonus, have typically tracking bonuses to hit their targets better while zooming around and on top of things have a smaller sig radius so they're preety bloody hard to track? I really don't see how something with less speed then T1 frigs is stepping on the toes of interceptors in any way. It just fixes their horrible agility - currently, a Thrasher, which is a bloody destroyer handles better then the 'speed' AF - the Jaguar. I won't even get about the handling of plated AF configurations, because they handle like bloody cruisers. With all the perks that go with it (easy to catch, etc). Originally by: Kagura Nikon My proposal would make them a really useful ship, an IMUNE to web ship (but only while using AB as speed mod). That would make them by FAR the most survivable of the small ships. Your proposal (while good) leaves it a semi-broken ship class. They have a role and are still preety broken, awesome boost really. I do agree that some sort of web resistance (possibly when running a AB, although 200% AB boost per level would be silly) would be a awesome role bonus for the ships, but they need to handle like frigates first and foremost. After their mass is fixed (and some are direly in need of 10 more CPU, the Wolf and Enyo for starters) we can talk about, you know, a actual role. A sucky ship with a role is still a sucky ship; they need to stop sucking. I won't even go into the 1-midslot AF. Would not make them Into inteceptors but into something with same role as interceptors. Seems that CCP is not will;ing to change any ship unless it get a proper unique role. If they are just advanced and fast frigs they would hjave no role that is not already covered. Also it NEEDs to be 200% per level :) Because then at level 5 you would have 1000% that is 10x speed. Then when webbed the speed would get reduced by 90% resulting as in same speed as a ship non webbed. Would be simply a 100% resistance to web ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.01.07 14:16:00 - [8] May I point to the link in my sig where there are many ideas going in the same direction as... AB bonus Mass change (and potential mass penality reducing from AB) Web resistance Clear roles as having priviledged targets Don't only look the first posts with some stats, it's mainly my vision with the added ideas of many. There are many (very) good ideas in the posts and not all can be integrated into a single ship class. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.01.07 15:53:00 - [9] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/01/2008 16:00:41 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/01/2008 15:56:49 Originally by: Kagura Nikon Also it NEEDs to be 200% per level :) Because then at level 5 you would have 1000% that is 10x speed. Then when webbed the speed would get reduced by 90% resulting as in same speed as a ship non webbed. Would be simply a 100% resistance to web It would also be 5+km/s with a full-out nanofit without the disadvantages of the MWD (sig radius which would REALLY give you a big advantage over ceptors since you'd be so much harder to track) coupled with the AB's small cap use (meaning you're much more neut resilient) making the, say, Jaguar, the essentially T3 interceptor. Well thought out, clap clap. I'd be first to rig a 10x AB speed Jaguar with polycarbons, gistii AB, put two-three overdrives and reach absolutely stupid speeds with it. Yes, please. Talk about the ultimate interceptor, reaching probably 7+km/s on a AB with a tiny sig and almost no cap consumption, and probably close to 10km/s with 50M worth of rogue implants ;) You do realise that 10x speed boost from a AB is overpowered to hell and back, do you? I'd prefer to make them actually fly like frigs (mass change) and give them like a 50% resistance to stasis webifiers as a role bonus, so you can slap on a AB and actually, you know, assault (or even try to do so w/out a AB) while still being trackable and killiable with a MWD on them. They still wouldn't be nearly as good as ceptors at what ceptors do, but they'd be much more viable for close-range combat and they wouldn't suffer from almost cruiser-like handling which is one of the worst drawbacks they have now. Rifters!
xaioguai Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.01.07 16:10:00 - [10] How about grant it a role bonus by getting rid of signature radius penalty when activating MWD. That way, its still the slowest, hard to accelerate ship in frigate class due to its weight but somewhat survivable in certain situation.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.01.07 16:16:00 - [11] Originally by: xaioguai How about grant it a role bonus by getting rid of signature radius penalty when activating MWD. That way, its still the slowest, hard to accelerate ship in frigate class due to its weight but somewhat survivable in certain situation. Redicilously overpowered. Rifters!
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.07 17:30:00 - [12] Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 07/01/2008 17:33:30 Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/01/2008 16:00:41 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/01/2008 15:56:49 Originally by: Kagura Nikon Also it NEEDs to be 200% per level :) Because then at level 5 you would have 1000% that is 10x speed. Then when webbed the speed would get reduced by 90% resulting as in same speed as a ship non webbed. Would be simply a 100% resistance to web It would also be 5+km/s with a full-out nanofit without the disadvantages of the MWD (sig radius which would REALLY give you a big advantage over ceptors since you'd be so much harder to track) coupled with the AB's small cap use (meaning you're much more neut resilient) making the, say, Jaguar, the essentially T3 interceptor. Well thought out, clap clap. I'd be first to rig a 10x AB speed Jaguar with polycarbons, gistii AB, put two-three overdrives and reach absolutely stupid speeds with it. Yes, please. Talk about the ultimate interceptor, reaching probably 7+km/s on a AB with a tiny sig and almost no cap consumption, and probably close to 10km/s with 50M worth of rogue implants ;) You do realise that 10x speed boost from a AB is overpowered to hell and back, do you? I'd prefer to make them actually fly like frigs (mass change) and give them like a 50% resistance to stasis webifiers as a role bonus, so you can slap on a AB and actually, you know, assault (or even try to do so w/out a AB) while still being trackable and killiable with a MWD on them. They still wouldn't be nearly as good as ceptors at what ceptors do, but they'd be much more viable for close-range combat and they wouldn't suffer from almost cruiser-like handling which is one of the worst drawbacks they have now. NO NO NO!! this bonus would apply ONLY when WEBBED!!!! Not when you are not webbed. That would mean for example (wil use round number for simplicity) base speed 400. AB speed unwebbed=800 (the bonus do not apply here!). Web ship makes speed 10%=> 40ms. Now a 200% bonus per level of the AB= it goes 800ms again. Maybe i need to explain what i mean with AB bonus better. The idea is that AB on unwebbed you have normal AB speed. but webbed you continue SAME normal speed, ignoring 1 web. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.01.07 21:01:00 - [13] Originally by: Kagura Nikon NO NO NO!! this bonus would apply ONLY when WEBBED!!!! Not when you are not webbed. That would mean for example (wil use round number for simplicity) base speed 400. AB speed unwebbed=800 (the bonus do not apply here!). Web ship makes speed 10%=> 40ms. Now a 200% bonus per level of the AB= it goes 800ms again. Maybe i need to explain what i mean with AB bonus better. The idea is that AB on unwebbed you have normal AB speed. but webbed you continue SAME normal speed, ignoring 1 web. Ah, OK. Misunderstood you there for a bit ;P Anyway, the proposed fix does nothing about the agility and invalidates MWD fitting, which are two main gripes I have with it. A 50%+ web resistance (so you'd need multiple webs to really stop it) and a agility/mass boost so they're close to T1 frigs agility wise would be nicer. Plus, you have to realise some AFs are redicilously slow on a AB (like the Amarr/Caldari/Gallente ones) and on top of things you've got horrors like the one-midslot Amarr AF. What you proposed would help the three+ midslot AFs the most, since you could keep transversal versus a cruiser-sized target by webbing him while you'd be preety immune. I agree it is very nice, but doesn't help two-midslot AFs very much and doesn't solve the agility issues. I do think a Jaguar should turn faster then a Thrasher and that plating a Wolf shouldn't make it handle like a Rupture... Rifters!
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.08 11:05:00 - [14] Well each of the 2 assault frigates of each race coudl have a different role. The proposed AB one could be implemented for example on the more med slots AF ones. About speed. With this bonus any AB AF would be faster than a MWD one while webbed. That would improve 2 things. the MWD MUST fit that rules supreme in current pvp and give those frigates a role as close range heavy tacklers. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.01.08 11:31:00 - [15] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 08/01/2008 11:31:16 Originally by: Kagura Nikon Well each of the 2 assault frigates of each race coudl have a different role. The proposed AB one could be implemented for example on the more med slots AF ones. About speed. With this bonus any AB AF would be faster than a MWD one while webbed. That would improve 2 things. the MWD MUST fit that rules supreme in current pvp and give those frigates a role as close range heavy tacklers. Well, it's like this: what is essentially important is that your AB speed is bigger then the cruiser MWD speed in mutually webbed situations; if this is true, speed-tanking in webrange is possible and while you may suffer some damage (in fact you probably will, but not a lot) you will mitigate most of it. A AB is effectively always better in webrange unless you intend to power out of it (in mutually webbed situations). Even now. However, MWD-ing cruisers can negate transversal problems fully as it is now because in mutually webbed situations, a MWD-ing cruiser is still faster then a AB-ing AF/frig (and almost as fast as a AB-ing inty). For the record, I nearly always use a AB on my Rifters and occasionally use a AB-ing Jaguar (I know it's LOL, but it's the only Jaguar fit which not only paid itself off fully but made a nice ISK profit off the kills so if anyone intends to flame, he can go stfu in a corner). This would make AB-ing AFs with the bonus extremely effective small pirate ships, so I don't mind that change at the least. It's just that I think that a general web resistance (like 50%) would also help MWD fits (although MWD-ing under a 45% web would still be bad for your health due to sig and cap considerations) and that a mass decrease would help both AB and MWD fits as well as make them generally more viable for roaming, because as it is now it's much much easier to catch a AF compared to a T1 frig. In fact, I find the destroyer equally able to gtfo as most AFs (and, in fact, better then a good number of them and infinitely better at getting out of camps/etc then plated AFs). So, even with your proposed changes, I'd be in favour of a pure agility increase to make these ships handle better and be more viable for roaming in general. Rifters!
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.08 13:16:00 - [16] The only reason i proposed this bonus attached to AB is exaclty because there is already too much MUST FIT MWD in eve. Not only AF need a boost. But AB need a "help" too when compared to MWD. Somethign that would be even nicer would be a 50% resistance to web for ALL AB on all ships (built in in the AB) and AF having an extra 50% ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.01.08 13:36:00 - [17] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Somethign that would be even nicer would be a 50% resistance to web for ALL AB on all ships (built in in the AB) and AF having an extra 50% That would make ABs a lot more desirable. Personally, I think ABs would be very viable with increased speed boosts, something like 130% for T1 up to 150% for T2 together with a 50% reduced effect from webifiers when using the AB would make them desirable in general, making both AB and MWD a realistic choice to make in PvP. Removing the AB's mass increase when active would work instead of increased speed boost would work as well (it'd give them a bit more speed and more maneuverability), of course, combined with your proposed webifier resistance. As it is now, on cruiser-sized ships or bigger there is no concieveable reason to use a AB instead of a MWD. AB speeds are terribly low for get back to the gate applications (as you will be webbed after the first few seconds) and are insufficent for both range control AND trying to out-traverse anything bigger which the AB should, imo, be used for. Currently ABs only make sense on small ships, since you don't have to burn back to the gate when you find yourself in a camp (you just warpoff to the spot you're almost aligned to). That said, I don't expect a major change of this type to happen, unfortunately. Personally I'd be very happy with a mass fix (or agility fix plus web resistance which you propose) and a real fourth bonus (plus fitting, ofc, for the gimped ones) for the AFs. Rifters!
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.01.08 14:06:00 - [18] The webifier resistance on AB would be a bit extreme I think. Also, before saying 50% resistance, you need to realize that 10 % resistance is a 100% webbed speed boost (or close to this). What hurts the AB as a speed mod is the mass penalty : The speed increase is quite low, and the acceleration gets not better because of added mass! You end with a not so fast ship making large radius turns and inneficient accelerations. I understand the balance reasons for this an limiting the effect on ultra low mass ships (that we can't anymore do even with polycarbs, because of stacking nerf, it will neer return to the before nano nerf situation). But if the mass addition isn't reduced, there could be an equivalent agility boost (-33% on agility value, giving it the same acceleration as before the AB mass addition for standard 1.10^x mass ships). It would add flavour to the game is there was one fast slow turning module (mwd) and the AB was the slower but stunning accelerating and sharp turning module. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.01.08 14:13:00 - [19] I think that full removal of the AB mass addition would be an awesome change which would both give ABs some direly needed speed AND make them superior to MWD at maneuvering/acceleration at expense of raw speed. The only problem I see is the ability of BCs to use oversized ABs without the 'I handle like a pregneant school bus' penalty. I still see lots on MWDs on many cruisers and virtually all BCs/BS due to the fact you absolutely must have a MWD for purposes of burning back to the gate, though. Rifters!
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.01.08 14:28:00 - [20] Originally by: Cpt Branko I think that full removal of the AB mass addition would be an awesome change which would both give ABs some direly needed speed AND make them superior to MWD at maneuvering/acceleration at expense of raw speed. Different directions for different modules, not just the current state of mwd>AB because of the "I don't care of my signature at that speed". Originally by: Cpt Branko The only problem I see is the ability of BCs to use oversized ABs without the 'I handle like a pregneant school bus' penalty. This can work with doing things this way instead of removing the AB mass penalty (as I tried to explain before) : Make the AB with a higher speed bonus and add it a -33% to agility value, then you got manoeuverable ships while using the right size of AB and still 'pregneant school bus' effect for BCs using a BS AB because the mass penalty is 5x the BC mass, so -33% to agility will still make it crap at manoeuvering. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Meirre K'Tun Nuclear Halo Insurgency	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:57:00 - [21] a comepletly other idea: what about making them drone/fighter killers? remove damage bonus, but add good tracking/locking speed boni (as well as a web bonus on drones). very specialized, but would be nice in fleet engeagements with carriers present. (remove the damage bonus to that they are no absolute pwnmobiles against intis/other ships with weak tank). maybe not the best role, but at least it is a role for them...
Alekseyev Karrde THE FINAL STAND Divine 0rder	Posted - 2008.01.08 19:09:00 - [22] Or one could go the other direction and keep their manuverability issues in favor of: A role bonus/Assault Ship skill bonus to racial weapon fitting requirements, allowing them to fit cruiser sized weapons. Sluggish for a frigate, still weak in alot of areas (cap or tanking ability or tackling ability depending on the specific ship) but now they can really assault something. Perhaps rearrange some of the hardpoints for balance if needed, but i think it would really provide a clear role for the ships. It's only an honorary sig, but I'll still cut your head off.
Tasko Pal Heron Corporation	Posted - 2008.01.09 07:33:00 - [23] Another thing to keep in mind is that assault frigates have targeting times that are the second best in the game after interceptors. That's another advantage they have over destroyers. A few days back an alt of mine was ganked in a rookie frigate warping out of jump cloak by a fast locking AF. The ships lock at least 20% faster than a destroyer would (assuming I understand the mechanics correctly). Maybe a destroyer could make that lock, but it'd be tough. I think a role as a heavy tackler is a good idea here.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2008.01.09 07:46:00 - [24] I've said it once and I'll say it again: Leave them as floating bricks, and turn them into mini command ships! Divide the class into two such as the field and fleet command ships are, with one being the damage version and the other the gang bonus version. Whether this would mean that one could fit gang modules where the others couldn't or that one could fit one where the other could fit three I'm not concerned. Hardpoint Rigs

Pages: [1] :: 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.