EVE Search - Losses are still too costly (discuss)

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Losses are still too costly (discuss)

» 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 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Law Enforcer Deadly Addiction	Posted - 2008.01.26 23:50:00 - [61] field ships you can afford to lose. everyone is so battleship obsessed in this game that it's not even funny. just buy a cruiser if you can't afford the larger ships.
Del Narveux Dukes of Hazard	Posted - 2008.01.27 00:50:00 - [62] I totally agree that the death penalty is way too high. I also agree that this, coupled with some features added with RMR that favor blobs, is whats killing off fun pvp. But the problem is it isnt really possible to implement a more combat-friendly DP without totally breaking everything else in the game. Essentially, eve has morphed into an economic game, thats just how it is. Personally, these days when I want to shoot other people I play TF2 or annoy corpmates. _________________ [IMAGE REMOVED] -- aka Cpt Bogus -- Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
Desh Craven	Posted - 2008.01.27 00:54:00 - [63] Originally by: Pan Crastus Before you all scream "he wants WoW-like PVP": no, I don't. However, the cost of losing ships still seems to be too high in EVE, so the typical PVP goes like this: - 5-6 man roaming gang looking for 5-6 v 1 situations (ganking ratters/miners/haulers), then logging off or running away when they get 5-6 or more opponents - larger fleets not getting any fights even if similar numbers are present on the other side. Logoffski / Dockupski again. - most of EVE's actual PVP is gate camping and there it's mostly 10 people shooting shuttles and noob ships - the only way to force a fight is to shoot POSes etc. I can imagine that if ships cost 20-25% of what they currently do, more fights would happen. I do realize that other costs are involved with losses (time to get a new ship, clones, time to move to where you were/want to be). Perhaps I'm wrong and prices are fine though - discuss. Possible solutions: - higher insurance for T2 ships - fewer modules getting destroyed when ships pop - lower building/invention cost for T2 (yeah, scream little T2 ripoffskis) - ??? No, because Insurances provide too good cover already as it is now. And this is coming from a trader. I usually run cargo 10-25 x worth my ship value that isn't even refunded me in case of destruction, and i can take it when/if it does happen, because i risk only so much than i can afford to lose. As should everyone else. Actions should have proper consequenses. Stupid actions even more so. Everyone gets their ship blown up regularly in EVE - that is the circle of life in this game, but getting you ship destroyed too often is your own mistake, a mistake you should pay for, not some npc insurance company.
Valan The Fated Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.27 01:44:00 - [64] Edited by: Valan on 27/01/2008 01:44:23 Originally by: McAltyalty Edited by: McAltyalty on 26/01/2008 19:56:53 Originally by: Stakhanov Look at the increase in comedy killmails. Faction BS , carriers , dreads , and now even motherships - titan soon ? No ship class is safe from the clumsy hands of unskilled pilots. Darwinism seems threatened as there is no way to reduce the unfit to frigates anymore. Is that really the best thing though? If stupid people can't have fun they're gonna leave, and since we already know a large percentage of people are stupid Eve will both lose players and lose possible recruits. You may want that but I guarantee CCP doesn't a fair amount of the playerbase doesn't either. Sure they may not be the best but that doesn't mean they're not fun to play with. Death penalty has eased for most. The player base has gone up, Arguement is null and void. It's even easier not to get blown up as well. Hitpoints were less and you were dead before your screen loaded at a gate camp. You had no means of escape. EDIT: Wasn't technically a gate it was known as a JIP. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig
Vabjekf	Posted - 2008.01.27 03:31:00 - [65] Problem is not cost, its that people are afraid to screw up their CS-in-space kill/death ratio. Here, do this. Give players the option to totally turn off their little killmail function. They get no killmails, and do not appear on any kill mails in kills they take part in, they also do not show up on other peoples kill mails, but rather just show up as 'anonymous' When running in this mode, give the insurance payout they receive also cover the market cost of all modules and/or rigs they lose if lost to a player, and increase the ship payoff slightly (enough to offset the price of buying the insurance, but not enough to make this an exploitable isk-fountain) (make this mode be something that can only be turned on/off every 24 hours so people cant just turn it on or off depending on whos winning). There. People who want to pvp for the fun of it can do so for much cheaper. People who are only trying to grow their space-peens have to pay =P Killboards are whats wrong with pvp in eve, that and POSs and cap ships. Also the entire gate system, but that cant be fixed.
Kurando Inugami Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.01.27 04:22:00 - [66] The only thing I think should happen in higher insurance payout, but also a slight increase of cost. ------------------- ôWhat gunpowder did for war the printing press has done for the mind.ö - Wendell Phillips
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.01.27 04:44:00 - [67] If you fly an insured T1 ship with a T2 fit the losses are pretty trivial. Frankly I don't think losses have ever hurt as little in the entire history of EVE.
Stefan F Enrave Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2008.01.27 04:56:00 - [68] Edited by: Stefan F on 27/01/2008 04:56:40 I really like the idea of decreasing payout for insurance based on where you lose your ship. What about this one: Multiply the insurance payout as it is now, with the security rating of the system. This makes a whole lot more sence, as you would take risks in lower sec space, and going into 0.0 is really mayhem you shouldn't be at all (if it was for the company paying the insurance). So if you pop your myrmidon in jita (1.0) you get when fully insured 40M x 1.0 = 40M When you happen to pop it in osmeden (0.5) you only get 40M x 0.4 = 20M Loosing your drake in sendaya (0.3) on the other hand will only yield you 38M x 0.3 = 11.4M Finally if you are in 0.0, doril for example you get no pay out at all. Your little drake will yield you 38M x 0.0 = 0 isk
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.27 04:59:00 - [69] Originally by: Pan Crastus Before you all scream "he wants WoW-like PVP": no, I don't. However, the cost of losing ships still seems to be too high in EVE, so the typical PVP goes like this: - 5-6 man roaming gang looking for 5-6 v 1 situations (ganking ratters/miners/haulers), then logging off or running away when they get 5-6 or more opponents - larger fleets not getting any fights even if similar numbers are present on the other side. Logoffski / Dockupski again. - most of EVE's actual PVP is gate camping and there it's mostly 10 people shooting shuttles and noob ships - the only way to force a fight is to shoot POSes etc. I can imagine that if ships cost 20-25% of what they currently do, more fights would happen. I do realize that other costs are involved with losses (time to get a new ship, clones, time to move to where you were/want to be). Perhaps I'm wrong and prices are fine though - discuss. Possible solutions: - higher insurance for T2 ships - fewer modules getting destroyed when ships pop - lower building/invention cost for T2 (yeah, scream little T2 ripoffskis) - ??? Worst ideas ever. Worst reasoning ever. All insurance should be removed from the game. Period. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Syos Gallente The Privateers Coalition	Posted - 2008.01.27 05:36:00 - [70] Seems like as good a place as any to make a first post. I came into this game with the general assumption that it was going to take time to really get to grips with it all. With this in mind, I don't really feel too bothered that I'm still flying a cruiser around right now. As I discovered earlier today, the current insurance system means if I lose my Vexor to my own noobishness, it's realistically going to cost me little more than a few million to get back to where I was; if, as the OP suggested, ships cost around 20-25% of their current price, I could have afforded to replace my cruiser with a battleship instead. While this might seem an awesome prospect to newbs, it's not what the game is about. I don't want to be flying a BS after soloing missions for a month. I want to work and play harder than that. Nobody said the game was meant to be easy. To make PvP viable in this game, there has to be a genuine reason to win battles at all costs, and a financial hit is one of the best reasons going. If there's a genuine chance that every time you engage in battle it could substantially change your direction, ship choice, career choice, etc., then it makes the actual battles worth engaging in. Sure, a newbie might come along, earn 100m, buy a BS and lose it in a few minutes, but along the way said newbie will have experienced all manner of aspects to the game, made friends, and earned the skills to allow him to get back to where he was and progress even further. Losing the BS does not mean game over. It just means that said hypothetical newb (like myself) will learn from his mistakes and maybe do things differently next time. You can lose all the ships you want, but as long as you keep your clones up-to-date, you're never going to lose those skills, and you'll keep making progress in the game. If you don't want to work to make up for the loss, you shouldn't be playing MMORPGs.

Ezekiel Sulastin Gallente Eve University	Posted - 2008.01.27 05:46:00 - [71] Originally by: Stefan F Edited by: Stefan F on 27/01/2008 04:56:40 I really like the idea of decreasing payout for insurance based on where you lose your ship. What about this one: Multiply the insurance payout as it is now, with the security rating of the system. This makes a whole lot more sence, as you would take risks in lower sec space, and going into 0.0 is really mayhem you shouldn't be at all (if it was for the company paying the insurance). So if you pop your myrmidon in jita (1.0) you get when fully insured 40M x 1.0 = 40M When you happen to pop it in osmeden (0.5) you only get 40M x 0.4 = 20M Loosing your drake in sendaya (0.3) on the other hand will only yield you 38M x 0.3 = 11.4M Finally if you are in 0.0, doril for example you get no pay out at all. Your little drake will yield you 38M x 0.0 = 0 isk As I mentioned in your separate thread, the LAST thing low-sec needs is even more disincentive to go there.
Arvald Caldari Devilish Intentinos	Posted - 2008.01.27 06:36:00 - [72] Originally by: Janu Hull As a professed solo belt-ratter in 0.0, I am aware of the threats that exist, and as an experienced player, I have learned how to cope with them. 1. PAY ATTENTION! 2. Safe spot, safe spot, safe spot. 3. The cloaking device is your friend. Become aquainted ASAP. In fact, never leave empire without one. 4. The rats(and rocks) will still be there when the reds move on. WARP THE FRACK OUT! 5. Always maintain alignment to a safe spot when ratting. The less turning you've got to do to line up for warp, the faster you get your butt out of the line of fire. 6. Warp to 100km. Do not worry about the rats. If you shoot them, they will come. If you're mining, pick a rock as far from the default warp in location as possible. Bookmark that rock, warp to there, not the location marker. In 0.0, if you are not the hunter, you're prey. Be smart prey, and your ship will pay for itself before it gets shot out from under you. ive got another one to add dont 0.0 ninjarat in a batleship you will die, use an assault frigate its much faster and agile and has more than enough firepower/tank/speed to avoaid getting killed and quickly dispatch of most if not all rats
Stakhanov Metafarmers	Posted - 2008.01.27 12:58:00 - [73] Originally by: Khatred It's never about the costs associated with a death in a mmorpg. It's about the human nature. Pretty much. I hate dying even if I'm flying a T1 frigate - though refitting one is a chore , the thought that I lost is very unpleasant. People are terrified of lowsec because they know they will die , not because they will have costly losses. Which explains the suicide gank whining threads , those who thought themselves safe from savage Eve pvp have their world shattered by some random opportunistic highsec pirate. We need more of them , highsec is still disgustingly carebear Originally by: ivan draco we didnt want your post anyway
Ealthor Amarr Veyr	Posted - 2008.01.27 13:32:00 - [74] Originally by: Pan Crastus Before you all scream "he wants WoW-like PVP": no, I don't. However, the cost of losing ships still seems to be too high in EVE, so the typical PVP goes like this: - 5-6 man roaming gang looking for 5-6 v 1 situations (ganking ratters/miners/haulers), then logging off or running away when they get 5-6 or more opponents - larger fleets not getting any fights even if similar numbers are present on the other side. Logoffski / Dockupski again. - most of EVE's actual PVP is gate camping and there it's mostly 10 people shooting shuttles and noob ships - the only way to force a fight is to shoot POSes etc. I can imagine that if ships cost 20-25% of what they currently do, more fights would happen. I do realize that other costs are involved with losses (time to get a new ship, clones, time to move to where you were/want to be). Perhaps I'm wrong and prices are fine though - discuss. Possible solutions: - higher insurance for T2 ships - fewer modules getting destroyed when ships pop - lower building/invention cost for T2 (yeah, scream little T2 ripoffskis) - ??? Kinda flawed reasoning. People currently fly a class of ship that they feel they can afford, for each person that affordability threshold is different but everyone does it. If asked to come along to a roaming gang (in an unspecialised role, so basically dps) people will bring the biggest ship they feel at the time that they can afford to lose. People will still have the same base amount of money if your changes where taken on-board, so all the 20% reduction in costs would result in is people buying bigger ships, to get them up as close to their affordability threshold. People would fly BS when previously they flew BC, or BC when previously they flew cruiser. Any problem people have with their losses in PvP stem from a misjudgement of their affordability threshold, because it is that that determines what value of ship a player flies into the void, not the actual price of any individual ship.
MeeKai Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.01.27 13:45:00 - [75] I've been flying mainly hacs/recons now, and I have to tell you, it does hurt when you lose one. I will still fly them though, for another 29 days while I train for large projective turret 5. Personally can't stand flying t1 ships if its not a BS.
xyeLz	Posted - 2008.01.27 14:18:00 - [76] Problem with T2 is that the build costs aren't actually that high, increasing the insurance to it's effective selling price means one can make isk by blowing up T2 ships. I'd like some insurance on modules that get destroyer (and not drop), like starting with 20-30%. It probably won't be much as alot of the named modules are low on 'base price' and are obtained from PvE-players selling their loot. But it's a start. Lastly, maybe a small penalty to gangs. Not big, don't get me wrong. But like, if 1 person shoots a ship and it dies, there's a 100% of the chance that is currently in-game to have a module drop. If 5 ships kill a ship, there's an 80% chance. Small changes for starters. I don't know though, it's okay as it is, I don't have any great suggestions.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.01.27 14:34:00 - [77] Bah, youre missing the point of eve and the deathpenalty. PvP in eve is the most exciting pvp youll ever come across, not because of fanct pewpew grafics or cool manouvers, its because the death penalty is high. You take that away and youll destroy the game. More on topic, to answer this: T1 insurance is too high and is the broken thing not T2 insurance... Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2008.01.27 15:22:00 - [78] Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 27/01/2008 15:23:01 Loss should hurt more (getting rid of insurance would be just about right) but escape should be more likely/simpler, and not just for risk reasons. The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
Hellspawn666 Minmatar Master Miners	Posted - 2008.01.27 15:38:00 - [79] Tbh my ship should just respawn in my last station with armor damage... All wow jokes aside erm the cost of pvp is dependant on A, how unlucky or how many risks you take and B, how much isk ya make, since for someone making billions per week losing a carrier really doesnt mean to much when ya add on basic insurance. since he could proberly afford to lose 10. I would say the balance is about right for most ships except t2 bs whice are epic failures because they are just not worth the cost. Risk vs reward... reward doesnt have to just be isk.
Sniggerdly Hater	Posted - 2008.01.27 15:42:00 - [80] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Bah, youre missing the point of eve and the deathpenalty. PvP in eve is the most exciting pvp youll ever come across, not because of fanct pewpew grafics or cool manouvers, its because the death penalty is high. You take that away and youll destroy the game. And since current game means blob and at gate usually maybe that is a good thing. I am sure those of you who argue for no insurance are the sames in the blobstatic camps and would like to make your ship kills count more (epeen) or that modules were higher (isks for mining the noobs that jump in). See how other people in C&P have posted recently saying ugh, they might have to "work" to get their isks because modules are too cheap. OP: Too much epeen around, and people wanting their epeen appear bigger by making others smaller.

Yazmina	Posted - 2008.01.27 15:59:00 - [81] I had an idea that I think would address a large part of the problem, inflation and the influx of too much money. Newbs and newer players often think costs are too high and the cost of dying is too steap. Older players say the cost is too low and there isnt much disincentive to dying. I propose a sales tax on all purchases. This tax would work on a progressive system based on how much sp you have. 5m sp = 5% 15m sp = 10% 25m sp = 15% 35m sp= 20 % 50m sp= 25 % 75 m sp = 35% 100 m sp+ = 45% This tax would be applied to everything that is bought and would be given over to the "government" (basically disappear). This sales tax would lower inflation, give the old timers more risk and lower the amount of money on the market, while simultaneously not hurting the "newbs" at all. I believe this could be an excellent idea that would get us moving in the right direction.
Valan The Fated Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.27 16:09:00 - [82] Originally by: Yazmina I had an idea that I think would address a large part of the problem, inflation and the influx of too much money. Newbs and newer players often think costs are too high and the cost of dying is too steap. Older players say the cost is too low and there isnt much disincentive to dying. I propose a sales tax on all purchases. This tax would work on a progressive system based on how much sp you have. 5m sp = 5% 15m sp = 10% 25m sp = 15% 35m sp= 20 % 50m sp= 25 % 75 m sp = 35% 100 m sp+ = 45% This tax would be applied to everything that is bought and would be given over to the "government" (basically disappear). This sales tax would lower inflation, give the old timers more risk and lower the amount of money on the market, while simultaneously not hurting the "newbs" at all. I believe this could be an excellent idea that would get us moving in the right direction. A bear is a bear. They all say they will PvP if it was cheap but they don't its an excuse. All the ideas in the world won't make them change. BTW wouldn't work old timers are pretty self sufficient I only buy stuff because I'm idle. Its got cheaper to PVP the excuse is still there. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig
Apocryphai Caldari	Posted - 2008.01.27 16:22:00 - [83] Originally by: Yazmina I had an idea that I think would address a large part of the problem, inflation and the influx of too much money. Newbs and newer players often think costs are too high and the cost of dying is too steap. Older players say the cost is too low and there isnt much disincentive to dying. I propose a sales tax on all purchases. This tax would work on a progressive system based on how much sp you have. 5m sp = 5% 15m sp = 10% 25m sp = 15% 35m sp= 20 % 50m sp= 25 % 75 m sp = 35% 100 m sp+ = 45% This tax would be applied to everything that is bought and would be given over to the "government" (basically disappear). This sales tax would lower inflation, give the old timers more risk and lower the amount of money on the market, while simultaneously not hurting the "newbs" at all. I believe this could be an excellent idea that would get us moving in the right direction. Please think about that idea for 30 seconds. Got it yet? OK, it's completely unworkable. First off all it would mean is anyone with >5m SP's would use low-SP alts to buy everything they wanted. Secondly it would make the entire branch of trading skills useless. Why train trading skills if simply having the SP's in those skills means you suddenly pay enormous taxes? So, think again on that one, sorry. And, similarly, aimed at those few in this thread who are still pushing the idea that T2 insurance needs to be higher... again, think about this for 30 seconds. T2 insurance is based on base manufacturing cost. If insurance payout for T2 ships were higher than this then why would anyone ever sell T2 ships when they could just insure them, undock them and get them concorded, thus collecting insurance that was higher than the build cost? Engage brains before posting silly ideas, thanks. If you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it, k? ________________________________________________________________ Originally by: Victor Valka What the skull-chick said.
N1fty Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.01.27 16:24:00 - [84] Originally by: Yazmina I had an idea that I think would address a large part of the problem, inflation and the influx of too much money. Newbs and newer players often think costs are too high and the cost of dying is too steap. Older players say the cost is too low and there isnt much disincentive to dying. I propose a sales tax on all purchases. This tax would work on a progressive system based on how much sp you have. 5m sp = 5% 15m sp = 10% 25m sp = 15% 35m sp= 20 % 50m sp= 25 % 75 m sp = 35% 100 m sp+ = 45% This tax would be applied to everything that is bought and would be given over to the "government" (basically disappear). This sales tax would lower inflation, give the old timers more risk and lower the amount of money on the market, while simultaneously not hurting the "newbs" at all. I believe this could be an excellent idea that would get us moving in the right direction. And whats to stop me from using my 1mil SP trader alt to buy everything on the cheap? --
Yazmina	Posted - 2008.01.27 16:25:00 - [85] I think that it could make a difference. People still have to make empire runs when they get blown away to replace their modules. Not many people can completely manufacture everything they need themselves. This tax would apply to everything, even on purchases in player owned structures etc. So, I think that it will make a difference. The whole point is making it more costly for older players to pvp, to add more "thrill" This does this to some extent.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.01.27 16:34:00 - [86] Originally by: S****dly Hater Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Bah, youre missing the point of eve and the deathpenalty. PvP in eve is the most exciting pvp youll ever come across, not because of fanct pewpew grafics or cool manouvers, its because the death penalty is high. You take that away and youll destroy the game. And since current game means blob and at gate usually maybe that is a good thing. I am sure those of you who argue for no insurance are the sames in the blobstatic camps and would like to make your ship kills count more (epeen) or that modules were higher (isks for mining the noobs that jump in). See how other people in C&P have posted recently saying ugh, they might have to "work" to get their isks because modules are too cheap. OP: Too much epeen around, and people wanting their epeen appear bigger by making others smaller. I normally only fly T2 ships from inties up to command ships and I think T2 insurance is good and is where T1 insurance should be. You want to remove pvp thrill? If you are poor fly a frig but just laughing at BS/BC losses because you get so much isk back from insurance is bullzhit. Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.01.27 16:35:00 - [87] Originally by: Yazmina I had an idea that I think would address a large part of the problem, inflation and the influx of too much money. Newbs and newer players often think costs are too high and the cost of dying is too steap. Older players say the cost is too low and there isnt much disincentive to dying. I propose a sales tax on all purchases. This tax would work on a progressive system based on how much sp you have. 5m sp = 5% 15m sp = 10% 25m sp = 15% 35m sp= 20 % 50m sp= 25 % 75 m sp = 35% 100 m sp+ = 45% This tax would be applied to everything that is bought and would be given over to the "government" (basically disappear). This sales tax would lower inflation, give the old timers more risk and lower the amount of money on the market, while simultaneously not hurting the "newbs" at all. I believe this could be an excellent idea that would get us moving in the right direction. Duh, this is why new players fly in frigs and older players fly in big ships. I dont see the point in this. Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II
SiJira	Posted - 2008.01.27 17:16:00 - [88] the problem is that newbs want to pvp in battleships and you can tell them but you cant make them understand why a frigate and a cruiser are just as useful as two battleships and sometimes better Trashed sig, Shark was here
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2008.01.27 23:50:00 - [89] Originally by: S****dly Hater ... I am sure those of you who argue for no insurance are the sames in the blobstatic camps and would like to make your ship kills count more (epeen) or that modules were higher (isks for mining the noobs that jump in). ... Don't be so sure. Many would consider me a carebear using a loose definition of the term and I have argued against insurance. No insurance would "hurt" so called pirates as much as it would hurt anyone else, perhaps even more as they are likely to loose more ships than carebears. Not everyone has positions based on their own personal interests, many do, but not all, some of us do actually put the game above our own petty interests in these forums. The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.01.28 00:20:00 - [90] Losses in Eve are only as costly as you set them to be. /Ben How to fix Eve



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: 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.