EVE Search - Low population in low sec confirmed

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Low population in low sec confirmed

» 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 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Pantaloon McPants	Posted - 2008.02.21 00:03:00 - [61] We need less people aspiring to be pirates and more people aspiring to be Chuck Norris, a chuck norris alliance to clean out low sec pirates one pleb gate camp at a time. If anyone cbf, i know i cant. I laugh at those people who are saying, "im doing level 4s in low sec! Its awesome, only 2 people here! its awesome", well err.. what do you thinks going to happen when everyone in empire moves out there? Think about it for a sec, you will have 200 people in system hogging that level 4 and noone wanting to undock in anything less then a t1 fit insured raven with beta implants. This is why i assume its not regular players calling for more people in low sec, but pirates wanting easy fat targets - 23/7. Why would ccp kick 70% of its player base in the balls to apease 7% of low sec, they wont. I can only play a few hrs at most these days, why would i waste that play time camped in a station or waiting to sneak past a pirate camp? Its not fun, if i had that sort of game time to spare i would be back out in 0.0. Speaking of 0.0, if you want PVP (YEAHHARDCORE!LOOKATMEPVP) 0.0 is just up the road, be my guest, oh wait.. those mofos might shoot back. One good idea i heard was maybe get rid of Agent Levels in low sec, so people wouldnt cluster around obvious low sec systems and maybe spread around more, this might make people feel safer.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.21 00:03:00 - [62] Originally by: Brutoth Tain Take both surveys into account, people tried to debunk and shrug off the first population report because of the method used to generate the statistics so second time around they changed the method and the frequency of the measurements. Limited as the first survey was the figures have shown to be consistent by the second survey which instead of measuring the amount of characters present it measured the amount of active characters and did so over a longer period. Both the limited character count and the detailed survey have provided what can only be interpreted as an accurate population snapshot over a six month period, and over that period low sec is largely unpopulated. What does that have to do with alts? None of the surveys addressed that point. An actual survey sent by ccp through evemail to a percentage of the accounts would be a MUCH better survey. Quote: This is going to be a shock to you but it is you who are in the minority as the 0.0 population isn't that high either. At the risk of sounding elitist, 0.0 is the end game in eve, thats just how it is. Its how ccp envisioned it, its how the game is setup(look at the size of 0.0 compared to highsec for example).
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.21 00:05:00 - [63] Originally by: Shintai Its amazing people cant accept other peoples playstyle. Forcing people out of high so what? Probe them when doing missions or whatever so you can get easy targets handed to you? Also if you move L5 and L4 agents to lowsec..people just only do L3. Its very simple. Or they might just quit the game instead. Its like saying concord should be in 0.0 space. 0.0 serves the purpose of being a PvP area, highsec is at times also a PvP area. EvE is one of the few MMOs where you can actually PvP in the socalled safespot. Lowsec however is the only place that dont actually serve a purpose. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. L4s are just too profitable compared to everything else. 0.0 ratting makes less isk unless you're in the best regions chaining the best spawns. There is patently something wrong with this.
Cailais Amarr VITOC	Posted - 2008.02.21 00:05:00 - [64] Originally by: Shintai Its amazing people cant accept other peoples playstyle. Forcing people out of high so what? Probe them when doing missions or whatever so you can get easy targets handed to you? Also if you move L5 and L4 agents to lowsec..people just only do L3. Its very simple. Or they might just quit the game instead. Its like saying concord should be in 0.0 space. 0.0 serves the purpose of being a PvP area, highsec is at times also a PvP area. EvE is one of the few MMOs where you can actually PvP in the socalled safespot. Lowsec however is the only place that dont actually serve a purpose. Am I the only one who sees the inherent contradiction here? C. Improved Low Sec Idea!!
Cosmar Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2008.02.21 00:09:00 - [65] Actually if anything the article shows there is no lowsec problem. It says: 49% of players stayed in high-sec 32% of players also went in lowsec (but not 0.0) 19% of players also went in 0.0 Those are perfectly decent numbers for low sec, but pretty bad for 0.0 (when you consider how many 0.0 systems there are). If anything it shows that 0.0 alliance warfare is not the game and CCP should take that into account when planning new content.
Alex Shurk	Posted - 2008.02.21 00:19:00 - [66] It's astounding how many people are accepting these bull**** figures when yet again they have not accounted for on-account alts, let alone 2nd/3rd account alts.
SheriffFruitfly Caldari FlyinPenguin Enterprises	Posted - 2008.02.21 00:30:00 - [67] I think it's funny how ppl want to force other ppl to go to low/null.
Brutoth Tain Independant Recon and Intelligence Agency	Posted - 2008.02.21 00:33:00 - [68] Edited by: Brutoth Tain on 21/02/2008 00:34:27 Originally by: Gamesguy What does that have to do with alts? None of the surveys addressed that point. An actual survey sent by ccp through evemail to a percentage of the accounts would be a MUCH better survey. No a questionnaire survey only shows what people are saying and not what the reality is some people will undoubtedly claim that low sec and 0.0 are all that EVE is and should be and answer the survey accordingly And the ration of alts can be easily estimated. I'm not hot on maths so I'm going to over simplify it and take one account as one "main" character. If there are 250,000 player accounts (discount trials and farmers) that means that based on the survey approximitely 25,000 consistent 0.0 dwellers (10% of the accounts) now if you take multiple accounts into that equation the real figure is only known to CCP so lets average it out as two accounts per player (some people have 1 others might have 3-4) So now lets assume that every single 0.0 characters has 2 high sec alts, so that's 50,000 high sec alts from the 25,000 consistent and active 0.0 dwellers. Both surveys state that around 75% of characters are high sec dwellers, 75% of 250,000 accounts is 187,500. So those 50,000 0.0 high sec alts only accounts for less than 25% of high sec dwellers. If you follow this example and rudimentarily crunch the numbers for low sec as well that means that over 65% of the population (minus high sec and low sec characters alts) spends more time in high sec than anywhere else. Disclaimer, I suck at maths and these figures could very well be bull**** so please rework them to a decent standard if your able to and if your not able to you cant very well question my numbers if you have no clue either ---------------------------------------------- Piebears <3 Risk Vs Reward.......You take the risk they take the reward.
Minnie Rotseibes	Posted - 2008.02.21 01:18:00 - [69] So, if I'm reading this thread right, low-sec sucks and hi-sec is too crowded and we need to do something about it? No problem. Get CONCORD to seal the Hi-sec-to-low-sec gates. Send in the CONCORD Titan battlegroups to exterminate all life in low-sec or force it into 0.0. Empire fleets move in and claim all of low-sec. Faction warfare results. Everyone's happy, no?
Herring Alcatraz Inc. Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2008.02.21 03:27:00 - [70] Or perhaps just move 0.0 space a little closer toward empire...reset the sec status of some of the lowsec systems to 0.0, maybe even make islands of 0.0 sec status systems inside of lowsec itself with the accompanying rewards (rats, ore, exploration, etc). All in all though moving the agents to lowsec is a winner of an idea to me. I'm sick of reinstalling, it's not what my days off are for

Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.21 03:34:00 - [71] Originally by: Brutoth Tain Disclaimer, I suck at maths and these figures could very well be bull**** so please rework them to a decent standard if your able to and if your not able to you cant very well question my numbers if you have no clue either Your math is screwed up. This survey says 70% of the people are in highsec, so if the 30% in lowsec/0.0 have 2 alts each, and no highsec acct have an alt, that means 90% of eve are in lowsec/0.0. Obviously this is not the case, the truth is somewhere in between those two extremes.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.21 03:35:00 - [72] Originally by: Minnie Rotseibes So, if I'm reading this thread right, low-sec sucks and hi-sec is too crowded and we need to do something about it? No problem. Get CONCORD to seal the Hi-sec-to-low-sec gates. Send in the CONCORD Titan battlegroups to exterminate all life in low-sec or force it into 0.0. Empire fleets move in and claim all of low-sec. Faction warfare results. Everyone's happy, no? As soon as concord is nerfed to be just like those empire navy ships you kill in missions, sure. Expect jita to fall within 2 days though.
Brutoth Tain Independant Recon and Intelligence Agency	Posted - 2008.02.21 03:42:00 - [73] Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Brutoth Tain Disclaimer, I suck at maths and these figures could very well be bull**** so please rework them to a decent standard if your able to and if your not able to you cant very well question my numbers if you have no clue either Your math is screwed up. This survey says 70% of the people are in highsec, so if the 30% in lowsec/0.0 have 2 alts each, and no highsec acct have an alt, that means 90% of eve are in lowsec/0.0. Obviously this is not the case, the truth is somewhere in between those two extremes. I didn't apply the math to low sec dwellers alts only 0.0 alts and what is the point in calculating high sec mains high sec alts? I can rework the figures to include the low sec alts but what is the point at the end of the day all it will show is the same kind of ratios all the official results show. The majority of characters reside in high sec whether they are permanent or the alts of players from 0.0 and low sec they are long term high sec residents. ---------------------------------------------- Piebears <3 Risk Vs Reward.......You take the risk they take the reward.
SheriffFruitfly Caldari FlyinPenguin Enterprises	Posted - 2008.02.21 04:30:00 - [74] Edited by: SheriffFruitfly on 21/02/2008 04:32:44 If I perceived a feasible way for me to get to 0.0, I'd go.
Law Enforcer Deadly Addiction	Posted - 2008.02.21 05:17:00 - [75] a better question would be: why? would would any go to low-sec when the rewards are greater in 0.0. null sec agents give out 15k'ish in lp per mission. 0.0 rats are better. 0.0 ore is better. why would you go halfway when you're gonna get shot at either way?
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.02.21 05:23:00 - [76] Originally by: Law Enforcer a better question would be: why? would would any go to low-sec when the rewards are greater in 0.0. null sec agents give out 15k'ish in lp per mission. 0.0 rats are better. 0.0 ore is better. why would you go halfway when you're gonna get shot at either way? Would you rather go up against the average piratecorp with 5 online players on peaktimes or... the southern coalition?
Kahega Amielden	Posted - 2008.02.21 05:26:00 - [77] Originally by: Law Enforcer a better question would be: why? would would any go to low-sec when the rewards are greater in 0.0. null sec agents give out 15k'ish in lp per mission. 0.0 rats are better. 0.0 ore is better. why would you go halfway when you're gonna get shot at either way? Bubblecamps.
Guillame Herschel Gallente The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.21 06:00:00 - [78] Originally by: SheriffFruitfly If I perceived a feasible way for me to get to 0.0, I'd go. Join a corp that's already there, or get your corp to join an alliance that's already there. By the way, has anyone considered that if low sec space is made more attractive, people from 0.0 might decide to go there too? Last I checked, the gates are two-way. -- I need a sig --
iblade darkstar	Posted - 2008.02.21 06:03:00 - [79] trouble with low sec is all the pirates live there. so no-one who wants to make isk goes there. in fact i would say that low sec is the most dangrous area in the game. so it comes down to risk/reward and i'm sorry to say it's just not worth it. if you go into 0.0 as a member of a corp/alliance then you get warnings about hostiles moving around as well as knowing WHO the hostiles are. and as you are in 0.0 your corp/alliance should have a PvP side as well. in low sec even as a part of a alliance how do you tell if anyone is hostile? answer is you cann't. i would be intrested in seeing the numbers for where and now many ships get killed as i think this would show exactly wot i'm saying. this game is built around PvP and that is wot makes the game so playable BUT piracy is now becoming a big issuse. it is now more profitable to be a pirate than it is to be a miner or a mission runner or even a REAL PvPer. why do you think we see more high sec suicide squads? because they make alot of money doing it and there are less target in lec sec for all the people turning to piracy. now piracy is apart of the game and needs to stay in the game BUT until there is a bit more balance for the people who are not pirates then you wont see many people in low sec. and moving missions to low sec will just move people to do ANY high sec missions that they can. And moving R&D agents to low sec as was suggested in an earlyer post will just drive prices up as people WILL NOT BE FORCED into PvPing to get RP.
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2008.02.21 07:19:00 - [80] Originally by: Guillame Herschel Originally by: SheriffFruitfly If I perceived a feasible way for me to get to 0.0, I'd go. Join a corp that's already there, or get your corp to join an alliance that's already there. By the way, has anyone considered that if low sec space is made more attractive, people from 0.0 might decide to go there too? Last I checked, the gates are two-way. I thought about that. Actually, if the population reports are even somewhat accurate, then low-sec is fine. It's 0.0 that needs help. And god knows there is money out there, so it aint that. Perhaps 0.0 is too big and low-sec is too small.

Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.21 07:23:00 - [81] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 21/02/2008 07:25:08 Edited by: Venkul Mul on 21/02/2008 07:24:36 Originally by: Cpt Fina Heh, kinda funny that you'd say so since the last time we had an discussion you simply stopped responding to my posts even tho it was you who attacked my integrity. Unless you resume that thread and respond to my last reply I suggest you stfu. I replied, you don't like the reply, your problem. You clearly have got good grades in your debate school with your "never give a a real statement" tactic, as effectively it make almost impossible to give a counterargument to something that really don't exist, but it work way less in a forum where the thing people prefer are statements. About the thread argument, lets start with the people distribution in the 2 surveys: If I recall correctly it (EVE sistem spread) is something like 20% high sec, 10% low sec, 70% 0.0 (around 1.000 high sec, 500 low sec, 3500 0.0) So A total of 1.35 million visits were made to zero-zero space systems (19.6%), 743,000 visits were made to low-sec space (10.8%), and 4.76 million visits were made to high-sec solar systems (69.5%). 1.350.000/3.500 = 385 5,8% of adjusted movement (0.0) 743.000/500 = 1.486 22,4% of adjusted movement (low sec) 4.760.000/1.000 = 4.760 71,78% of adjusted movement (high sec) Total 6631 Now look at the older Report distribution: 0.0 = 9% low sec = 13% high sec 78% Originally by: Tsanse Kinske By the way, for reference, EVE is 23/13/64% hi/lo/0.0. (you have a clear reference? I did found one month ago, but I did not saved it) So 1.150/650/3200 1.350.000/3.200 = 422 7,4% of adjusted movement (0.0) 743.000/650 = 1.143 20% of adjusted movement (low sec) 4.760.000/1.150 = 4.139 72,56% of adjusted movement (high sec) So let's compare this number with the first survey again: 0.0 7,4% of movements, 5,8% of residents low sec 20% of movements, 13% of residents hi sec 72,56% of movements, 78% of residents I see 2 things here: a) if we take in account the size of the area the number are pretty consistent; b) high sec is overpopulated, low sec seem fine and 0.0 is underpopulated. As the thread about "no people in low sec" are normally started by pirates that want more target it seem clear that low sec is not underpopulated, simply it lac the kind of target those pirates want: easy to gank, very rick mission runners, easy to gank belt miners and easy to gank haulers. So essentially people have adapted, learning to stay away or take measures to avoid being an easy prey, but the pirates don't or can't adapt to the changed environment.
Jack Jombardo Amarr	Posted - 2008.02.21 07:26:00 - [82] I'm still a relativ new pilot in EvE. I tryed a little PvP, 0.0, lowsec and Corpwar ... and I'm not fit for it till now! So where is the reson WHY I should go there? WHY shouldn't I be allowed to earn my ISK where I'm relativ save and can have my sort of fun? Does it MUST be fun for everyone to PvP? 0.0 is pritty much splitted to old Corps/Alliances where a new one needs hugh amounts of ISK to "buy-in" or to establish a fleet for some war-actions (dreads + pilots, carriers, many BS aso). But how should they earn the money if you move every level 3 and 4 agent + all better ore types to 0.0/lowsec? Personaly I know alot of people far over 40 who play EvE after there work just to relex. They do not like to PvP or perma camp some gates. WHY the hell do some of you like to forbit them to have there type of fun? If YOU like to be in 0.0 for whatever reason ... do it. But DO NOT tell other people how they have to play!
Dimagus	Posted - 2008.02.21 07:35:00 - [83] Edited by: Dimagus on 21/02/2008 07:36:14 These numbers show that Highsec is functional and appropriately designed. Put bluntly: requires no change, it's working as intended. CCP would be stupid to hinder 75% of their player base because something ELSE is borked. The numbers also should be higher for 0.0, but it has it's own problems with sovereignty and the PoS that PoS warfare is. You may consider that a pun. Low sec is pitiful and quite frankly there isn't even a reason for it to exist in the current game. Level 5s were a pathetic attempt to provide rewards for the risk, but instead added more risk with no real reward. Either remove lowsec and extend concord controlled space, or do something with it. Right now it's just a void that a significant majority of the playerbase avoids at all costs.
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.02.21 07:40:00 - [84] Edited by: Cpt Fina on 21/02/2008 07:43:25 Originally by: Venkul Mul Edited by: Venkul Mul on 21/02/2008 07:25:08 Edited by: Venkul Mul on 21/02/2008 07:24:36 Originally by: Cpt Fina Heh, kinda funny that you'd say so since the last time we had an discussion you simply stopped responding to my posts even tho it was you who attacked my integrity. Unless you resume that thread and respond to my last reply I suggest you stfu. I replied, you don't like the reply, your problem. You clearly have got good grades in your debate school with your "never give a a real statement" tactic, as effectively it make almost impossible to give a counterargument to something that really don't exist, but it work way less in a forum where the thing people prefer are statements. Originally by: Venkul Mul I think you are the thread winner. Is this the reply you are refering to? I made a post longer than what I can see without scrolling in which I questioned your arguments and all you can come up with is "I think you are the thread winner."? And you question my way of discussing? Appearantly you cearly failed to answer the post as it was way beyond your capacity. The sad part is that you don't seem to have the intellect to know when to be quiet. And the "never give a a real statement"-comment from you makes this ** even more funny. I clearly make statements in my initial posts and the reason I often end up having multi-page discussions on Eve-O is because of people like you. You, and the likes of you, even though you seem to be able to read simple text, can't cope with the strain of comprehending simple english. Engaging in a discussion without posting irrelevant arguments and bring personal aspects to it also seems to be something that you seem to excel in failing at. Congratu-*****-lations, to a masterpiece of failure.
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.02.21 07:46:00 - [85] Originally by: CCP in my dreams Players who aggress other players in low-sec will no longer suffer a security status penalty for doing so if their target's security status is less than zero. They will still attract the ire of sentry guns, however. /Ben How to fix Eve
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.21 07:54:00 - [86] Originally by: Cpt Fina Edited by: Cpt Fina on 21/02/2008 07:43:25 Originally by: Venkul Mul Edited by: Venkul Mul on 21/02/2008 07:25:08 Edited by: Venkul Mul on 21/02/2008 07:24:36 Originally by: Cpt Fina Heh, kinda funny that you'd say so since the last time we had an discussion you simply stopped responding to my posts even tho it was you who attacked my integrity. Unless you resume that thread and respond to my last reply I suggest you stfu. I replied, you don't like the reply, your problem. You clearly have got good grades in your debate school with your "never give a a real statement" tactic, as effectively it make almost impossible to give a counterargument to something that really don't exist, but it work way less in a forum where the thing people prefer are statements. Originally by: Venkul Mul I think you are the thread winner. Is this the reply you are refering to? I made a post longer than what I can see without scrolling in which I questioned your arguments and all you can come up with is "I think you are the thread winner."? And you question my way of discussing? Appearantly you cearly failed to answer the post as it was way beyond your capacity. The sad part is that you don't seem to have the intellect to know when to be quiet. And the "never give a a real statement"-comment from you makes this ** even more funny. I clearly make statements in my initial posts and the reason I often end up having multi-page discussions on Eve-O is because of people like you. You, and the likes of you, even though you seem to be able to read simple text, can't cope with the strain of comprehending simple english. Engaging in a discussion without posting irrelevant arguments and bring personal aspects to it also seems to be something that you seem to excel in failing at. Congratu-***-lations, to a masterpiece of failure. Ta daa. Cpt Fina do it again, take another reply out of contest and use it to bolster her argument. The mangled quote original: Originally by:** Venkul Mul Originally by: War HIppy Originally by: Cpt Fina Stuff. I have to say you would make an amazing politician, because you are amazingly adept at saying a lot without actually saying anything. People are inferring a lot of things from what you write, but you turn around and claim they donÆt understand or are missing the point, but you never come right out and say anything directly. The thing is what you, Sendraks, and Venkul are arguing about canÆt really be won because there is not enough evidence of anything to come to a proper conclusion. ItÆs all guess work, and favors ones bias on what it is you want to see or want it to be. I'm not trying to argue I just don't agree with what I think it is you are trying to say. Cpt Fina for President? :) I think you are the thread winner. My last reply to you: Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Cpt Fina Venkul Mul, you haven't answered my post yet. it is not worth replying to your post, as other have pointed out, you twist your words and those of other people to support your position. Your average reply, to paraphrase it as you, is "you misquote me", "I did not mean that and it is evident", "you don't get it", strangely it seem a lot of people have that problem. To those interested in the discussion you can find it here from pag 3 onward. I will stop here citing it.
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.02.21 08:10:00 - [87] Edited by: Cpt Fina on 21/02/2008 08:11:07 Originally by: Venkul Mul Ta daa. Cpt Fina do it again, take another reply out of contest and use it to bolster her argument. Since you've wrote that reply yourself I took it for granted that you'd remember the context. I made the call that a long quote from another thread was uncalled for since it would further derail this thread. Appearantly you didn't make the same call. Quote: Cpt Fina do it again, You're yet to prove that I make quotes taken out of context. Yes, venkul, you tried to convince me of it in the other thread too but you simply failed at get ANY such arguments thru. Arguments that you've abondoned. In fact I made several arguments that indicated that you simply failed at comprehending simple text. Arguments you haven't or couldn't defend yourself from. So, you see Venkul. Without sound arguments you're not better than a three year old screaming "WAAAAA! I don wanna play no mooo!!" The mere fact that you fail to understand this would make me kinda depressed if I were you. Originally by: Venkul Mul My last reply to you: Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Cpt Fina Venkul Mul, you haven't answered my post yet. it is not worth replying to your post, as other have pointed out, you twist your words and those of other people to support your position. Your average reply, to paraphrase it as you, is "you misquote me", "I did not mean that and it is evident", "you don't get it", strangely it seem a lot of people have that problem. To those interested in the discussion you can find it here from pag 3 onward. I will stop here citing it. Now was that a response to the actual discussion or to the posts in which I urge you to continue our discussion? "it is not worth replying to your post" - great last argument. I take it you thought it would render all my arguments obsolete? Fantastic! Again, congratulations Venkul.
Kestrix Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.21 08:41:00 - [88] There are two places in eve where it is profitable to mine IMO. Empire and 0.0 Empire is low risk/value but that is made up in the bulk that can be mined and there is 0.0 with the high end ore's and lower risk than low sec due to the low population, jump into a quite system with the new Cap ore ship mine your merry heart out a couple of days and jump out again. I'll use a Hulk in Empire and 0.0 but take it into low sec and its as good as dead. If we do decide to mine low sec it's done with coveters and T1 modules to limit the isk lost if/when we are attacked = lower profits Sorry to spoil your fun pirates but this is about profit not about creating a fun hunting enviroment for you
Ceridan02 Caldari Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.02.21 09:31:00 - [89] funny to see low sec ganker/pirates/player killer crying like babies... . Dont try to force players to play your game. Moving Lvl 4 Agents to low sec will just bring people to play for lvl 3 Agents in high sec. If you want to play pvp and not only gank mission runners come play in 0.0 Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Valorem ([email protected])
Zaerlorth Maelkor	Posted - 2008.02.21 09:42:00 - [90] Still quite a bit higher than the population in the vastness of 0.0... ================================================== I should really get a sig.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: 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.