EVE Search - Oveur on local: "When it becomes an intel tool, it's a problem"

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Oveur on local: "When it becomes an intel tool, it's a problem"

» 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 .. 12 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:02:00 - [181] Well the thread seems to be mainly headed in a direction towards a more complex redesign of giving tools for players to use to counter locals removal. I'd say (having read and even started many local threads before) that this one is going somewhere. Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:07:00 - [182] Originally by: Bish Ounen But all other ships should, OR we need to add an inexpensive "System scanner" module to the POS mod lineup that would give the owning corp or alliance the same effect as local does now. I had those in my original post that the forums decided to munch up, and forgot to add them to the replacement post, my bad. No problem whatsoever with system scanning POS modules. Just make sure they are outside the POS and destructable - and issue complete killmails if they die. (Then at least you know what was there killing it before everything went dark! :D) Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:10:00 - [183] See the remove of local could be immensely enriching content wise. Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
Burnharder Tiny Industries	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:16:00 - [184] Edited by: Burnharder on 19/03/2008 20:16:10 Originally by: Bish Ounen @ Celeste We are in agreement then. <Mr.Burns> Eeeeccellent! </Mr. Burns> Interesting that you would mention "Radar Installations" since there is already a model for a large radar dish in the game. (If you run any missions, you have seen it. In the classic client it's a large white rotating radar dish on a cylindrical base. I couldn't find it on eve-files though.) I've always thought that would make a cool thing to have attached to a POS or an Outpost. So what have you achieved apart from making said module compulsory for anyone in low sec or 0.0? What about a player (mining op) deployable sensor (required by anyone who wants to do anything remotely "solo")? You are just swapping local for some module/deployable/anchorable that is compulsory. It's the same problem I had with Avons WTZ alternative (module) idea. It would be obligatory, so what's the point in having it?
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:22:00 - [185] Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/03/2008 20:24:00 Originally by: Burnharder Edited by: Burnharder on 19/03/2008 20:16:10 Originally by: Bish Ounen @ Celeste We are in agreement then. <Mr.Burns> Eeeeccellent! </Mr. Burns> Interesting that you would mention "Radar Installations" since there is already a model for a large radar dish in the game. (If you run any missions, you have seen it. In the classic client it's a large white rotating radar dish on a cylindrical base. I couldn't find it on eve-files though.) I've always thought that would make a cool thing to have attached to a POS or an Outpost. So what have you achieved apart from making said module compulsory for anyone in low sec or 0.0? What about a player (mining op) deployable sensor (required by anyone who wants to do anything remotely "solo")? You are just swapping local for some module/deployable/anchorable that is compulsory. It's the same problem I had with Avons WTZ alternative (module) idea. It would be obligatory, so what's the point in having it? I think an overhaul of the scanner is the solution, but i'm open to all suggestions tbh. Passive low intel scanners and active high intel modules. I'm not setting things in stone here, I am not CCP You raise some good points so why not create a solution to your own points. Surely theres a little bit of everyone that finds local a little odd. Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
Bellum Eternus Death of Virtue Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:27:00 - [186] Originally by: Celeste Coeval Originally by: Bellum Eternus And btw, if WoW can do it, I'm sure Eve can too (with respect to not having/needing a local chat channel the likes of which we have now. Yes, I know WoW has 'local chat', but it's not the intel tool it currently is in Eve. You people are telling me that WoW noobs are superior to Eve players? Impossible. If you want to get anywhere I suggest you don't mention WoW, fail, or other such forum pitfalls. WoW also is not a PvP game. Just poking a bit of fun. No I don't take anything about WoW seriously, and I don't expect anyone else to either. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Burnharder Tiny Industries	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:27:00 - [187] Originally by: Celeste Coeval I think an overhaul of the scanner is the solution, but i'm open to all suggestions tbh. Passive low intel scanners and active high intel modules. It doesn't matter if it's active or passive (apart from slightly less RSI from the latter), if it doesn't give you the intel immediately that allows you take the life or death decision as to whether to get out, it's a gigantic loss to anyone who has to sit still for more than a few seconds.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:30:00 - [188] Originally by: Burnharder Originally by: Celeste Coeval I think an overhaul of the scanner is the solution, but i'm open to all suggestions tbh. Passive low intel scanners and active high intel modules. It doesn't matter if it's active or passive (apart from slightly less RSI from the latter), if it doesn't give you the intel immediately that allows you take the life or death decision as to whether to get out, it's a gigantic loss to anyone who has to sit still for more than a few seconds. I dont think you are seeing that no local can be of benefit to the carebear. I am an industrialist and trader and I am arguing for no local in it's current form. I know the risks and I still want it why? read my earlier posts. I want to be able to use the distances and topography to my advantage not a window of omnipresence. Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
Burnharder Tiny Industries	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:51:00 - [189] Edited by: Burnharder on 19/03/2008 20:51:05 Originally by: Celeste Coeval Originally by: Burnharder Originally by: Celeste Coeval I think an overhaul of the scanner is the solution, but i'm open to all suggestions tbh. Passive low intel scanners and active high intel modules. It doesn't matter if it's active or passive (apart from slightly less RSI from the latter), if it doesn't give you the intel immediately that allows you take the life or death decision as to whether to get out, it's a gigantic loss to anyone who has to sit still for more than a few seconds. I dont think you are seeing that no local can be of benefit to the carebear. I am an industrialist and trader and I am arguing for no local in it's current form. I know the risks and I still want it why? read my earlier posts. I want to be able to use the distances and topography to my advantage not a window of omnipresence. Yes I can see very clearly how this would benefit "us", but only if you make all content dynamic - because not having local is a big loss to those who exploit static resources (the enemy always know where you are). That is: no static agent locations, no static asteroid belts, no static complexes, no static moon mining, etc. etc. Then you are on an equal footing. You are as hard to locate as they are.
Asuka Smith StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:52:00 - [190] Local means every fight has to be a stand-up fight where both sides are willing to engage, or an obscenely elaborate trap where you are camping the opposite side of every gate in system with a dictor and tackler. Local makes everyone invulnerable except for idiots who do not understand what a SS chain is. I mine, exclusively now, but I used to PVP and so I can appreciate that this change NEEDS to be implemented. Those saying that the only people who want local removed are pirates looking for a cheap gank are idiots with no grasp of the big picture...
Atsuko Yamamoto The Nietzian Way Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.19 21:11:00 - [191] What people are saying about using more tedious "hands on" approach to detection of other vessels and possibly their standing would only add a great amount of work to this game. WORK and GAME do not belong in the same sentence. I don't want to work all day to come home to a game that makes me work. CCP talks about realism and wanting a realistic game as much can be allowed, well lets look at current technology. Air radar and IFF transponders pretty can do what local does for us now, and even marine technology we have AIS which does the same thing. You can look at the info and be told course, speed, type, name, IMO number, and even a short description. All local says is "your not alone". People want this more "realistic" approach to knowing who is near you. As far as I see it would make 0.0 mining operations a complete liability and needing an entire squadron of vessels to ensure towers and OPs stay fueled for the week. Logistics and communications on who is where would be a constant "what who where" over voice and chat, griefers in empire would have a field day taking out smaller corps, and generally the whole of paranoia and resignation to not even bother logging in would grow. This is a GAME folks, entertainment, not work. Local isn't that bad, people still get ganked, get away, dock up, and so on. I just don't want to put that much serious work into something I do for fun. ____________________________________ "MONKEY!!"-Gir
Dewa Surgically Removed Red Republic	Posted - 2008.03.19 21:28:00 - [192] Originally by: Asuka Smith Local means every fight has to be a stand-up fight where both sides are willing to engage, or an obscenely elaborate trap where you are camping the opposite side of every gate in system with a dictor and tackler. And this is one of the roots of it - the fact is that local breaks the game. It breaks anything covert, it breaks hiding in infinite space and it breaks ambushes. Why should someone passing through a 0.0 system with literally nothing in it but 1 ratter and his prey (and that ratter safespotted and cloaked!) instantly know that someone is there? And not only that someone is there, but exactly who they are? I agree with many previous posters that the solution is more stuff. I want POS modules that do auto-update scanning like local did, but are fooled by cloaks. I want anchorable, optionally cloakable sensors that small gangs and soloers can put in systems, perhaps near gates to give them system intel when someone enters. Make them expensive. Make them destroyable. Make it so there's a limit you can have running, much like drones, with an associated skillset. I also agree that static resources need to move around more in order to handle this local-free system. One final thing - any scheme that makes local range dependent is not going to work. I would guess (and would bet I am right) that local is basically an irc channel with the name of the system. It's almost certainly completely unhooked from the actual node that runs the system. Thus it's not contributing to lag in any way, but it's also not able to do anything like filtering by range (without suddenly being a cause of lag). Don't lose your loose change, loser.
Asuka Smith StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.03.19 21:52:00 - [193] Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto This is a GAME folks, entertainment, not work. Local isn't that bad, people still get ganked, get away, dock up, and so on. I just don't want to put that much serious work into something I do for fun. Flying 30 jumps in 0.0 until you find someone who is stupid enough to keep ratting instead of going to a SS sounds like work to me... Non-consensual PVP is what makes this game hardcore. Local is the anathema to non-consensual PVP. Also, why should 0.0 mining not be harder? 0.0 last I checked is supposed to be risky, but I see more hulks getting blown in empire than in 0.0 In fact, I do not see anybody dying in 0.0 that does not want to die, the only non-consensual PVP left is in empire where people think they are safe. I want the pirates to have to look for people, and I want the people to have to look out for pirates. Local is what makes this game a job, it is what allows macro ratters to do their thing, and it saps the fun from PVP and devalues minerals. If mining was harder minerals would be worth more, and I would have fun mining for massive profits in 0.0 but always being on my toes.
Kyra Felann Noir.	Posted - 2008.03.19 23:14:00 - [194] Originally by: RuleoftheBone Errr...you do know that a ton of people are sitting intently glued to screens and monitors LOOKING for things right? Passive refers to the sensor type...not the work involved . And the reason capsuleers use pods is because they eliminate the need for much of the crew, probably including the people watching screens for blips and saying "captain, we've got five new contacts bearing blah blah". The pod's computer and the pilot's brain handles that sort of thing. You're right about passive vs active as far as how they work, but it would be nice if there was a way to get sensor data on things that are close without having to click "scan" constantly. Speaking of active vs passive, maybe something where either you're actively scanning, which makes you show up on all sensors but you can find ships better, or you're passively scanning, which lets you only see other actively scanning ships or ships that are close enough for your sensors to pick up their heat/radiation/whatever signatures (unless they're cloaked, of course, or maybe have some shielding/heatsink type modules to reduce their signature). Active would be similar to being on local, passive would be like being off local but still being able to see relatively close ships without having to scan constantly.
Kyra Felann Noir.	Posted - 2008.03.19 23:20:00 - [195] Originally by: Burnharder It doesn't matter if it's active or passive (apart from slightly less RSI from the latter), if it doesn't give you the intel immediately that allows you take the life or death decision as to whether to get out, it's a gigantic loss to anyone who has to sit still for more than a few seconds. I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean how much you have to click it when he wrote "active" and "passive". I took that to mean either you're actively "pinging" with radar or whatever or your sitting there silent passively listening and looking for pings, heat signatures, etc. The former would give you a more complete picture of what's out there, but would light you up on everyone else's sensors. The latter would not advertise your presence, but you wouldn't be able to see as much in the system, or as far.
Kyra Felann Noir.	Posted - 2008.03.19 23:28:00 - [196] Originally by: Dewa And this is one of the roots of it - the fact is that local breaks the game. It breaks anything covert, it breaks hiding in infinite space and it breaks ambushes. Why should someone passing through a 0.0 system with literally nothing in it but 1 ratter and his prey (and that ratter safespotted and cloaked!) instantly know that someone is there? And not only that someone is there, but exactly who they are? I agree. It also breaks immersion and makes space feel smaller. In high-sec--and maybe low-sec to a lesser degree--it would make sense that all ships would be expected to broadcast an identification code so that who was in system would be freely-available information. But a cloaked ship wouldn't be broadcasting a signal like that. In null-sec and low-sec it wouldn't really make sense for any ships to be broadcasting that they're in system and who they are. Gates could keep track of who enters and exits and stations could have scanners to keep track of who docks or undocks. But if you're floating silently out in space and not broadcasting (especially if you're cloaked) you shouldn't be included in a nice neat list of everyone who's in system that's available to everyone at no risk or effort.
Jayna Keria Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.03.19 23:34:00 - [197] Yes local is a ***** when trying to kill a war target without them being alerted. but than again...how do you know the war-target is there without local and yes locator agents I have used but it is not entirely practical.
Rhaegor Stormborn	Posted - 2008.03.19 23:37:00 - [198] Originally by: Asuka Smith Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto This is a GAME folks, entertainment, not work. Local isn't that bad, people still get ganked, get away, dock up, and so on. I just don't want to put that much serious work into something I do for fun. Flying 30 jumps in 0.0 until you find someone who is stupid enough to keep ratting instead of going to a SS sounds like work to me... Non-consensual PVP is what makes this game hardcore. Local is the anathema to non-consensual PVP. Also, why should 0.0 mining not be harder? 0.0 last I checked is supposed to be risky, but I see more hulks getting blown in empire than in 0.0 In fact, I do not see anybody dying in 0.0 that does not want to die, the only non-consensual PVP left is in empire where people think they are safe. I want the pirates to have to look for people, and I want the people to have to look out for pirates. Local is what makes this game a job, it is what allows macro ratters to do their thing, and it saps the fun from PVP and devalues minerals. If mining was harder minerals would be worth more, and I would have fun mining for massive profits in 0.0 but always being on my toes. Excellent Post. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Volition Cult Recruitment Post
Siigari Kitawa	Posted - 2008.03.19 23:46:00 - [199] I'm going to say this once, and after that I'm really done posting in a "nerf local" thread. Local exists for one purpose, and this is a fact: it allows you to see who is in the system with you. Period. Everything that is derived from local after that is because a player used Local to his advantage. Those that choose not to use local cannot complain then that Local is broken because it is an intel gathering tool because they too have the exact same Local as the other guy. Local is a game mechanic to which everyone can use to their advantage. CCP provides us tools which we can choose to use or not use. Saying local is broken because people can jump into a system and do an analysis of who is there has no ground to stand on because you can just as easily then open the scanner and GET YOUR ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE. I mean, crap. If I jump into a system in my Ishtar and see 10 hostiles, oh no! I'm gonna die! Wait, I should use my scanner to see what they're flying. Oh, they're all in shuttles. Well, I'm going to be okay. See, using local in harmony with your other tools makes it a powerful tool and not a problem. Removing it WILL cause the problem. Finally, I will end my discussion in this thread with an analogy: Nerf weapons. Weapons cause damage to ships and causes them to explode. The people with the most weapons wins, because they can out-damage their opponent. How do you solve this problem? Get more weapons. It is not CCP's problem to provide you with more weapons, so use the game mechanics to do it yourself. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Artemis Byte Boennerup Banden	Posted - 2008.03.20 00:05:00 - [200] It's probably been mentioned before but why not make local tell you who entered system after you? You automatically see things on grid but only people who were in system before you have any idea of what's there. So if I jump into a system I see local as empty; the miner in system sees local go up by one but he doesn't know who or what just jumped in.
Nebuchadnezzar I Art of War	Posted - 2008.03.20 01:07:00 - [201] lol, you truly do blame local for alot of things. Now just explain to me: How exactly does removing local help blob warfare? Are you totally clueless? If anything it will increase blobs and now a solo player will have only the directional scanners range as warning, which frankly, wont help you much if you've already engaged someone.
Asuka Smith StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.03.20 01:21:00 - [202] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa I'm going to say this once, and after that I'm really done posting in a "nerf local" thread. Local exists for one purpose, and this is a fact: it allows you to see who is in the system with you. Period. Everything that is derived from local after that is because a player used Local to his advantage. Those that choose not to use local cannot complain then that Local is broken because it is an intel gathering tool because they too have the exact same Local as the other guy. Local is a game mechanic to which everyone can use to their advantage. CCP provides us tools which we can choose to use or not use. Saying local is broken because people can jump into a system and do an analysis of who is there has no ground to stand on because you can just as easily then open the scanner and GET YOUR ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE. I mean, crap. If I jump into a system in my Ishtar and see 10 hostiles, oh no! I'm gonna die! Wait, I should use my scanner to see what they're flying. Oh, they're all in shuttles. Well, I'm going to be okay. See, using local in harmony with your other tools makes it a powerful tool and not a problem. Removing it WILL cause the problem. Finally, I will end my discussion in this thread with an analogy: Nerf weapons. Weapons cause damage to ships and causes them to explode. The people with the most weapons wins, because they can out-damage their opponent. How do you solve this problem? Get more weapons. It is not CCP's problem to provide you with more weapons, so use the game mechanics to do it yourself. Yes nice analogy, a hyperbolic strawman, what a brilliant defense of local.
Jennai The Greater Goon GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.20 01:27:00 - [203] Originally by: Asuka Smith Non-consensual PVP is what makes this game hardcore. Local is the anathema to non-consensual PVP. Also, why should 0.0 mining not be harder? 0.0 last I checked is supposed to be risky, but I see more hulks getting blown in empire than in 0.0 if anything, 0.0 mining will be safer because this will be the death of the roaming gang. no one wants to have to sit there mashing scan every 10 seconds, and no one wants to have to spend several minutes scanning out a system only to find that it's empty ... and then repeat that on the next dozen systems.
Murder Love Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.03.20 01:30:00 - [204] Without reading through 7 pages.. heres my input on removing local as an intel tool. -It would benefit lowsec/0.0 gate campers. -Highsec war dec corps who have to search for specific targets would be screwed. (unless they dramatically revamped locator agents) -There would be a lot less pvp in general. Its a nice thought, and although the OP says it wouldnt be hard to code, this would be a HUGE change to eve. So it'll never happen. kthxbye
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.20 01:49:00 - [205] Originally by: Bellum Eternus You guys are missing a key point here. OVEUR himself agrees that local is a problem when it is being used as an intel tool (which it is). The issue here isn't 'do we remove it?', the issue here is 'yes, it's bad, how are we going to change it?'. Stop debating about the merits of local and whether or not it's good or bad (it's bad), and start coming up with ideas about how to remove it's game breaking functionality from the game in a simple and effective (cheap) manner. You are missing a key point. Oveur himself is wrong about whether its a good idea or not. If you want proof, you can go back to the fourth alliance tournament where Oveur said "we don't like local as an intelligence tool" and then got promptly slammed down by the logic of the eve-tv commentators. You simply cannot remove local without introducing another mechanic that does exactly the same thing without completely screwing over low-sec and 0.0 belt production. Ratters and miners cant fight back, the entire mechanic of killing them is based on getting into system and tackling them before they can get out. If the problem is that, then you tweak the mechanics of that system to make it easier to achieve. You can add a longer log out aggression timer for attacking rats. And you can either fix cloaking or add methods to scan cloaked ships down. Then the problems are fixed but producers and miners aren't totally screwed.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2008.03.20 01:58:00 - [206] Originally by: Murder Love Without reading through 7 pages.. heres my input on removing local as an intel tool. -It would benefit lowsec/0.0 gate campers... ... kthxbye How would it benefit the lowsec gate campers? ...
Commander 598 GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.20 02:06:00 - [207] If one was to remove local, what would be really nice is the standard scanner being on screen and picking up everything within 5 AU (That's the range right?) and slowing down warp a bit because the average ship crosses 5 AU in about an eye blink, thus making it completely useless, and/or a 50km random warp exit on anything that isn't a bookmark, gate, station (Assuming this whole make belts and whatever scan only that I keep hearing about becomes a reality).
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2008.03.20 02:10:00 - [208] Originally by: Goumindong You simply cannot remove local without introducing another mechanic that does exactly the same thing without completely screwing over low-sec and 0.0 belt production. The 'replacement mechanic' doesn't have to do exactly the same thing. It could be a ranged solution that looks for warp signatures, for example. A little uncertainty will make all the difference here. By the way, in the last live devblog the CCP dev talked about a "delayed Local" that shows the number of people in system but doesn't show who they are 'till they speak. He also said the only thing keeping this from being good for implementation is a revision to ship's scanner to make it a better tool at locating ships. ...
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.20 02:25:00 - [209] Originally by: Razin Originally by: Goumindong You simply cannot remove local without introducing another mechanic that does exactly the same thing without completely screwing over low-sec and 0.0 belt production. The 'replacement mechanic' doesn't have to do exactly the same thing. It could be a ranged solution that looks for warp signatures, for example. A little uncertainty will make all the difference here. By the way, in the last live devblog the CCP dev talked about a "delayed Local" that shows the number of people in system but doesn't show who they are 'till they speak. He also said the only thing keeping this from being good for implementation is a revision to ship's scanner to make it a better tool at locating ships. No, it pretty much does. Unless you changed scanning to give you character name/corporation/alliance info and then automated it[because we are going to be scanning constantly] then increased its range to at least 100-150 AU. At which point it does pretty much the same thing[except now it have an easier time telling what ships people are in, and telling if they are cloaked since this mechanic also has to show cloaked people in local or you get the exact same problem as no local, except only for ships with cloaks] It would be a lot easier to just fix aggression and cloaking mechanics. And, at the most, just change local to a 10-30 second delay[or better yet, you don't show until you uncloak]. Any solution where you don't give people a decent chance to evade the attackers doesn't really work since the evasion is the only part that matters. Once your ratter or miner is caught, its pretty much dead[So long as you have >1 ship for the ratter, or get him aggressed by rats.]
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2008.03.20 02:53:00 - [210] Originally by: Goumindong Unless you changed scanning to give you character name/corporation/alliance info and then automated it[because we are going to be scanning constantly] then increased its range to at least 100-150 AU. At which point it does pretty much the same thing[except now it have an easier time telling what ships people are in, and telling if they are cloaked since this mechanic also has to show cloaked people in local or you get the exact same problem as no local, except only for ships with cloaks You are filling the idea with unnecessary content and then declaring it a failure. Sounds familiar? The ranged scanner solution I alluded to certainly does not have to provide all this information. Originally by: Goumindong Any solution where you don't give people a decent chance to evade the attackers doesn't really work since the evasion is the only part that matters. I think the problem here is your choice of definition for a 'decent chance'. In my opinion the instant and free intel provided by current Local is way and above 'decent chance' and into 'spoon feeding' territory. ...

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: 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.