EVE Search - Why So Few Mergers?

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Why So Few Mergers?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Swamp Ziro GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.23 15:40:00 - [31] Originally by: Banlish Originally by: pershphanie Originally by: Wendat Huron We see alliances crumble and fold without much resistance once assailed weekly, what we don't see is alliances pre-empting their own downfall by merging with another alliance in a similar situation. Why is this? An example would be Ka-Tet and Mostly Harmless, surely they must've seen the writing on the wall. Generally speaking every 100man alliance or 10 man corp thinks they are the most important thing that's ever existence. A merger would interfere with both their delusional egos and prolonged irrelevance. This. EVE has moved out of the colonial age and into the Imperialism age. Small factions cannot survive and big corps will be the ones that dictate alot of what will happen in any space worth fighting over. low sec, npc 0.0 and true 0.0. It's so hard to make corps understand that they lose nothing but a ticker and a chat when they merge. But once they do they can accomplish so much more. The thing is people are indeed driven by ego or think that joining a larger group will kill their 'identity'. I mean you look at the top alliances in the game and most of them are made up of small number of very large corps. But obviously that is meaningless. Not like BoB, RA, Razor, IRON or AAA have accomplished anything year after year. Nope, not at all. These 400 man alliances with 40 corps will truely be the new wave of power in EVE... The time for ultra tiny factions and simple regional control is pretty much over. You don't get standings with one of the big boys and your space/outpost is 'annexed'. It's not a personal thing, it's politics and kinda the way the game should be expected to go. When people make large empires (and there's been alot of work making them here in EVE) they want to protect them just like anywhere else in reality. You'll have a wave of people realize this shortly and hopefully clear out some of the swarms of 100 man alliances and 10 man corps making some of the larger and more organized corps reach into the 500's and 600's. Then we might see some more interesting battles and conflicts against some of the already established land owners. When people realize that a ticker and a chat with their 2 buddies isn't as important as being part of a large team/organization. Then you start getting into the right mindset, currently, for owning/operating space in 0.0. That's pretty much spot on, pretty weird coming from an Atlas. I suppose if you guys, roadkill, and smash merged not only as an alliance, but on the corp level, it would have been harder to kick you out of geminate.
Begall GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.23 16:48:00 - [32] Originally by: Swirler Because, there is no one left to merge with, BoB or Goons killed every other worthy alliance left in the game. Enjoy! If they were worthwhile then they wouldn't be dead, would they?
hope3434 Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.24 03:01:00 - [33] Leadership ego would never let this happen.
pershphanie CyberDyne Industries Carpe Universitas	Posted - 2008.06.24 03:10:00 - [34] Originally by: Swamp Ziro Originally by: Banlish Originally by: pershphanie Originally by: Wendat Huron We see alliances crumble and fold without much resistance once assailed weekly, what we don't see is alliances pre-empting their own downfall by merging with another alliance in a similar situation. Why is this? An example would be Ka-Tet and Mostly Harmless, surely they must've seen the writing on the wall. Generally speaking every 100man alliance or 10 man corp thinks they are the most important thing that's ever existence. A merger would interfere with both their delusional egos and prolonged irrelevance. This. EVE has moved out of the colonial age and into the Imperialism age. Small factions cannot survive and big corps will be the ones that dictate alot of what will happen in any space worth fighting over. low sec, npc 0.0 and true 0.0. It's so hard to make corps understand that they lose nothing but a ticker and a chat when they merge. But once they do they can accomplish so much more. The thing is people are indeed driven by ego or think that joining a larger group will kill their 'identity'. I mean you look at the top alliances in the game and most of them are made up of small number of very large corps. But obviously that is meaningless. Not like BoB, RA, Razor, IRON or AAA have accomplished anything year after year. Nope, not at all. These 400 man alliances with 40 corps will truely be the new wave of power in EVE... The time for ultra tiny factions and simple regional control is pretty much over. You don't get standings with one of the big boys and your space/outpost is 'annexed'. It's not a personal thing, it's politics and kinda the way the game should be expected to go. When people make large empires (and there's been alot of work making them here in EVE) they want to protect them just like anywhere else in reality. You'll have a wave of people realize this shortly and hopefully clear out some of the swarms of 100 man alliances and 10 man corps making some of the larger and more organized corps reach into the 500's and 600's. Then we might see some more interesting battles and conflicts against some of the already established land owners. When people realize that a ticker and a chat with their 2 buddies isn't as important as being part of a large team/organization. Then you start getting into the right mindset, currently, for owning/operating space in 0.0. That's pretty much spot on, pretty weird coming from an Atlas. I suppose if you guys, roadkill, and smash merged not only as an alliance, but on the corp level, it would have been harder to kick you out of geminate. smash and roadkill effectively were one alliance. I'm not sure an official merger would have made much of a difference in that specific case.
An Anarchyyt Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.24 03:31:00 - [35] Originally by: Lochmar Fiendhiem SMASH and roadkill have (had?) the right idea. Two alliances working together very closely to reach a common goal, sure I bet they have flare ups like most alliances from time to time, but they always seem to come out on top. Respect to both of these groups for doing it the way they do. Wait, is this a serious post? Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
IceGoon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.24 03:57:00 - [36] Originally by: Shinigami Goonswarm is a good example of mergers of failed people. He's right! Merchi, DS1 and BTLS get out!
Devian 666 Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.24 05:08:00 - [37] Originally by: IceGoon Originally by: Shinigami Goonswarm is a good example of mergers of failed people. He's right! Merchi, DS1 and BTLS get out! He's right! Merchi, DS1 and BTLS get out! Originally by: Darkrydar Oh and killboard loss arguments are so 2005.
Will Hunter GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.24 05:38:00 - [38] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz Alliances fail because of poor leadership. 2 poorly run alliances can merge, but only to form 1 larger failure. sounds like my marriage
Tiger Delivery THE INTERNET.	Posted - 2008.06.24 07:21:00 - [39] Originally by: IceGoon Originally by: Shinigami Goonswarm is a good example of mergers of failed people. He's right! Merchi, DS1 and BTLS get out! Dream on
Princess Jodi Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.24 19:52:00 - [40] The trend here seems to be that the smaller alliance is guilty of Egos which prevent them accepting a merger. Sometimes, it works the other way. Rule of Three had existed in the drone regions for over 2 years, building stations in totally empty space. We watched leader after leader burning out on the logistics of getting POS fuel when you're 51 jumps from Jita. PVP'rs left cuz we had no hostiles, but we had to have Blues or we'd never make it those 51 jumps. Eventually it became obvious that we were all tired of the grind and we looked for a way out. Our 3 stations and 27? Soverignty Systems (POS included) were offered to MH for 30 bill isk. Mergers were requested. MH responded with 10 bill isk offer and no merger. We refused and they came and took it. Fair enough, and no whine from me. We weren't trying to gain positions in MH that would have detracted from MH Leadership's power. In fact, we mainly wanted to find our pilots homes instead of having them scattered to the winds. MH could use Titan logistics: We could not. We had been friends even before MH existed. Lots of things pointed to it being the best deal we could get for our pilots. In the end the merger/sale was not possible. The result is that all the pilots in our 1000-man alliance left the area. MH has stations and belts with no one in them. A recent trip back to MK- encounted only one person ratting in a belt. The space is empty and dead. But every good moon has a gleaming tower just mining away. See, its not the people or the stations that alliances want: Its the Moons. So why merge?
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.24 20:17:00 - [41] Part of the issue is that many feel more kinship to their corp than alliance. Alliances change but often corps remain. Many have built up a nice collection of corp assets. Merging these makes it difficult later in a split. The other issue is POS logistics. If individual corps each have a few POSs this prevents a widespread theft or mismanagement. If a corp leaves suddenly then there isn't a potential massive loss of sov. Plus who wants to buy and haul fuel for a few regions? Then spend the next few weeks running from tower to tower? Yes, there are POS logistic roles. Large corps make for large administrative headaches. Faster CEO burnout. Originally by: pershphanie smash and roadkill effectively were one alliance. The game doesn't recognize power blocks. From a game mechanics point of view Smash and RK might as well be hostile. Smash can't link jump bridges to RK systems. RK has to use POS passwords to enter Smash shields. Then you've got the issue with individual corp POSs making managing stront near impossible (quick! we need a director online!). The number of available POS gunners is limited. Having multiple alliances and corps makes things difficult. Long term the only way to go is to consolidate corps and alliances. It won't be pretty.
Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.24 21:10:00 - [42] Your right cr4ck, it won't be pretty. But those corps and alliances that figure out what some of the biggest and largest alliances in game have figured out years ago will have a hand up on the rest. There's basically a 'balloon-effect' that happens to 0.0 alliances. They get some space, they fight hard and finally make some progress. They think that bringing in whatever and whoever they can will lead to military power. Look at KOS in 06, they went from 1400 members to 4,400 hundred in less then what? 5 months? RA crushed them, they lost the chaff. Worked with RSF and got space down around 1500 members again. Got space for a 2nd time, and all the chaff returned with KOS 'ballooning' to 4,600 members again. AAA said 'enough' and pulled the trigger on that disaster. FLA did the same thing, ballooned up to 2,800 members, MC kicked them outta the north. Went to drone lands, made more mistakes there, disbanded. Reformed as BLAST, ballooned up to almost 1,000 members again. Took G95 in fountain and promptly were crushed when PL pulled the trigger that killed them. Bruce feel prey to it as well. The hardest working corps kicked ASS in fountain and syndicate. They took over 3 outposts in Fountain and then were given Y-2ANO by MM. They ballooned after that from 1,600 memebers to just short of 4,000 I believe? The hardest working corps stayed and fought, some of the corps left as their space was over carebeared to death. Now Bruce is disbanding, are they a bad organization? No. But they fell prey to the effect. Hydra ALMOST fell prey to it and went up to 2,200 members at one point. Next thing you know MC, Burn Eden and I think KIA all did a rapid number of 'contracts' and 'ops' against them. The carebears and people that didn't want to work or defend their space ran for the hills. Result? Hydra might still be looked down upon but alot of people are starting to realize that those people that have been there and stayed there when times got tough are trying to reverse the mistakes and misconceptions about them. This effect is a cancer on alliances and many of those alliances I mentioned took in corps and members from the alliances listed before that, that had died because of their presence. It's like a nomadic group of corps and players goes from one alliance to the next, trying to get all the resources and isk they can outta an alliances area before that alliance failure cascades or is kicked outta it's space. The best alliances in the game do indeed rent out some of their space, but that usually comes with some very strict controls. Such as X'ing up, staying out of certain systems or moving on to another system when an alliance member of the landlord alliance asks to 'take over' in that system. These methods do tend to work. BoB, AAA, RA, Razor and MH all have renting alliances/corps in their space. They seem to have found the balance that's needed. Others go the 'ballooning' route and within a few months of it find their alliances losing their space. Ka-tet even did it recently when many of their PvPers left at the beginning of the year. They ballooned up afterwards to 'rebuild' all it did was bloat them with the nomadic carebears and they are losing their space now because of it. People are going to start merging or this trend won't stop. The fact that those largest alliances now control 90% of 0.0 should slow down the spread of the nomads, but as long as renting exists to make 'easy' isk they'll never truly be gone. I don't mean this as disrespect to any one I listed, I have been giving it alot of thought is all and this seemed like a good thread to post it in. Lets see what people think of it. Atlas Head Diplomat CEO - Di-Tron Heavy Industries ~~Carebear~~ Pvper?!?!?
Farham AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.06.24 21:23:00 - [43] Banlish is correct. It is very difficult to keep this crap going in the right direction. You really must watch what failed in the past and work to avoid it. Sometimes this is obvious but unfortunately very hard to actually do. In a perfect world an alliance would have nothing but people who are very good PVPers but who are also solid at industrial in between "campaigns" for alliance growth and development. These sorts of folks aren't very common and those that do exist are often already taken by the top running alliances in the game. This level of alliance running is where EVE starts to go from game to real life work and ends up burning out so many leadership players.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.24 21:35:00 - [44] Originally by: Banlish Hydra ALMOST fell prey to it and went up to 2,200 members at one point. Next thing you know MC, Burn Eden and I think KIA all did a rapid number of 'contracts' and 'ops' against them. Ah, the temptation to be an an evil leader. When I saw these contracts I suspected that the alliance leadership paid for a contract against themselves to see who was worth keeping around. It's what I would do. shrug. Good thing I'm not in charge anywhere.
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2008.06.25 00:16:00 - [45] Would it make any difference if the corporate tools allowed for smoother and safer transitions for mergers? These forums are FUBAR, upgrade this decade!
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.25 00:21:00 - [46] Originally by: Wendat Huron Would it make any difference if the corporate tools allowed for smoother and safer transitions for mergers? You mean add an option for electroshock therapy to resolve the interpersonal conflicts? Might work.
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2008.06.25 00:26:00 - [47] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Wendat Huron Would it make any difference if the corporate tools allowed for smoother and safer transitions for mergers? You mean add an option for electroshock therapy to resolve the interpersonal conflicts? Might work. No, to shift over mass amounts of POS active and in play to the new joint operation without the hassle. These forums are FUBAR, upgrade this decade!
El'Niaga Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.06.25 09:24:00 - [48] It would help with mergers when the parties are willing. However as others have said, most often parties are not willing.
Gilmoore	Posted - 2008.06.25 09:43:00 - [49] Edited by: Gilmoore on 25/06/2008 09:45:08 TLDR version - Joining a super alliance means having to actually participate in Huge lagfests. Some people would rathe rlose their space then do that. It is understandable. Long Version. The number of people that are actually willing to participate in warfare at a high level is dwindling IMO. None of my current corp mates in game (havent logged in for more then 15 minutes in 2 months)really like the epic battles. Joining a large alliance means participaion is somewhat mandatory in these escapades. I play this game in name only. When someone asks me what games I play I say "Eve online". I dont really play it though. Trying to play this game at a high level is an excrecise in futility. My last 3 experiences in this game were sitting for 2+ hours and getting killed in a fleet battle before loading grid. That is not fun anymore. I dont have the time nor the patience for this game that I used to. There are other games coming out on a quarterly bases that actually provide working functions that dont force you to play laggy desyncing fleet encoutners. I will play those for now. In short, the games high level PVP is broken, therefor none wants to participate unless they are gaining from it. Sitting through it for someone elses glory is certainly not an option for me anymore, and it appears it is the same for many other people. In other words I will say something I would never have thought I would have uttered 1 year ago becuase iwas so blinded. "the game is broken". I know I am an alt that will have this post deleted, however the truth hurts.
El'Niaga Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.06.25 10:23:00 - [50] The game is indeed broken, they allowed corps to become to large really. The most broken feature is that almost everthing you can do in game is controlled with a skill with the exception being the number of systems you can control. I know it would be impossible to implement now, but they should have had some sort of Leadership skill that controlled the number of systems that an alliance could control. (Maybe 2 or 3 skills, with the requirement being the skills needed to form an alliance as prerequisites. As it stands now, there isn't much in it for anyone. They know they can't beat the major powers, so they hang around until someone comes and runs them off. There is no shame in tactical retreat/reorganization when you know you can't win. The problem is they can't really implement the limits that the game should have had originally at this time the outcry would be crazy nor can they really lower the number of people in a corp without a lot of outcry.
Gilmoore	Posted - 2008.06.25 10:29:00 - [51] Edited by: Gilmoore on 25/06/2008 10:33:45 Originally by: El'Niaga The game is indeed broken, they allowed corps to become to large really. The most broken feature is that almost everthing you can do in game is controlled with a skill with the exception being the number of systems you can control. I know it would be impossible to implement now, but they should have had some sort of Leadership skill that controlled the number of systems that an alliance could control. (Maybe 2 or 3 skills, with the requirement being the skills needed to form an alliance as prerequisites. As it stands now, there isn't much in it for anyone. They know they can't beat the major powers, so they hang around until someone comes and runs them off. There is no shame in tactical retreat/reorganization when you know you can't win. The problem is they can't really implement the limits that the game should have had originally at this time the outcry would be crazy nor can they really lower the number of people in a corp without a lot of outcry. Exactly. The only organisations that exceed in territorial warfare in this game are the ones that have a large pool of manpower that they can rotate between being lemmings on teh BF and back to being a farmer for new ships, or have a core of people that are such hardcore powergamers it makes me cringe. The POS networks are a pain in the ass, and the fleet battles to defend them is rediculously tedious and broken. I have realised over the last 6 months that I am automaticaly disqualified from ever being anyone of importance in this game because I have raised my standards on what PVP is and should be, plus I have a RL job. Edit- and I am fine with that.
Julio Torres Phantom Squad	Posted - 2008.06.25 10:41:00 - [52] Edited by: Julio Torres on 25/06/2008 10:42:48 Originally by: Princess Jodi stuff A recent trip back to MK- encounted only one person ratting in a belt. The space is empty and dead. But every good moon has a gleaming tower just mining away. See, its not the people or the stations that alliances want: Its the Moons. So why merge? This is one of the core issues with Sov. Its not to have space, build or fight for something. It's all about money. Easy, safe and stable income. Thats not eve.
Squably Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.06.25 11:03:00 - [53] Remove mining towers, create supercap mining ships to mine moons! Everything is about money, in and out game
Fitz Chivalry eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.06.25 11:28:00 - [54] By the time an alliance reaches the point where it is scrabbling around for partners it is already in deep fail and a lot of the more active corps/players have already left for something new s all the prospective partner is left with is a load of failing corps that are going to clog up the half a dozen decent ratting systems available to the alliance with ravens 23/7. Very few people have a desire to get involved in big pos wars and you are much more effective as a smaller alliance than you are as a big one. With the exception of the bobbits/RA there is not a single one of the larger alliances that gets any e-respect regarding its prowess because when you are large you are a target and its easy for raiders to come in and get lots of kills on you.
Alexa Komnenos Byzantine Holding Corporation	Posted - 2008.06.25 12:08:00 - [55] Edited by: Alexa Komnenos on 25/06/2008 12:15:00 Originally by: Shamis Orzoz Alliances fail because of poor leadership. 2 poorly run alliances can merge, but only to form 1 larger failure. Exactly. Take a look at this year's alliance failurecascades, such as KOS, Bruce, Triumverate, and the current ongoing one, SmashKill. What do/did they ALL have in common? Horribly bad leadership that either caused their PVP'ers (which are the army and national defense of any 0.0 alliance) to leave in disgust, or made colossally BAD decisions (such as attacking a stronger neighbor that can destroy you without really trying), or in retaining an "ally" that has the rest of EVE despising you is what all those have in common. KOS: Killed by terrible leadership that not only failed to build a PVP base, but attacked a stronger neighbor (AAA) that liquidated them within days. Triumverate: Killed by terrible leadership that **ed off it's PVP'ers into leaving because it sided with the carebears over those who conquered the space for the carebears to carebear in the first place. Bruce: Killed by terrible leadership and a completely unwieldy structure that proved to be incapable of handling the first challenge faced. SmashKill: Roadkill today would still have their space had they not chose to go down with Smash. Terrible leadership? Bingo again. There are and will be others coming. The bottom line, the lesson that everyone in alliance leadership needs to learn is that when the majority of your players, particularly your PVP'ers either are **ed at you or view your leadership as a joke, or as in exploiting them to protect your personal ISK factory, they are going to go elsewhere. The demand for those who are willing to fight to conquer or defend space in 0.0 is always going to be higher than that for people who want to rat and moon mine and not have to bother with home defense and offensive ops, except to defend their moons and ratters. Anyone from Empire can do the former, while far fewer make the jump to being skilled enough to do the latter AND still be able to be self-supporting to maintain proper T2, T2 fitted, and capital ships. Even rarer in EVE are good leaders who can balance an alliance's logistics, carebears, and pvp'ers, deal with conflicts amongst them when they happen, or better yet, be wise enough to avoid those problems in the first place. More common, sadly, are leaders who are willing to see their entire alliance die rather than change or compromise.
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.25 12:53:00 - [56] The labor market in Eve has almost perfect flexibility Because there are no employment contracts, and the game is for fun, people will tend to go where the best opportunities are rather than stick with an alliance ticker for the sake of it or because they need to feed their families Thus, reputation is what is important and very few organisations build their reputation on the sort of foundations that can stand up to losing a few big battles or some space, since no one likes to lose So far from going through all the hastle of a merger, what actually happens is all the players leave one corp and join another, or leave one alliance and join a more successful one. This leaves behind only the poor egotistical leaders in the shell of the old organisation to rot away bitter and twisted on what they once had (and at the same time let the rest of the population absolve themselves of blame and get onto something more "fun" and forget the bad times from before) The alliances that survive have a leadership that recognises that you need something more than "get space, hold space, profit!" to motivate and unite members
Jack Gilligan Dragon's Rage	Posted - 2008.06.25 13:29:00 - [57] Originally by: El'Niaga The game is indeed broken, they allowed corps to become to large really. The most broken feature is that almost everthing you can do in game is controlled with a skill with the exception being the number of systems you can control. I know it would be impossible to implement now, but they should have had some sort of Leadership skill that controlled the number of systems that an alliance could control. (Maybe 2 or 3 skills, with the requirement being the skills needed to form an alliance as prerequisites. As it stands now, there isn't much in it for anyone. They know they can't beat the major powers, so they hang around until someone comes and runs them off. There is no shame in tactical retreat/reorganization when you know you can't win. The problem is they can't really implement the limits that the game should have had originally at this time the outcry would be crazy nor can they really lower the number of people in a corp without a lot of outcry. This sounds nice but wouldn't work. If you limit corp sizes you will just see the superpowers create more corps, which wouldn't accomplish anything. If you limited alliances to only being able to claim X systems you would just have the superpowers create more alliances as well. Make it more expensive to maintain alliances again only benefits the superpowers who have the ISK factories to pay those fees. Quality is of course better than quantity but quantity always has it's own level of quality, to a point. It's easier in the short run to just balloon up numbers and bring a bigger blob to fight the enemy's blob, but in the long run much harder to manage it. More people = more cats to herd. The carebear/ratter/moon ***** vs pvp debate is interesting to me as well, I personally would rather log into EVE and fight than mine or rat. I can do those things, just don't enjoy them. There are those who do, more power to them, but that's not me. BTW, some very good and interesting discussion in this thread, unlike most of CAOD. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of my corporation or alliance.
Julio Torres Phantom Squad	Posted - 2008.06.25 13:44:00 - [58] A reverse approach. Instead of Sov decreasing fuel costs on a tower, why not increase it? And additional boosts on towers running a Jump Bridge, crank it up alot more on those with a Cyno Jammer. Make the jammer so expensive to use, you cant keep more then a few systems permajammed.
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.25 14:02:00 - [59] Originally by: Julio Torres A reverse approach. Instead of Sov decreasing fuel costs on a tower, why not increase it? And additional boosts on towers running a Jump Bridge, crank it up alot more on those with a Cyno Jammer. Make the jammer so expensive to use, you cant keep more then a few systems permajammed. You shouldn't discourage certain behavior in the game by making things more boring than they already are. Refuelling POS more often because of higher fuel costs just means doing the same things as before, but more often and in larger amounts, rather than making it more difficult or making it require more skill
Privavarian Evil Activities Diabolic Paradox	Posted - 2008.06.25 14:04:00 - [60] YouDidWhat? If the Enemy is in range.. So are you.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.