EVE Search - The Nighhawk . . . the PVP Missile boat????

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The Nighhawk . . . the PVP Missile boat????

» 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)
Eternum Praetorian Tupperware Party	Posted - 2008.07.23 02:34:00 - [1] I have been told something astonishing . .. practically unbelievable--Something that flies in the face of everything I have come to learn about EVE. But before I spend the next four months skilling up for a Nighthawk Command Ship, I would like to put the concept up for review . . . Anyone else think that the Nighthawks bonus's can nullify most of the problems with using missiles for PVP? And . . more then that, even with heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles it might actually be more then able to ruin a battleships day if it had a T2 fitting?? The number seem to work (and I have got this idea from a very trusted source) but 4 moths is a very long time to dedicate without hearing the pros and cons from all sides. So . . . shoot. I am all ears :)
Eternum Praetorian Tupperware Party	Posted - 2008.07.23 02:35:00 - [2] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian I have been told something astonishing . .. practically unbelievable--Something that flies in the face of everything I have come to learn about EVE. But before I spend the next four months skilling up for a Nighthawk Command Ship, I would like to put the concept up for review . . . Anyone else think that the Nighthawks bonus's can nullify most of the problems with using missiles for PVP? And . . more then that, even with heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles it might actually be more then able to ruin a battleships day if it had a T2 fitting?? The number seem to work (and I have got this idea from a very trusted source) but 4 months is a very long time to dedicate without hearing the pros and cons from all sides. So . . . shoot. I am all ears :)
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.23 03:03:00 - [3] It's not great for pvp.
Gram Hellfire Smoking Hillbillys Paxton Federation	Posted - 2008.07.23 03:08:00 - [4] the NH is difficult to fit. A drake is often a better PvP choice.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.07.23 03:12:00 - [5] Originally by: Gram Hellfire the NH is difficult to fit. A drake is often a better PvP choice. this, just use a drake instead
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.07.23 03:18:00 - [6] It's a pain to fit, since the Nighthawk (like the Cerberus) was apparently balanced around MWD-less mission setups, so it lacks the grid to fit a proper PvP setup. However, the CSM has recognized the issue, and voted to raise the issue with CCP. It's pretty likely we'll see a fix to the grid problems in the forseeable future, and then the Nighthawk will be an awesome ship.
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.07.23 03:23:00 - [7] Originally by: Merin Ryskin It's a pain to fit, since the Nighthawk (like the Cerberus) was apparently balanced around MWD-less mission setups, so it lacks the grid to fit a proper PvP setup. However, the CSM has recognized the issue, and voted to raise the issue with CCP. It's pretty likely we'll see a fix to the grid problems in the forseeable future, and then the Nighthawk will be an awesome ship. I've tried to raise the issue that the Cerberus is kinda stuck in the same situation but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. ------ I'll make a sig later.
Firkragg Blue Labs Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.07.23 03:32:00 - [8] Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Merin Ryskin It's a pain to fit, since the Nighthawk (like the Cerberus) was apparently balanced around MWD-less mission setups, so it lacks the grid to fit a proper PvP setup. However, the CSM has recognized the issue, and voted to raise the issue with CCP. It's pretty likely we'll see a fix to the grid problems in the forseeable future, and then the Nighthawk will be an awesome ship. I've tried to raise the issue that the Cerberus is kinda stuck in the same situation but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Thats because theres nothing wrong with the cerb atm really. Does its job of long range dps quite nicely.
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.07.23 03:45:00 - [9] Edited by: Jim Raynor on 23/07/2008 03:47:43 Originally by: Firkragg Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Merin Ryskin It's a pain to fit, since the Nighthawk (like the Cerberus) was apparently balanced around MWD-less mission setups, so it lacks the grid to fit a proper PvP setup. However, the CSM has recognized the issue, and voted to raise the issue with CCP. It's pretty likely we'll see a fix to the grid problems in the forseeable future, and then the Nighthawk will be an awesome ship. I've tried to raise the issue that the Cerberus is kinda stuck in the same situation but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Thats because theres nothing wrong with the cerb atm really. Does its job of long range dps quite nicely. I think it could use more grid, and its flight time bonus should be a double velocity bonus, and it should get a damage bonus to all heavy missiles not just kinetics.. that would make it a better long range dps ship would it not? I think it's a bit lacking atm tbh. That being said Nighthawk is in the same boat, lame bonuses there too, not enough grid.. I don't think some Caldari ships were balanced with MWD in mind.. certainly the Nighthawk wasn't since it has the biggest grid issue. How would I fix the Nighthawk? I'd personally give it a velocity bonus or explosive velocity bonus (and fix heavy precision of course), give it some more grid, and give it a damage bonus to all missiles or at the very least all heavy missiles. That should in theory fix the ship, I don't think it'd be uber but it'd be serviceable, it really is quite terrible at the moment, out performed by a Drake, sad huh? ------ I'll make a sig later.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.07.23 04:00:00 - [10] Originally by: Firkragg Thats because theres nothing wrong with the cerb atm really. Does its job of long range dps quite nicely. The Cerberus is mostly fine, it's just really hard to fit. Compare it to the other HACs, and it's pretty obvious it's about 150 grid short (the grid required for a MWD it wasn't intended to fit). As for the Nighthawk, it's an awesome ship. It's got nice dps, nice range, and a huge buffer tank. The only problems ATM: 1) Grid/cpu are insanely tight. With a MWD and gang mod (two things not required for the mission setup CCP apparently had in mind), you need 150 million isk worth of faction PDUs to fit a proper setup. Fortunately, this should be fixed soon. 2) Precision bonus is marginally useful. In theory, it's not so bad, but with MWDs mandatory, most of the time your target will have a high enough sig radius to take full damage even without the bonus. The few things that won't are either interceptors, which you can't hit at all anyway, and frigates, which die quickly enough without the bonus. Velocity is the more relevant "tracking" bonus for missiles in the current PvP environment, and a direct swap would be simple. 3) The kinetic-only bonus is still annoying. Unfortunately, it's been discussed, and it's on most Caldari ships, so I don't see much hope of changing it. On the good side, kinetic is usually just fine as a damage type, so if the other two problems were fixed, this wouldn't really be a major issue.
BiggestT Caldari Fun Inc	Posted - 2008.07.23 04:18:00 - [11] Originally by: Firkragg Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Merin Ryskin It's a pain to fit, since the Nighthawk (like the Cerberus) was apparently balanced around MWD-less mission setups, so it lacks the grid to fit a proper PvP setup. However, the CSM has recognized the issue, and voted to raise the issue with CCP. It's pretty likely we'll see a fix to the grid problems in the forseeable future, and then the Nighthawk will be an awesome ship. I've tried to raise the issue that the Cerberus is kinda stuck in the same situation but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Thats because theres nothing wrong with the cerb atm really. Does its job of long range dps quite nicely. lol shhhhhh have u read his post in the assembly hall it will end in tears! :P but he had many points, the cerb is really tight to fit, bordering on painful the nighthawk cant even fit full rack o launchers and 3 large shield extenders without gimping setups via fitting mods/rigs etc (something the drake can do fine and with an extra launcher) Even the eagle cant fit 5 medium 250's and an afterburner (let alone mwd) without incredible fitting skills or many a fitting mod/rig poudly annoying fc's since 2007 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=828123 caldari drone boat enthusiast
Eternum Praetorian Tupperware Party	Posted - 2008.07.23 05:00:00 - [12] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 23/07/2008 05:01:42 Thanks for all the input . . . Today my Drake went up against a corp mates typhoon to tests its fittings. The phoon was only moderately fitted and I have no doubt that if push came to shove my drake would be toast no questions asked. Is there any reason to think that it would be any different in a nighthawk? The Nighthawk does have more bonus all around, but the idea is that it would be capable of handling (quite well) battle ships in a PVP role do to those bonus. With the ships roles maxed out, could its DPS reach the level necessary to truly be a threat to a battleship. It has less launchers then a drake yes . . . but a Golem has less launchers then a Raven, but its bonus's make up for the difference. MAINLY . . . missiles don't do instantaneous damage, and speed reduces there effectiveness considerably. Does this ship have what it takes to make missiles a threat to ships utilizing more conventionally-accepted means of killing other ships? And can it do it to battleships . . .? About its fittings being tight, thanks for the heads up. I will now ask whether or not it is manageable in it present state? Or is the problem borderline on ridiculous?
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.07.23 05:34:00 - [13] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Is there any reason to think that it would be any different in a nighthawk? The Nighthawk does have more bonus all around, but the idea is that it would be capable of handling (quite well) battle ships in a PVP role do to those bonus. The Nighthawk has MUCH more EHP. Against a single battleship, you can tank a pretty decently long time, but your best targets are going to be sub-BB. This doesn't say much about the Nighthawk of course, a general rule of 1v1 PvP is to aim for targets a class below you if you want to win in the long run. The main problem with the Nighthawk's tank is just that the Drake is so amazingly cost-effective. It's really good, but the Drake comes pretty close, and for the price of one Nighthawk you could have 5x fully-fitted T2 Drakes as replacements. Quote: With the ships roles maxed out, could its DPS reach the level necessary to truly be a threat to a battleship. It has less launchers then a drake yes . . . but a Golem has less launchers then a Raven, but its bonus's make up for the difference. Depends on the battleship. Active tank? Probably not (until it runs out of cap charges), but active tanks suck in PvP. Passive buffer? Probably. Un-tanked gank/sniper? Easily. In a fleet (as you should be)? Hell yes, 500 dps from 80km is very nice. Assuming the Nighthawk's impossible fitting problems are fixed, it will do a little more dps than the Drake. Quote: About its fittings being tight, thanks for the heads up. I will now ask whether or not it is manageable in it present state? Oris the problem borderline on ridiculous? If you can afford 150 million ISK worth of faction PDUs, the Nighthawk is an awesome ship. If you can't, it's a pretty poor ship. Wasting all your low slots on RCUs kills your dps and tank. The following fits, and has worked well for me: [Nighthawk, Gank?] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II True Sansha Power Diagnostic System True Sansha Power Diagnostic System True Sansha Power Diagnostic System 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Warrior II x5
Robert Rosenberg Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.07.23 05:35:00 - [14] A battleship is the best choice for killing other battleships. A command ship is only useful for bonuses OR as an added edge versus an already out-gunned opponent who is flying a battlecruiser or less.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.23 05:59:00 - [15] Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 23/07/2008 06:00:26 Nighthawk has: Better resists than a Drake Better cap recharge than a Drake Better Damage than a Drake Worse HP Than a Drake Worse Slot layout than a Drake Worse fittings than a Drake Worse versatility than a Drake IMO when it comes to PvP the Nighthawk is actually worse than a well-fit Drake as while it does some things better than it, it simply wasn't made to fit an MWD. It's an amazing alternative to the Raven when you want to solo L4 missions, but otherwise forget it and just use a Drake. ...
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.07.23 06:34:00 - [16] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Is there any reason to think that it would be any different in a nighthawk? The Nighthawk does have more bonus all around, but the idea is that it would be capable of handling (quite well) battle ships in a PVP role do to those bonus. The Nighthawk has MUCH more EHP. Against a single battleship, you can tank a pretty decently long time, but your best targets are going to be sub-BB. This doesn't say much about the Nighthawk of course, a general rule of 1v1 PvP is to aim for targets a class below you if you want to win in the long run. The main problem with the Nighthawk's tank is just that the Drake is so amazingly cost-effective. It's really good, but the Drake comes pretty close, and for the price of one Nighthawk you could have 5x fully-fitted T2 Drakes as replacements. Quote: With the ships roles maxed out, could its DPS reach the level necessary to truly be a threat to a battleship. It has less launchers then a drake yes . . . but a Golem has less launchers then a Raven, but its bonus's make up for the difference. Depends on the battleship. Active tank? Probably not (until it runs out of cap charges), but active tanks suck in PvP. Passive buffer? Probably. Un-tanked gank/sniper? Easily. In a fleet (as you should be)? Hell yes, 500 dps from 80km is very nice. Assuming the Nighthawk's impossible fitting problems are fixed, it will do a little more dps than the Drake. Quote: About its fittings being tight, thanks for the heads up. I will now ask whether or not it is manageable in it present state? Oris the problem borderline on ridiculous? If you can afford 150 million ISK worth of faction PDUs, the Nighthawk is an awesome ship. If you can't, it's a pretty poor ship. Wasting all your low slots on RCUs kills your dps and tank. The following fits, and has worked well for me: [Nighthawk, Gank?] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II True Sansha Power Diagnostic System True Sansha Power Diagnostic System True Sansha Power Diagnostic System 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Warrior II x5 I don't think you should balance stuff around faction/officer mods. No doubt that it helps but i think if you can't get an effective setup with t2 stuff, it's broken. Nighthawk is certainly broken.. insanely hard to fit, **** DPS, bad bonuses. ------ I'll make a sig later.
Imaos	Posted - 2008.07.23 06:48:00 - [17] Originally by: Jim Raynor That being said Nighthawk is in the same boat, lame bonuses there too, not enough grid.. I don't think some Caldari ships were balanced with MWD in mind.. certainly the Nighthawk wasn't since it has the biggest grid issue. Most ships weren't designed with MWD in mind. They were also designed to work with HMs and Assault Launchers. The problem nowadays is the M for mandatory in MWD. If you want to use a ganglink you might as well go for Assault Launcher and a more supportive role. (Hits faster targets (not as fast targets as the cerb can but for more damagein the 3-4km/s range). Alas Assault Launcher wont help you against bigger slow ships. Imaos ------------------------------------------ Originally by: NoNah My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari.
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.07.23 06:52:00 - [18] Originally by: Imaos Originally by: Jim Raynor That being said Nighthawk is in the same boat, lame bonuses there too, not enough grid.. I don't think some Caldari ships were balanced with MWD in mind.. certainly the Nighthawk wasn't since it has the biggest grid issue. Most ships weren't designed with MWD in mind. They were also designed to work with HMs and Assault Launchers. The problem nowadays is the M for mandatory in MWD. If you want to use a ganglink you might as well go for Assault Launcher and a more supportive role. (Hits faster targets (not as fast targets as the cerb can but for more damagein the 3-4km/s range). Alas Assault Launcher wont help you against bigger slow ships. Imaos Sounds like CCP has some balancing to do then. You need a MWD, every sub-capital ship does, even slow poke Caldari. ------ I'll make a sig later.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.07.23 07:58:00 - [19] Anaemic powergrid, useless precision bonus and an awful slot layout. The Nighthawk just doesn't work in PVP. CCP will be asked to look into the PG issue at least, however.
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.07.23 09:19:00 - [20] Originally by: Gypsio III Anaemic powergrid, useless precision bonus and an awful slot layout. The Nighthawk just doesn't work in PVP. CCP will be asked to look into the PG issue at least, however. how could you change the slot layout? personally i think the nighthawk should have 6 midslots. discuss. ------ I'll make a sig later.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.23 10:12:00 - [21] Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 23/07/2008 10:13:01 Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Gypsio III Anaemic powergrid, useless precision bonus and an awful slot layout. The Nighthawk just doesn't work in PVP. CCP will be asked to look into the PG issue at least, however. how could you change the slot layout? personally i think the nighthawk should have 6 midslots. discuss. Standard HAMDrake (solo+bait+smallgang) dedicates 6 slots to tanking - 3 Med, 3 Rig and uses the rest to move about, tackle and kill stuff. Nighthawk setup in a similar manner will be short 1 med and 1 rigslot, leaving it only 4 slots to tank with. The Low-slots are going to taken up by BCUs and PDUs (due partly to aforemented powergrid issues) The only time a Nighthawk can compete with the other commandships is when it isn't fitting an MWD; but then it's a sitting duck. I'll say, though, the Nighthawk probably gets the best benefits of the ISK you spend on it. With even a Lowgrade Crystal-set, Gist booster and some CN Invuls it can tank a stupendous amount of damage even when fitting BCUs. Trouble with that is you're spending close to 2bil ...
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.07.23 10:31:00 - [22] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 23/07/2008 10:13:01 Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Gypsio III Anaemic powergrid, useless precision bonus and an awful slot layout. The Nighthawk just doesn't work in PVP. CCP will be asked to look into the PG issue at least, however. how could you change the slot layout? personally i think the nighthawk should have 6 midslots. discuss. Standard HAMDrake (solo+bait+smallgang) dedicates 6 slots to tanking - 3 Med, 3 Rig and uses the rest to move about, tackle and kill stuff. Nighthawk setup in a similar manner will be short 1 med and 1 rigslot, leaving it only 4 slots to tank with. The Low-slots are going to taken up by BCUs and PDUs (due partly to aforemented powergrid issues) The only time a Nighthawk can compete with the other commandships is when it isn't fitting an MWD; but then it's a sitting duck. I'll say, though, the Nighthawk probably gets the best benefits of the ISK you spend on it. With even a Lowgrade Crystal-set, Gist booster and some CN Invuls it can tank a stupendous amount of damage even when fitting BCUs. Trouble with that is you're spending close to 2bil you can spend 2 billion isk on just about any ship and pimp it out to be amazingly awesome, pretty moot.. ------ I'll make a sig later.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.07.23 10:52:00 - [23] I'd like to see a Nighthawk with a lowslot moved to a midslot. This would compensate for the lower base shield HP, and one fewer rig slot, relative to the Drake. But I haven't looked into this in any great detail, as the priority has been bringing the PG issue to the attention of CSM and CCP. Assuming that the PG issue goes through ok, we'll have to see how the NH manages then before seeing if the slot layout should be tweaked. Similarly, it's awkward proposing a change to the useless precision bonus while Precision Heavies are still up for inspection by CCP.
Eternum Praetorian Tupperware Party	Posted - 2008.07.23 12:58:00 - [24] Thanks all for the opinions :)
Setana Manoro Gallente Firefly Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.23 13:02:00 - [25] Edited by: Setana Manoro on 23/07/2008 13:04:12 Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 23/07/2008 02:36:00 I have been told something astonishing . .. practically unbelievable--Something that flies in the face of everything I have come to learn about EVE. But before I spend the next four months skilling up for a Nighthawk Command Ship, I would like to put the concept up for review . . . Anyone else think that the Nighthawks bonus's can nullify most of the problems with using missiles for PVP? And . . more then that, even with heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles it might actually be more then able to ruin a battleships day if it had a T2 fitting?? The number seem to work (and I have got this idea from a very trusted source) but 4 months is a very long time to dedicate without hearing the pros and cons from all sides. So . . . shoot. I am all ears :) The problems that missiles have in PVP are most often characterized by PEBKAC. Though NH sucks ass in PVP, it needs more PG for HAMS and MWD.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.23 13:10:00 - [26] Originally by: Jim Raynor you can spend 2 billion isk on just about any ship and pimp it out to be amazingly awesome, pretty moot.. Yes, but where an Astarte or Absolution would go from good to great, the Nighthawk jumps from bad to ludicrous ...
BiggestT Caldari Fun Inc	Posted - 2008.07.23 13:10:00 - [27] Originally by: Gypsio III I'd like to see a Nighthawk with a lowslot moved to a midslot. This would compensate for the lower base shield HP, and one fewer rig slot, relative to the Drake. that wld give it the same lows and meds as a drake yipee nh is now a drake with one less launcher, better resits, worse fitting and some random bullshit bonus's i dont mind the slot layout, just the pathetic grid is all poudly annoying fc's since 2007 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=828123 caldari drone boat enthusiast
forum mematar	Posted - 2008.07.23 13:11:00 - [28] Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Imaos Originally by: Jim Raynor That being said Nighthawk is in the same boat, lame bonuses there too, not enough grid.. I don't think some Caldari ships were balanced with MWD in mind.. certainly the Nighthawk wasn't since it has the biggest grid issue. Most ships weren't designed with MWD in mind. They were also designed to work with HMs and Assault Launchers. The problem nowadays is the M for mandatory in MWD. If you want to use a ganglink you might as well go for Assault Launcher and a more supportive role. (Hits faster targets (not as fast targets as the cerb can but for more damagein the 3-4km/s range). Alas Assault Launcher wont help you against bigger slow ships. Imaos Sounds like CCP has some balancing to do then. You need a MWD, every sub-capital ship does, even slow poke Caldari. But my Amarr ships have none! I wonder how they work without Oo --- http://stige.pingtimeout.net/evevids/
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.07.23 16:46:00 - [29] Originally by: Jim Raynor I don't think you should balance stuff around faction/officer mods. No doubt that it helps but i think if you can't get an effective setup with t2 stuff, it's broken. Nighthawk is certainly broken.. insanely hard to fit, **** DPS, bad bonuses. Err, that was kind of the point. The fact that the Nighthawk is a perfectly good ship with faction PDUs (but sucks without them) demonstrates nicely that it has a grid problem. It's kind of a hint that to get the same kind of setup as the other command ships, you need faction mods on the Nighthawk.
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.07.23 17:52:00 - [30] SHOULD every ship be able to comfortably fit a MWD? Just throwing that out there.

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.