EVE Search - Speed Rebalanced: Feedback thread

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Speed Rebalanced: Feedback thread

» 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] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 88 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Vision Threads	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:41:00 - [331] Edited by: Vision Threads on 28/07/2008 23:41:46 Originally by: Thorradin Originally by: Miriyaka Edited by: Miriyaka on 28/07/2008 23:06:28 Originally by: Thorradin The problem is that HACs use it. HACs are quite clearly designed to tank damage directly (keep in mind they are build off of cruiser hulls), and they are not, infact, speedy little ships like inties and dictors are setup to be (and trained for). So why, praytell, do they do it so POORLY compared to their cheaper, easier-to-train T1 counterparts? Wait, what HAC does worse than its T1 counterpart? Keep in mind a tier2 BC is not the counterpart of a HAC. you're still trying to turn that round peg into a square one. If the HACs have a problem tanking, you don't fix them by making them do something else. That'd be like fixing AFs by turning them into interceptors, with naturally high resistances. As I posted previously, the reason you fly a HAC instead of a battlecruiser is because the HAC is more pimp/stylin'. Any old pedestrian two months into the game running level 3 missions can fly a battlecruiser. What's the point of killing people if you have to do it like a farmer beating someone to death with a hoe. Plus, HACs are the prereq to the oh-so-pimp command ship. The Battlecruiser of Kings.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:42:00 - [332] Edited by: Haakelen on 28/07/2008 23:42:12 ^^^ you're good at this trolling shit, /\ Originally by: Thorradin Wait, what HAC does worse than its T1 counterpart? Every single one tanks worse. Most have to scale down to lower-tier weapons to tank significantly at all. There is no reason to fly a HAC without nano. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Corduroy Rab Xenocidal Uprising	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:43:00 - [333] A few remarks. I will get it out of the way that I have yet to be able to go on sisi and try out these changes so what I post is....you get the point. But I will try them out as soon as I can. What I have seen a lot in this thread is people trying to make the old pvp ideas fit into the new environment that has been presented and getting frustrated that they no longer work. Well, what did you really expect? On the other hand what I have seen very little of in this thread [pardon me for not reading it in its entirety, but that is a bit beyond the time I have available] is people trying to explore what new possibilities might be available. Additionally, there have been a lot of what amounts to the equivalent of "eft warrioring" comparing numbers and hypothetical situations, which almost uniformly revolved around old pvp concepts. What would be more interesting is feedback based on encounters you have tried, idk, fly an AB, shield boosted vaga against a drake while in web range (just an example) and report on how it goes instead of sitting back tossing out numbers on idealized situations. Before categorically passing judgment on these changes give it more than just a few hours. Also consider that if CCP is serious that they want player input on these changes it does make sense (at least to me) to start off very severe and then back off until a healthy balance is found, as opposed to inching forward. Of those who believe that that CCP does not care about player input please point me in the direction of a Demios with an extra mid and missing a low. Lastly, I would advise against reading too much into the textual equivalent of a sound bite by CCP Atropos. All that was really said is that speed needed a nerf which is something that CCP has been saying for a while, at the very least since the previous alliance tournament. It is impossible from that clip to know the full context the statement was in, or any of CCP Atropos thoughts on the suitability of what has been proposed as a change. Any event, I hope to test these changes soon, I might end up agreeing with some of you or I might not. Either way, please roam around outside a bit longer and explore a bit more before you start yelling that the sky is falling. Now that I am done, please continue burning down the forums.
goodnight Sleeper Technology Industries	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:43:00 - [334] all those arguing with thorradin -> he's not even 5 months old. cheers.
Cailais Amarr VITOC	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:43:00 - [335] I am a nano-curse pilot on TQ I was expecting these changes to suck, badly. I expected combat to be dire. But....it isnt. Its actually a heck of a lot better. It 'feels' slower, which is a bit wierd at first. But, by and large, the ships that were dangerous before are still dangerous now. Good pilots are STILL good pilots. AFs are a blast to fly - you can actually catch stuff with them! Vagabonds are still kings of speed. The pilgrim actually works properly now (which I suspected, but was really suprised by how much better it feels to fly). The only ship that I thought 'whoa thats a bit tough' vs was the cerb, which is a real power house now. Perhaps, not suprisingly when you think about it, because every tom **** and harry are fitting scrams its actually easier to flee from a fight if things are going against you - if you plan your escape route in time. I know many readers wont believe me on this, but these changes are simply not a diabolical as many nay sayers here are claiming. Im sure CCP will buckle and it may never come to pass. But, for a brief moment combat is fun again. C. Originally by: Tarminic Your continued whining is somewhat diminished by your continued willingness to give your money to CCP.
Grath Telkin Amarr The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:43:00 - [336] Originally by: Thorradin Keep in mind a tier2 BC is not the counterpart of a HAC. No, its not, but the point is that a hac is a very expensive poor alternative to just flying a tier 2 BC by all your arguments. Originally by: Thorradin you're still trying to turn that round peg into a square one. If the HACs have a problem tanking, you don't fix them by making them do something else. That'd be like fixing AFs by turning them into interceptors, with naturally high resistances. But with the tools were given at our disposal, thats what HAC pilots HAD TO DO. You just don't get that some of us really don't like flying battleships and battlecruisers. Hard to believe I know, but I REALLY don't like the ships at all. I enjoy the mobility of the Hac, the "Not takes 5 hours to get 20 jumps" part of the ships. I like that both hac's and recons, LIKE INTIES, warp faster than all other ships save dictors. And now, the one thing that class of ship was REALLY GOOD at, is getting crushed. You don't like the sick speed of snakes+Poly's+gang bonuses. Got you. I agree (I know, your shocked), I don't like that either. So change THAT, and leave the hac's able to at least field some kind of advantage over bigger ships. Have any of you thought of the implications of closing on a sniper battleship group in a fleet fight? It won't happen, not without 70-80% losses of your offensive support fleet as the snipers rip them apart as they slowly burn out to the battleships.
Taya Tal	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:45:00 - [337] Originally by: goodnight all those arguing with thorradin -> he's not even 5 months old. cheers. LOL THORRADIN LOL Thoraddin can get out now.
Thorradin State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:45:00 - [338] Originally by: Haakelen Edited by: Haakelen on 28/07/2008 23:23:48 Way to not read. I said every ship bigger than a BC. If you're flying a RR BS, and you don't fit ECCM, you're a moron. I've been tempted to put an ECCM on my Ishtar once or twice because it seems like everyone and his **ing dog has a ing Falcon alt they can use to up any situation they desire. If HACs weren't designed for Guerilla warfare, what the ** point do they have? Tier 2 BCs outclass them in every way. They have literally no purpose if you get your way. Every ship bigger than a BC doesn't have an ECCM taped on it, if you're going to throw a tantrum because I didn't specify then go right ahead. The Falcon having issues is still nothing but a vain attempt of trying to save nanohacs from being balanced. Again, if people have issues with the falcon, raise them and push for CCP to look into them and get them tweaked. You'll have to ask CCP what HACs were designed for, it's not like they wee designed recently, and given their layouts, speed sure as hell doesn't come to mind for their design ideas.
Grath Telkin Amarr The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:47:00 - [339] Originally by: goodnight all those arguing with thorradin -> he's not even 5 months old. cheers. welp
Thorradin State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:47:00 - [340] Originally by: goodnight all those arguing with thorradin -> he's not even 5 months old. cheers. This just in, age of a character doesn't make valid points somehow invalid. Nice try though, but you aren't the first.

Taya Tal	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:48:00 - [341] Originally by: Thorradin Originally by: Haakelen Edited by: Haakelen on 28/07/2008 23:23:48 Way to not read. I said every ship bigger than a BC. If you're flying a RR BS, and you don't fit ECCM, you're a moron. I've been tempted to put an ECCM on my Ishtar once or twice because it seems like everyone and his **ing dog has a ing Falcon alt they can use to up any situation they desire. If HACs weren't designed for Guerilla warfare, what the ** point do they have? Tier 2 BCs outclass them in every way. They have literally no purpose if you get your way. Every ship bigger than a BC doesn't have an ECCM taped on it, if you're going to throw a tantrum because I didn't specify then go right ahead. The Falcon having issues is still nothing but a vain attempt of trying to save nanohacs from being balanced. Again, if people have issues with the falcon, raise them and push for CCP to look into them and get them tweaked. You'll have to ask CCP what HACs were designed for, it's not like they wee designed recently, and given their layouts, speed sure as hell doesn't come to mind for their design ideas. Get out. The door is that way Don't let it hit you on the way out.
Vision Threads	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:48:00 - [342] Edited by: Vision Threads on 28/07/2008 23:48:49 Clue: HACs came out before tier-2 BCs. Second clue: MMOflation.
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:48:00 - [343] Originally by: Thorradin Originally by: Bad Borris Blasterboats are screwed. Orbiting interceptors that are webbed (t2) and scram (t2) can kill them unless they fit light drones. Thats it. If you're trying to swat a fly with a Howitzer you're doing it wrong. Like you said, drones. Also a single hit from a heavy nuet kills an inty's cap. Also, Battleships are not suppose to be solo pwnmobiles. Sorry that you can't hit the smallest and most agile ship type in the game with one of the largest. Crusader with no speed mods and a t2 AB, acceleration control 4, versus a maxed out blaster deimos, he couldn't hit me even when I was webbed, if my ship hadn't randomly decided to try and fly at his ecm drones, he would have died.
Avernus Gallente Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:48:00 - [344] Read the first 5 pages... Time to train up missiles now huh?
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:48:00 - [345] also state protectorate My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Taya Tal	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:49:00 - [346] Originally by: Thorradin Originally by: goodnight all those arguing with thorradin -> he's not even 5 months old. cheers. This just in, age of a character doesn't make valid points somehow invalid. Nice try though, but you aren't the first. Yes it does. Now get out. Door that way
Moon Kitten GoonFleet	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:49:00 - [347] This patch is amazing for two simple reasons. 1. The Merlin is a lot faster. 2. Incursus is also faster. Good Job CCP
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:49:00 - [348] Originally by: Thorradin Originally by: goodnight all those arguing with thorradin -> he's not even 5 months old. cheers. This just in, age of a character doesn't make valid points somehow invalid. Nice try though, but you aren't the first. It means that it is likely you have no idea what you are talking about, and haven't got a 2 year old+ context in which to view HACs and nanos, therefore, people CBA with you.
Grath Telkin Amarr The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:49:00 - [349] Edited by: Grath Telkin on 28/07/2008 23:52:17 Originally by: Thorradin You'll have to ask CCP what HACs were designed for, it's not like they wee designed recently, and given their layouts, speed sure as hell doesn't come to mind for their design ideas. Please see Description on Vagabond Quote: Hull: Stabber Class Role: Heavy Assault Ship The fastest cruiser invented to date, this vessel is ideal for hit-and-run ops where both speed and firepower are required. Its on-board power core may not be strong enough to handle some of the larger weapons out there, but when it comes to guerilla work, the Vagabond can't be beat.
Taya Tal	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:50:00 - [350] Originally by: Moon Kitten This patch is amazing for two simple reasons. 1. The Merlin is a lot faster. 2. Incursus is also faster. Good Job CCP Merlin and Incursus. These will become the new powerhouses of PvP for the next 2 years! Be amazed and bow down before their greatness!

Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:51:00 - [351] Originally by: LetsDoThis *MAKE WAY, COMING THROUGH WITH ACTUAL FEEDBACK* Ok so, ignoring all the teary-eye hypocrisy, I think the ship-class speeds and ship-class turrent tracking and explosion velocity are off. In general most people agree that lower ship classes shouldn't be easy fodder for higher class ammunition. Interceptors and AFs being blasted out of the air by medium sized weapns, and HACs being blasted easily by battleship sized weapons. Also drones. I think its way too easy for larger ship classes to take out or chase off smaller tech 2 ship classes with drones now. QFT, I 2-4 volleyed 5 hacs in my (not very high skills t2 pulse apoc, with 2 heatsinks), that was an ishtar/cerb/zealot/vagabond/cerb, at ranges varying from 80-30km.
Kyoko Sakoda Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:52:00 - [352] Have the trollers and whiners in this thread (thanks for the lawls, by the way) realized that CCP has thrown the kitchen sink at the issue and what you see right this moment is not exactly what you're going to get? These changes are a bit heavy-handed, but the balance between classes feels right. The speeds just got nerfed a bit too far. But the overall relativity, the sort that I last felt around the Cold War patch, is there. I think that a couple of the changes need to be removed or scaled back. The first is the reactivation delay for microwarps; certain ships such as the Vagabond depend on bursting this module and as such I don't believe it's a great idea to make it sit idle for 10 seconds. The other thing to do is to set the base speeds of ships back to the way they were, and increase speeds on interdictors. Make sure that light craft such as interceptors can not be worried about being hit for much damage by T2 precision missiles. Maybe also think about reversing the 50% range between T1 and T2 MWDs. It may help certain ships get back into the sweet spot of speed. But I really like these general idea of the changes. If anyone wants to flame me for doing so, know that after this post I won't be looking at this thread or your whines again.
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:53:00 - [353] Originally by: Vision Threads Edited by: Vision Threads on 28/07/2008 23:41:46 Originally by: Thorradin Originally by: Miriyaka Edited by: Miriyaka on 28/07/2008 23:06:28 Originally by: Thorradin The problem is that HACs use it. HACs are quite clearly designed to tank damage directly (keep in mind they are build off of cruiser hulls), and they are not, infact, speedy little ships like inties and dictors are setup to be (and trained for). So why, praytell, do they do it so POORLY compared to their cheaper, easier-to-train T1 counterparts? Wait, what HAC does worse than its T1 counterpart? Keep in mind a tier2 BC is not the counterpart of a HAC. you're still trying to turn that round peg into a square one. If the HACs have a problem tanking, you don't fix them by making them do something else. That'd be like fixing AFs by turning them into interceptors, with naturally high resistances. As I posted previously, the reason you fly a HAC instead of a battlecruiser is because the HAC is more pimp/stylin'. Any old pedestrian two months into the game running level 3 missions can fly a battlecruiser. What's the point of killing people if you have to do it like a farmer beating someone to death with a hoe. Plus, HACs are the prereq to the oh-so-pimp command ship. The Battlecruiser of Kings. No the reason you fly HAC is because regardless of engagement state, it is more fun to cover 40+ jumps in a faster ship, and it is more likely to survive if a heavy ship fleet lands on its arse. Before the changes most of the BCs best fittings were plated, which buggers up time into warp even more (and yes I know the mwd trick, its still really slow).
Taya Tal	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:58:00 - [354] Edited by: Taya Tal on 28/07/2008 23:59:19 Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Have the trollers and whiners in this thread (thanks for the lawls, by the way) realized that CCP has thrown the kitchen sink at the issue and what you see right this moment is not exactly what you're going to get? These changes are a bit heavy-handed, but the balance between classes feels right. The speeds just got nerfed a bit too far. But the overall relativity, the sort that I last felt around the Cold War patch, is there. I think that a couple of the changes need to be removed or scaled back. The first is the reactivation delay for microwarps; certain ships such as the Vagabond depend on bursting this module and as such I don't believe it's a great idea to make it sit idle for 10 seconds. The other thing to do is to set the base speeds of ships back to the way they were, and increase speeds on interdictors. Make sure that light craft such as interceptors can not be worried about being hit for much damage by T2 precision missiles. Maybe also think about reversing the 50% range between T1 and T2 MWDs. It may help certain ships get back into the sweet spot of speed. But I really like these general idea of the changes. If anyone wants to flame me for doing so, know that after this post I won't be looking at this thread or your whines again. FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!11 Edit: Thank you for getting out without me having to tell you to. Door is that way for all others
LuthienTinuviel The Higher Standard	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:00:00 - [355] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Have the trollers and whiners in this thread (thanks for the lawls, by the way) realized that CCP has thrown the kitchen sink at the issue and what you see right this moment is not exactly what you're going to get? These changes are a bit heavy-handed, but the balance between classes feels right. The speeds just got nerfed a bit too far. But the overall relativity, the sort that I last felt around the Cold War patch, is there. I think that a couple of the changes need to be removed or scaled back. The first is the reactivation delay for microwarps; certain ships such as the Vagabond depend on bursting this module and as such I don't believe it's a great idea to make it sit idle for 10 seconds. The other thing to do is to set the base speeds of ships back to the way they were, and increase speeds on interdictors. Make sure that light craft such as interceptors can not be worried about being hit for much damage by T2 precision missiles. Maybe also think about reversing the 50% range between T1 and T2 MWDs. It may help certain ships get back into the sweet spot of speed. But I really like these general idea of the changes. If anyone wants to flame me for doing so, know that after this post I won't be looking at this thread or your whines again. No it's not that which cracks me up I am a non snake implanted one none ship out of my 20 odd ships in the hanger (inties etc not included) my Sacri goes in the region of 4 kps not ludicrous speed by any standards and to take advantage of it's bonussed weapon I go into everloaded web or faction web range. What cracks me up is CCP have zero elegance and zero ability to actually think about things properly and impleemnt what they see as balance. What also cracks me up is opinions of CCP staff as follows... [ 2008.07.28 21:58:34 ] CCP Atropos > sigh [ 2008.07.28 21:58:45 ] CCP Atropos > it's simple really [ 2008.07.28 21:58:52 ] CCP Atropos > when it becomes the de facto method for fighting [ 2008.07.28 21:58:55 ] CCP Atropos > it needs ot be nerfed [ 2008.07.28 21:59:02 ] CCP Atropos > simple as really Now there is a Dev for the game who patently has zero clue how the game actually is played. CCP Atropos > sigh it's simple really when it becomes the de facto method for fighting it needs ot be nerfed simple as really
Kane Rizzel NovaKane Incorporated Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:04:00 - [356] Heh, funny thing is that is Ifni, who is famous for his High speed Crusader. How's it feel to have the ship you love ruined by the people you now work for? For the record, my Crusader which set the Interceptor speed record of 63km/s (Max skirmish Claymore pilot, Strong X-Instinct and overheating) now only goes 12km/s overheated with a max skirmish skilled Claymore pilot (X-Instinct no longer gives a speed boost) A Pirates Perspective
Cailais Amarr VITOC	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:06:00 - [357] Originally by: LuthienTinuviel What cracks me up is CCP have zero elegance and zero ability to actually think about things properly and impleemnt what they see as balance. What also cracks me up is opinions of CCP staff as follows... [ 2008.07.28 21:58:34 ] CCP Atropos > sigh [ 2008.07.28 21:58:45 ] CCP Atropos > it's simple really [ 2008.07.28 21:58:52 ] CCP Atropos > when it becomes the de facto method for fighting [ 2008.07.28 21:58:55 ] CCP Atropos > it needs ot be nerfed [ 2008.07.28 21:59:02 ] CCP Atropos > simple as really Now there is a Dev for the game who patently has zero clue how the game actually is played. You do know who that Dev is right? Right? If not you can go and catch some vids of him as a player pwning n00bs on another forum. C. Originally by: Tarminic Your continued whining is somewhat diminished by your continued willingness to give your money to CCP.
LuthienTinuviel The Higher Standard	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:09:00 - [358] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: LuthienTinuviel What cracks me up is CCP have zero elegance and zero ability to actually think about things properly and impleemnt what they see as balance. What also cracks me up is opinions of CCP staff as follows... [ 2008.07.28 21:58:34 ] CCP Atropos > sigh [ 2008.07.28 21:58:45 ] CCP Atropos > it's simple really [ 2008.07.28 21:58:52 ] CCP Atropos > when it becomes the de facto method for fighting [ 2008.07.28 21:58:55 ] CCP Atropos > it needs ot be nerfed [ 2008.07.28 21:59:02 ] CCP Atropos > simple as really Now there is a Dev for the game who patently has zero clue how the game actually is played. You do know who that Dev is right? Right? If not you can go and catch some vids of him as a player pwning n00bs on another forum. C. nope don't I am afraid never really been up with who dev's have as their characters but seriously he pawns noobs umm ok then why is he spouting such shit about nano being the defacto method of combat it's not what he is saying is "ludicrous" as CCP would say. CCP Atropos > sigh it's simple really when it becomes the de facto method for fighting it needs ot be nerfed simple as really - WTF? l
APEXrevived Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:10:00 - [359] i know there's the argument "there's still plenty of time to test and tweak". however, I simply cannot fathom why CCP has chosen to set ground zero to what is currently on Sisi. *Warning: Never name your char by anything starting with an A...* sig stolen from Apolyon I. I support this statement.
Elaine Celeste	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:12:00 - [360] Originally by: LuthienTinuviel Edited by: LuthienTinuviel on 29/07/2008 00:06:41 Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Have the trollers and whiners in this thread (thanks for the lawls, by the way) realized that CCP has thrown the kitchen sink at the issue and what you see right this moment is not exactly what you're going to get? These changes are a bit heavy-handed, but the balance between classes feels right. The speeds just got nerfed a bit too far. But the overall relativity, the sort that I last felt around the Cold War patch, is there. I think that a couple of the changes need to be removed or scaled back. The first is the reactivation delay for microwarps; certain ships such as the Vagabond depend on bursting this module and as such I don't believe it's a great idea to make it sit idle for 10 seconds. The other thing to do is to set the base speeds of ships back to the way they were, and increase speeds on interdictors. Make sure that light craft such as interceptors can not be worried about being hit for much damage by T2 precision missiles. Maybe also think about reversing the 50% range between T1 and T2 MWDs. It may help certain ships get back into the sweet spot of speed. But I really like these general idea of the changes. If anyone wants to flame me for doing so, know that after this post I won't be looking at this thread or your whines again. No it's not that which cracks me up I am a non snake implanted one nano ship out of my 20 odd ships in the hanger (inties etc not included) my Sacri goes in the region of 4 kps not ludicrous speed by any standards and to take advantage of it's bonussed weapon I go into overloaded web or faction web range and heavy neut range. What cracks me up is CCP have zero elegance and zero ability to actually think about things properly and implement what they see as balance (nvm the fact that their "balance" is usually anything but). What also cracks me up is opinions of CCP staff as follows... [ 2008.07.28 21:58:34 ] CCP Atropos > sigh [ 2008.07.28 21:58:45 ] CCP Atropos > it's simple really [ 2008.07.28 21:58:52 ] CCP Atropos > when it becomes the de facto method for fighting [ 2008.07.28 21:58:55 ] CCP Atropos > it needs ot be nerfed [ 2008.07.28 21:59:02 ] CCP Atropos > simple as really Now there is a Dev for the game who patently has zero clue how the game actually is played. I don't get it... so when everybody flies battleships it means battleships have to be nerfed too? CELESTE LOTTERIES



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 88 :: 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.