EVE Search - For interested blaster ship pilots: patch changes vs. blaster ships

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

For interested blaster ship pilots: patch changes vs. blaster ships

» 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 .. 45 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Grytok moon7empler Ev0ke	Posted - 2008.08.10 20:22:00 - [481] Originally by: Alkeena Originally by: Grytok snip I was thinking of doing the same thing in mathematica, but then got terminally lazy. Good on you though =) Any chance you could provide consistent scales on the axis so that all the mouth breathers can see just how stark the difference is? I have no faith that they'll perform the proper mental juxtapositions themselves.... OK, I've done it again for all turrets, but with the same grids this time for even easier comparison LOOK HERE .
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.08.10 20:45:00 - [482] Originally by: Grytok In numbers: (...) Interesting fact is, that the weapons are balanced out against each other at 5km going 100m/sec, short behind webrange (10km) with AB-speed (200m/sec) and at their optimal+falloff ranges (normal speed, without AB). The discrepancy lies in the comparison at their respective weapons optimal range at normal speed or AB-speed and this is actually, what CCP should balance out! Hmm, looking at those numbers AC tracking needs a boost And I was just thinking Minnie didnt get the short stick for once
The Djego Minmatar merovinger inc	Posted - 2008.08.10 22:20:00 - [483] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Originally by: Grytok In numbers: (...) Interesting fact is, that the weapons are balanced out against each other at 5km going 100m/sec, short behind webrange (10km) with AB-speed (200m/sec) and at their optimal+falloff ranges (normal speed, without AB). The discrepancy lies in the comparison at their respective weapons optimal range at normal speed or AB-speed and this is actually, what CCP should balance out! Hmm, looking at those numbers AC tracking needs a boost And I was just thinking Minnie didnt get the short stick for once Any Short Range Turret need one(Puls Lasers not, and yes I got a Amarr Spected Char). After done a 1o1 against a real Pest Pilote i have to admit he done well, as strange at it was i tryed to take the advantage by Range(6km+) with Neutrons vs a 650mm Pest, simply to overcome Tracking issues with Range. Did not realy worked out in the end thx to a Reload bug of the Cap Booster, but was quite impressive. Looking at it is at Sissi atm, Aks got a slight advantage by the greater Falloff and the higher Speed of Mini Ships in Web Range. Aks still stay a bit more flexible by the Falloff advantage, leaving you the choice to go in Web Range or not. Note that Blasters mostly got her advantage in a Optimal Range calculation vs Aks by the higher Optimal Range that leads to less Tracking Issues. In general this is not that imported to the AC Ship since it has a greater Falloff and can start doing damage earlyier. Also i like to thank Gytok for his hard work, bringing up solid numbers on the current Sissi State. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Glowy	Posted - 2008.08.11 05:34:00 - [484] Are nano-blaster throns/hypes going all of 900-1100m/s imbalanced as is? If not, they sure are taking a big hit with this speed nerf. The bottom line for blaster boats... no speed, no use. You give up all range for damage with a blaster boat. Fitting enough speed makes these short range weapons viable for limited situations. Take that away and what's left?
Markas Crais House of Dying Laggers	Posted - 2008.08.11 07:40:00 - [485] Originally by: Glowy Are nano-blaster throns/hypes going all of 900-1100m/s imbalanced as is? If not, they sure are taking a big hit with this speed nerf. The bottom line for blaster boats... no speed, no use. You give up all range for damage with a blaster boat. Fitting enough speed makes these short range weapons viable for limited situations. Take that away and what's left? Um.... I don't think you will find very many nano-blasterboats, especially BS size. Nano isn't the correct term. The reason you need speed is to close distance and keep range, but you don't fit a Mega or Hyp as a nanofit.
Vengal Seyhan Sten Industries	Posted - 2008.08.11 08:23:00 - [486] Originally by: Grytok Drones are same for Megathron and Armageddon, so there won't shift anything between those two. Tempest falls even more behind, if you don't go for additional Launchers. Raven wins in 5/6 and looses only against a Geddon shooting slow (100m/sec) Cruisers at optimal range. EDIT: Note! The Raven starts loosing damage against cruisers, if they go faster then 375m/sec, due to explosion velocity. Best post I've seen in this entire thread. The numbers for the Tempest seem a little low because you haven't included the launchers - I think you should have, because these are effectively moderate gank fits; as much weaponry as you can fit, then stack the tank however you can. Whatever the case, two extra siege launchers isn't going to do much except make the DPS around 400-600 like the Mega and Geddon at their best ranges. The Raven stands out as the clear winner on the following: - Raw DPS at ranges out to 30km vs battleships and speeds up to 375m/s - Enough DPS to break the tank on even a single rep HAC, unless it's going >>375m/s (iirc, 480 DPS is enough to overwhelm a single medium rep even at 90% resists) - THe ability to do equivalent (and extreme) damage levels of your choice, to adapt to a weak points in the tank. (you can choose a specific tank vs Amarr and Gallente very easily, EM/Therm, Kin, Therm.) Launchers FTW, apparently. Have you thought of collating these posts of yours into a single stand-alone thread? Also, chuck them into the ships and modules forum and promote the fact that the Raven is now a Solopwnmobile... best way to get a nerf is to spread the imbalance :D Anyway, teh awesome and thankyou.
Ni'Kuth	Posted - 2008.08.11 15:20:00 - [487] Edited by: Ni''Kuth on 11/08/2008 15:20:32 Out of curiousity, How do the 3 weapon systems compare to now on TQ? How much more of an impact does the 90% web make compared to the numbers you got with (I'm assuming) the 40% webs. I realize that you are using set velocities (100 and 200m/s) but I suppose with 90% webs the comparable range would be 10m/s and 20-30m/s?
Grytok moon7empler Ev0ke	Posted - 2008.08.11 17:41:00 - [488] Originally by: Ni'Kuth Edited by: Ni''Kuth on 11/08/2008 15:20:32 Out of curiousity, How do the 3 weapon systems compare to now on TQ? How much more of an impact does the 90% web make compared to the numbers you got with (I'm assuming) the 40% webs. I realize that you are using set velocities (100 and 200m/s) but I suppose with 90% webs the comparable range would be 10m/s and 20-30m/s? The situation on TQ is far better with the 90% webs. Think of a battleship. It does somewhere around 150m/sec without AB or MWD turned on. Apply a web and the speed drops to 15m/sec so the target does stand still actually. With MWD and web applied the speed goes up to some 100m/sec again, but with 5 times the signature radius, which negates the improved speed. On SiSi the speed is however 70m/sec. With an AB it would be 150m/sec, when webbed. Mainproblem on SiSi atm are Cruisers, that still go 100m/sec when webbed (60%) without a MWD increasing their signature radius and even without an AB. They are nearly impossible to hit for a battleship sporting turrets, if the cruiser orbits with 100m/sec @ 1-2km. .
Zachis Magners Marauders ANTHRAX DEATH	Posted - 2008.08.11 22:18:00 - [489] Very nice work, and I particularly like the graphs showing the hit quality for the different weapon systems. If I'm interpreting them correctly, they show effectively how to avoid damage from the different weapon systems, and point to the underlying design philosophy around the ships that primarily use each set of weapons, that is, designed to mitigate against an enemy mitigating against their damage. To combat ACs, you would want to slide vertically up the graph, essentially moving away from them, increasing your range. To combat this I suspect is the reason why Minmatar ships were originally designed with speed in mind to be able to dictate combat range, or effectively close the distance to get their weapons in play. Against blasters, you would want to move diagonally along the axes, essentially increasing your distance and transverse velocity. Most likely the reason for the MWD bonus that some Gallente ships have, as it can be employed to assist in combating both aspects. Against lasers, seems the best course of action is to increase transversal velocity, and ironically move in closer against their short-range weapons. The extreme vertical bias in the pulse laser graph suggests that even small increases of a few 100m/s would decrease incoming damage by a fair bit, especially at the close ranges. Hopefully these integral design considerations are taken into account in regards to re-balancing the speed of ships in the upcoming patch, so that the relative inter-play between the different races and their preferred weapon systems are maintained. Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried a mix of tracking enhancers and damage mods on SiSi, instead of the traditional 2-3x damage mod gank configurations?
Sgt Napalm Synergy Evolved	Posted - 2008.08.12 16:25:00 - [490] bump
oniplE Loving Pirates	Posted - 2008.08.12 17:08:00 - [491] A new Dev reply with some CCP opinions would be nice.. x
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.08.13 07:03:00 - [492] Ok hereÆs another suggestion. The problem: Close range turrets do not track effectively enough at close range. The reason: The tracking formula makes no attempt to correct for æeffective target sizeÆ û that is, the closer something gets to you, the bigger it gets, it subtends a larger angle. Basically when æsig radiusÆ was first introduced into the tracking formula, it should have been a small calculation of the target range vs. its physical size, not a static variable. The solution: I canÆt see the tracking formula being modified to incorporate this, as I canÆt see a way to do it without adding another (albeit small) server-side calculation. So instead: Reduce the signature resolution on close-range (Blasters and Autocannons) turrets by a factor 1.5-2. i.e. Small Autocannon/Blaster Sig resolution = 20-27m Medium Autocannon/Blaster Sig resolution = 60-83m Large Autocannon/Blaster Sig resolution = 200-267m This makes up for the lack of a 'complete' tracking formula and isnÆt without precedent; cruise missiles for example, fall in-between ætiersÆ if you will, but they have huge range. This also means webs are not necessarily a æmandatory choiceÆ for a close range boat û itÆs a module for trying to stop things running away, not for making your turrets work. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Opertone Caldari SIEGE. The Border Patrol	Posted - 2008.08.13 07:55:00 - [493] Originally by: M1AU Edited by: M1AU on 08/08/2008 10:05:18 What's about lowering the mass addition from MWD modules, but increasing the ships inertia while activated? That way ships could accelerate a bit faster but won't be able to turn that easily. That also should effect the max velocity while orbiting a target. Sounds like an easy fix for blaster boats to me, what could be the drawbacks? a very good idea MWD on +speed -inertia... MWD mode of linear approach no nano orbiting with MWD, ship becomes hard to turn
Markas Crais House of Dying Laggers	Posted - 2008.08.13 17:05:00 - [494] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Ok hereÆs another suggestion. The problem: Close range turrets do not track effectively enough at close range. The reason: The tracking formula makes no attempt to correct for æeffective target sizeÆ û that is, the closer something gets to you, the bigger it gets, it subtends a larger angle. Basically when æsig radiusÆ was first introduced into the tracking formula, it should have been a small calculation of the target range vs. its physical size, not a static variable. The solution: I canÆt see the tracking formula being modified to incorporate this, as I canÆt see a way to do it without adding another (albeit small) server-side calculation. So instead: Reduce the signature resolution on close-range (Blasters and Autocannons) turrets by a factor 1.5-2. i.e. Small Autocannon/Blaster Sig resolution = 20-27m Medium Autocannon/Blaster Sig resolution = 60-83m Large Autocannon/Blaster Sig resolution = 200-267m This makes up for the lack of a 'complete' tracking formula and isnÆt without precedent; cruise missiles for example, fall in-between ætiersÆ if you will, but they have huge range. This also means webs are not necessarily a æmandatory choiceÆ for a close range boat û itÆs a module for trying to stop things running away, not for making your turrets work. That might be a good solution. It's worth testing it anyways.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.13 18:28:00 - [495] Originally by: Gabriel Karade I canÆt see the tracking formula being modified to incorporate this, as I canÆt see a way to do it without adding another (albeit small) server-side calculation. So instead: Why not? They're altering the missile damage formula. -Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.08.13 18:58:00 - [496] Well, I don't know anything about what sort of calculations cause too much burden on the server. Basically, tweaking wouldnÆt be enough; you would instead scrap the æfalloffÆ and 'sig resolution' parameters and instead calculate: arclength = r theta* (in radians of course) Every turret would have a particular angle of arc (AoA) for its optimal range. So if theta = turret AoA, the hit chance would be multiplied by a factor 1. (e.g a 425mm Railgun would possibly be balanced so that at 48km, AoA would match the angle subtended by a 400m target...) What happens to the hit % then is... If theta = 0.5x AoA (æcorrectÆ target size at twice optimal, or half-sized target at optimal) hit chance would be multiplied by a factor 0.5. At closer range, say theta = 2x AoA (æcorrectÆ target size at half optimal) hit change gets multiplied by a factor 2. So yes, the closer you get the faster the guns have to track to hit, but at the same time, you are presenting a bigger target. I'd love to see this in Eve, but I can't see it being developed, hence the simple idea of reducing close-range turret 'sig resolution' to mimic this effect. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.13 19:22:00 - [497] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 13/08/2008 19:23:02 It'd be just as easy to change the formula to: sig_radius *= min(1, (optimal + falloff) / distance) -Liang Ed: Fixed formula. I had the terms reversed... it's very ad-hoc to throw an idea out -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.08.13 20:11:00 - [498] Ah that's a nice way of going about it. So for say, a 800mm II AC, target at 20.8km =1, but for something at 5km, =4.16 That nicely solves the absurdity of missing another BS up close with it. How this would work at 0m? As you currently get a '0' from the basic tracking formula while the sig* would spit out a 1/0 ? Would this override the current '0m tracking bug' it so that you instead 'always hit'? -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Kepakh	Posted - 2008.08.13 20:16:00 - [499] I will never stop amaze me how some people are incredibly creative in inventing absurd features :)
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.08.13 20:20:00 - [500] Originally by: Kepakh I will never stop amaze me how some people are incredibly creative in inventing absurd features :) Eh? Absurd?... Walk outside and look at an object (say) 50m away noting how big it is... now walk closer towards it... Where does 'absurd' come into trying fix the tracking formula to account for that effect? -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.13 21:08:00 - [501] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Ah that's a nice way of going about it. So for say, a 800mm II AC, target at 20.8km =1, but for something at 5km, =4.16 That nicely solves the absurdity of missing another BS up close with it. How this would work at 0m? As you currently get a '0' from the basic tracking formula while the sig* would spit out a 1/0 ? Would this override the current '0m tracking bug' it so that you instead 'always hit'? Hrm. While I think that this could be used to "solve" the tracking equation hole, it's probably pretty safe to always miss at 0m. -Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Markas Crais House of Dying Laggers	Posted - 2008.08.13 21:49:00 - [502] Well it's still going to be hard for something the size of a cruiser to get within 0km without bumping off you or something due to inertia. Mathemetically it's a hole, but in practical use it doesn't seem like a huge issue. The real problem is cruisers being able to orbit at 800m while webbed and without an AB and your large guns are unable to hit whatsoever. Large blasters have a hard time hitting out of web range, and now with -60% webs they can't hit at close range -- 0-2km being the real sweet spot.
murder one Gallente Invincible Reason	Posted - 2008.08.14 06:56:00 - [503] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Gabriel Karade Ah that's a nice way of going about it. So for say, a 800mm II AC, target at 20.8km =1, but for something at 5km, =4.16 That nicely solves the absurdity of missing another BS up close with it. How this would work at 0m? As you currently get a '0' from the basic tracking formula while the sig* would spit out a 1/0 ? Would this override the current '0m tracking bug' it so that you instead 'always hit'? Hrm. While I think that this could be used to "solve" the tracking equation hole, it's probably pretty safe to always miss at 0m. -Liang So just clip the tracking formula inside 500m and zero out the negative varibles so that there isn't any tracking/range issue inside 500m. Instead of infinitely bad, it becomes infinitely good. Problem solved. [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.08.14 07:35:00 - [504] Thinking about it Liang, it would probably be better if sig * was based off just Falloff/distance, as (optimal + falloff)/distance tends to favour long-range turrets more. Either that or have it capped to a maximum multiplier, (e.g 10) -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.08.14 09:38:00 - [505] Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 14/08/2008 09:54:20 Just going to throw out some example numbers, using LiangÆs sig_radius, but with using Falloff/distance, and multiplied by some constant of tweakage æAÆ i.e... Sig_radius = min(1, (AFalloff)/ distance ) So for A=1 (obviously to reduce the effect, make A<1, e.g. 0.75)... 800mm Repeating Artillery II* Optimal range 4.8km Accuracy falloff: 16km Tracking: 0.0432 Signature resolution: 400m vs. Battleship (400m): 4.8km km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 4800* 0.0432* (400/400)* [16,000/5000] = 663.55 m/sec (c.f 207.36 m/sec current) 2.4 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 2400* 0.0432* (400/400)* [16,000/2000] = 829.44 m/sec (c.f 103.68 m/sec current) 1 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of 1000* 0.0432* (400/400)[16000/1000] = 691.2 m/sec (c.f. 43.2 m/sec current) vs. Cruiser (125m): 4.8 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 4800 0.0432* (125/400)* [16,000/5000] = 207.36 m/sec (c.f. 64.8 m/sec current) 2.4 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 2400* 0.0432* (125/400)* [16,000/2000] = 259.2 m/sec (c.f. 32.4 m/sec current) 1 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of 1000* 0.0432* (125/400)[16000/1000] = 216 m/sec (c.f. 13.5 m/sec current) vs. Frigate (40m): 4.8 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 4800 0.0432* (40/400)* [16,000/5000] = 66.36 m/sec (c.f. 20.736 m/sec current) 2.4 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 2400* 0.0432* (40/400)* [16,000/2000] = 82.94 m/sec (c.f. 10.368 m/sec current) 1 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of 1000* 0.0432* (40/400)*[16000/1000] = 69.12 m/sec (c.f. 4.32 m/sec current) -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.08.14 09:48:00 - [506] Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 14/08/2008 09:55:01 So what this does is to straighten out the hit chance at point blank ranges. Looking at the numbers, I'd say it's looking something like by just using a multiplier of [Falloff/Distance] i.e. æAÆ = 1 It completely fixes the absurd situation of missing another Battleship as you coast in under MWD power. It means cruisers are not invulnerable to large, close-range turret fire with the new webs (as shown earlier they are virtually immune even without using any speed mods while webbed) and have to use some tactics other than *click-> orbit at 1km. Frigates however are totally safe, they wouldn't realistically even need to use an afterburner, even if webbed, and I think this would be ok, it fixes the other extreme on TQ where inside 10km = automatic death. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.08.14 10:24:00 - [507] Extreme version, again using A=1à Ion Blaster II, Max-skilled Megathron, 5% tracking Implant, Antimatter Ammo: Optimal: 3.375km Falloff: 10km Tracking: 0.083015625 Signature resolution: 400m vs. Battleship (400m): 3.375km km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 3375* 0.083* (400/400)* [10,000/3375] = 830.16 m/sec (c.f. 280.18 m/sec current) 2.4 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 2400* 0.083* (400/400)* [10,000/2400] = 830.16 m/sec (c.f. 199.24 m/sec current) 1 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of 1000* 0.0432* (400/400)[10,000/1000] = 830.16 m/sec (c.f. 83.02 m/sec current) vs. Cruiser (125m): 3.375 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 3375 0.083* (125/400)* [10,000/3375] = 259.42 m/sec (c.f. 87..56 m/sec current) 2.4 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 2400* 0.083* (125/400)* [10,000/3375] = 259.42 m/sec (c.f. 62.26 m/sec current) 1 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of 1000* 0.083* (125/400)[10,000/3375] = 259.42 m/sec (c.f. 25.94 m/sec current) vs. Frigate (40m): 3.375 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 3375 0.083* (40/400)* [10,000/3375] = 83.02 m/sec (c.f. 28.02 m/sec current) 2.4 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of: 2400* 0.083* (40/400)* [10,000/3375] = 83.02 m/sec (c.f. 19.93 m/sec current) 1 km, 50% hits at target orbit speed of 1000* 0.083* (40/400)*[10,000/3375] = 83.02 m/sec (c.f. 8.30 m/sec current) -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Prometheus Exenthal Holy Church Of Garmonism	Posted - 2008.08.14 11:17:00 - [508] Interesting thing I noticed is that 2 Heavy TPing drones are more effective than 1 unbonused TP. Not to mention the give you better hit effectiveness. - FRIGANK
eliminator2 Gallente You're Doing It Wrong	Posted - 2008.08.14 11:57:00 - [509] i agree with u bellum the speed of blaster boats r shocking shit u carnt get anywere at all u might as well all fly pods tbfh ad yea the caldari r the overpowered race after the patch im not sayin nerf caldari maybe remove this patch will solve everything, and then u have minmatar there recons use webs hats going to be shit since webs r shit arazu/lach will be most used recon since u can get about 49km from a scram so u can get ride of nano mwd and all other mwd's so minmatar have lost there onli use full role o and they have lost the superb uber vagabond thats gunna be shit now gallenete blaster boats tanker nano r gunna be dead and recon's r gunna be more used amarr maybe used more since there range on lasers but still will pretty much fail harder and caldari they will rule all just fit a scram and web and WTFPWN ur enemy with missiles whille he sits still doin **** all cause of the stupid patch
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.08.14 12:43:00 - [510] What I tthink people need to realize that that is exactly what ccp wanted with the web reduction. Change the fact that as of now smaller ships are simply DEAD when they enter web range. And changing that is GOOD. Tht as long as a balance is achieved between missiles and guns. Large guns are NOT SUPPOSED TO HIT EASILY MEDIUM FAST TARGETS. Face it! Larges blasters excel at killing Battleships and bigger targets. Pulse lasers are a bit more versatile.. they gain the capability of hitting medium targets at medium range ( lets say 40 km with scorch), but for that they gain the disadvantage that they track even worse at point blank range. And yes that IS valid, because its not only YOU that decide the range of engagement, its you oponent as well. You cannot say Pulse lasers track better just because tehy hit at 40 km. If depends on any moderately sane opponent you won't fight at 40 km. The same thing that makes smart peopel move away from megas make them move close to geddons. SO at point blank an armageddon or apoc sucks completely to compensate being good at medium range. Its a very good thing that medium ships now have a chance to cross web range of a battleship and not be instantly pulverized. What needs to be done si make missiles have equivalent issues to hit those targets. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 30 40 .. 45 :: 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.