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

Check My IP Information

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)
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.01 10:57:00 - [571] Originally by: Gabriel Karade If modifying the tracking formula proves too much of a ball-ache, and a 'quick and dirty' solution is needed, how about trying an intermediate of web 'stopping power' (up to 75% ?) combined with a boost to tracking. That's probably quite fine - 75% webs still wouldn't give you the 'brick wall' effect 90% webs do - and tracking boost for blasters (and ACs - remember, we get even shoddier optimals if we ever choose to actually go for DPS). I'd still be in favour of modifying tracking when I think about it. It's still a formula where signature radius matters too little while transversal matters too much regardless of distance (which is not a factor). If you bump something in EvE, tracking formula makes you miss; even though it's a no-brainer that you should, in fact, hit 100% when bumping. I'm amazed at the same people who want 'nano anti-blob tools' claiming small gang and solo is not important.
Nora Baiden	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:23:00 - [572] Edited by: Nora Baiden on 02/09/2008 17:29:58 Well the changes to scram/web/ab are pretty interesting, i think i like it. I will most likely put a short range scram on my crusader and il get "web point" all in one. Now this makes it so you can defend against it though that is someone can run in and use the same on me but since web are same range as these short range scrams its no real difference from what was. This short range ceptor loose some on range though, since you have to get close to use the new scram, so its not a new brainer, long range ceptors will be good aswell for their fast scram, no need of same range. A BS will most likely not run these short range scrams, but webs maybe. webs get nerfed which makes it stil pretty hard to hit a ceptor within that range. Basically it gives some new tactical choises that were not there earlier, these close range ceptors with few mid slots get some new tactical value(might apply to assault frigs aswell, i dont know much about them).
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:30:00 - [573] Originally by: Nora Baiden A BS will most likely not run these short range scrams, but webs maybe. webs get nerfed which makes it stil pretty hard to hit a ceptor within that range. Actually, it's currently pretty well impossible to hit a ceptor at that range (barring wrecking shots). After the patch, it's pretty well impossible to hit battlecruisers at that range. A cruiser can walk circles around blaster ships indefinitely, and that's without speed mods. Quote: I could hit stuff even with no web and using mwd in my ceptor before, the slowing down is more for other ships. Basically it gives some new tactical choises that were not there earlier, these close range ships with few mid slots get some new tactical value. Ceptors are not really going to be a viable comparison for what happens in battleship fights. Quote: So your speech about tracking? then fit the short range scram and web. You could not kill the mwd before, and you could not kill anything without the web either so there is no difference in effectiveness. Actually, there is. The web nerf, by and large, means two things: - When things get into range, you cannot hold them there. Not even other battleships. - When things get into range, they'll be moving 4x as fast as they were (300% speed increase). Fitting a scrambler in accordance with the scram boost means: - That ships have ample, ample time to warp away before you can get a point on them - It's far easier for ships to slip out of your reach Quote: Killed mwd and 60% less speed is about the same as 90% web on a target with mwd running, no? You run slower after patch, so will everyone else that is running away from you, no? The problem is much exacerbated by the ultra short range of blaster ships. They simply don't have the range to effectlively attack people at range, don't have the capacitor to run the MWD all the way there, and generally don't have the speed to overcome range advantages in time. Ranged damage dealers (such as laser ships and torp ravens) are at a huge advantage in these situations, and indeed in pretty much every realistically conceivable situation. -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
Sensoura Opemtora	Posted - 2008.09.03 07:22:00 - [574] Is the blaster problem only an issue with cruisers with an afterburner or are they still difficult to hit when their MWD is shut down? I'm wondering if maybe the purpose of making afterburning cruisers extremely hard to hit, is to try and give the afterburner an effectiveness equivalent to the MWD. At the moment MWDs have vastly more utility than the afterburner, so having it work in this way will give people a reason to put the afterburner on instead. Thoughts?
Strill	Posted - 2008.09.03 09:02:00 - [575] Edited by: Strill on 03/09/2008 09:04:14 nevermind
Aakito	Posted - 2008.09.03 09:32:00 - [576] Originally by: Sensoura Opemtora Is the blaster problem only an issue with cruisers with an afterburner or are they still difficult to hit when their MWD is shut down? I'm wondering if maybe the purpose of making afterburning cruisers extremely hard to hit, is to try and give the afterburner an effectiveness equivalent to the MWD. At the moment MWDs have vastly more utility than the afterburner, so having it work in this way will give people a reason to put the afterburner on instead. Thoughts? AB will not be widely used as long as missiles and drones have the ability to pwn slow targets. The only defense against these weapons = more speed. It's a problem.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.03 11:06:00 - [577] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/09/2008 11:09:11 Originally by: Sensoura Opemtora Is the blaster problem only an issue with cruisers with an afterburner or are they still difficult to hit when their MWD is shut down? I'm wondering if maybe the purpose of making afterburning cruisers extremely hard to hit, is to try and give the afterburner an effectiveness equivalent to the MWD. At the moment MWDs have vastly more utility than the afterburner, so having it work in this way will give people a reason to put the afterburner on instead. The issue exists when shooting cruisers which do not have a speed mod of any sort. Basically, there are issues (read: damage reduction) hitting targets of your own size at close (blaster/AC) ranges, as well as issues with keeping targets at said ranges. With DPS differences between short range (blaster/AC) and long range ships being so small, that presents a big problem. If a good part of the DPS advantage of short range ships is killed by tracking and range control issues, then you're better off flying something longer ranged and trying to stick at range rather then hug your opponent. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Sgt Napalm Synergy Evolved	Posted - 2008.09.04 18:07:00 - [578] bump
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.09.04 19:49:00 - [579] CCP, are you still reading this thread? Do you have any comments on our feedback? Are we chasing down the wrong path when looking for solutions? Is anyone up there? knock knock -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
murder one Gallente Invincible Reason	Posted - 2008.09.05 00:13:00 - [580] Originally by: Liang Nuren CCP, are you still reading this thread? Do you have any comments on our feedback? Are we chasing down the wrong path when looking for solutions? Is anyone up there? knock knock -Liang Anyone want to make bets as to whether or not the whole issue gets completely ignored? [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships

Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.09.05 02:39:00 - [581] Originally by: murder one Anyone want to make bets as to whether or not the whole issue gets completely ignored? Uh... on the one hand, CCP has acknowledged that this is a major nerf to blasters. On the other, they seem to be ignoring us now. Decisions, decisions. Come on Fendahl/Zulu Park/Nozh/TomB/Oveur/Eris/Navigator/Wrangler/SOMEONE, post and prove me right! -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
Sgt Napalm Synergy Evolved	Posted - 2008.09.05 14:57:00 - [582] Bump CCP does not care about blaster pilots
oniplE Loving Pirates	Posted - 2008.09.06 22:58:00 - [583] cough dev reply wanted cough x
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari Karjala Inc.	Posted - 2008.09.06 23:32:00 - [584] Originally by: Aakito AB will not be widely used as long as missiles and drones have the ability to pwn slow targets. The only defense against these weapons = more speed. It's a problem. Actually afterburner doesn't inrease your signature radius so you will be taking less damage than ship mwding with same speed. (at least in theory) However, speed factor seems to be much greater than signature radius as it is, meaning that you have to go faster than around 4000m/s or die, that's partially because of "nano***gotry" mentality. You don't have any kind of tank at all, you just go so fast you take 0 dmg... When someone finally manages to web you and you die, you go to the forums... Furthermore.. Missiles and drones don't pwn slow targets any more than blasters. Actually in opposite. Slower they get more blasters will pwn... with Web/scram functionality with planned nerf is of course another thing if they ever get that slow..
Sensoura Opemtora	Posted - 2008.09.07 10:43:00 - [585] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/09/2008 11:09:11 Originally by: Sensoura Opemtora Is the blaster problem only an issue with cruisers with an afterburner or are they still difficult to hit when their MWD is shut down? I'm wondering if maybe the purpose of making afterburning cruisers extremely hard to hit, is to try and give the afterburner an effectiveness equivalent to the MWD. At the moment MWDs have vastly more utility than the afterburner, so having it work in this way will give people a reason to put the afterburner on instead. The issue exists when shooting cruisers which do not have a speed mod of any sort. Basically, there are issues (read: damage reduction) hitting targets of your own size at close (blaster/AC) ranges, as well as issues with keeping targets at said ranges. So that points to webs being too ineffective. Big question is why do the Devs think that they need to be that way? With DPS differences between short range (blaster/AC) and long range ships being so small, that presents a big problem. If a good part of the DPS advantage of short range ships is killed by tracking and range control issues, then you're better off flying something longer ranged and trying to stick at range rather then hug your opponent.
Ezekiel Sulastin Gallente Central Research Nexus	Posted - 2008.09.08 04:39:00 - [586] Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn Actually afterburner doesn't inrease your signature radius so you will be taking less damage than ship mwding with same speed. (at least in theory) However, speed factor seems to be much greater than signature radius as it is, meaning that you have to go faster than around 4000m/s or die, that's partially because of "nano***gotry" mentality. You don't have any kind of tank at all, you just go so fast you take 0 dmg... When someone finally manages to web you and you die, you go to the forums... Actually, I thought people were heading to the forums because hitting approach + F1-F8 + CTRL F1-F8 didn't result in INSTANT VICTORY, resulting in the current ubernerf shown us by CCP now. I'd LOVE to have seen someone whine about getting webbed in a nanoship. The problem right now is that however high your signature radius is, your angular velocity does not change. Go quicker angularly and the guns won't track you, ergo you die ... ---- WTB Armor Nerf Hardener II, 10^100 isk OBO
Kransthow The Scope	Posted - 2008.09.08 05:06:00 - [587] hmmm, blasters do suck now GOGOGO CCP STYLE PATCH: large blaster now have 1 radian/second tracking, medium 2, small 4 blasters now do 3x as much damage as before
murder one Gallente Invincible Reason	Posted - 2008.09.08 05:21:00 - [588] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: murder one Anyone want to make bets as to whether or not the whole issue gets completely ignored? Uh... on the one hand, CCP has acknowledged that this is a major nerf to blasters. On the other, they seem to be ignoring us now. Decisions, decisions. Come on Fendahl/Zulu Park/Nozh/TomB/Oveur/Eris/Navigator/Wrangler/SOMEONE, post and prove me right! -Liang Where has CCP publicly admitted that this is a major nerf to blasters? [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2008.09.08 06:32:00 - [589] large guns were never meant to hit cruisers while orbitting under the guns.
Strill	Posted - 2008.09.08 08:05:00 - [590] Originally by: Cpt Cosmic large guns were never meant to hit cruisers while orbitting under the guns. I would venture to guess that large guns were, however, meant to hit webbed, module-less T1 cruisers.

Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.09.08 08:10:00 - [591] Originally by: Cpt Cosmic large guns were never meant to hit cruisers while orbitting under the guns. Long range guns yes, short range guns up very close? No, given you easily kite it and stay out of range, and the small matter of most cruisers are actually the size of an aircraft carrier or a supertanker (300-400m). Should you be able to reduce the incoming damage greatly with an AB fitting? Yes, but total immunity is stupid, with the new warp scramblers close-range Battleships are vulnerable to everything, while medium/long range boats will still be knocking cruisers down at range... -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Thiamin Mononitrate	Posted - 2008.09.08 08:37:00 - [592] i think these speed changes are long over due i myself in a blaster pilot and well fact of the matter is you dont see a caldari missle pilot complaining that he cant use short range hams at the long range flight times. same goes for blaster ships you have a long range ammo learn to use it if you get into 5k range great they go poof if not then well you more than likly can hit them at 20km with good skills and null ammo i have actually played with a few setups that push blasters to 34km with little change to its tank. yes this patch will change blaster ships forever but thats part of the fun now youll need to find a new way to use them effectively and beleive me if ccp didnt think there was a way they would implement some sort of boost to blaster boats exclusivly for instance mass reductions for equiping blasters or simply adding a high slot module that can boost web range since most blaster boats rarely get to put anything useful in the final slot. however my final comment on the speed changes is the power of the web i think it violates all laws of physics for a frigate to effectivly web a bs with how much math goes into almost everthing ccp does im surprised that they havent looked at this.. say a frigate trys to web my blasterthron in mid MWD towards another target his web would attempt to drag my ship to a stop but being how massive the bs is in comparison to said frigate this would actually drag the frigate for a ride and not slow down the bs. just a thought maybe have the webs be entirly reliant on mass a object of lesser mass will not be able to effectivly web a object of greater mass. and for those of you screaming omg this will effect tackling not really since scrams will turn of mwd it will slow a ship but it will still allow for coasting. and give blaster ships a chance of getting in range.
Dzajic Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.09.08 08:46:00 - [593] Grammar and punctuation, learn them.
Strill	Posted - 2008.09.08 08:59:00 - [594] Edited by: Strill on 08/09/2008 09:04:21 Originally by: Thiamin Mononitrate i think these speed changes are long over due i myself in a blaster pilot and well fact of the matter is you dont see a caldari missle pilot complaining that he cant use short range hams at the long range flight times. same goes for blaster ships you have a long range ammo learn to use it if you get into 5k range great they go poof if not then well you more than likly can hit them at 20km with good skills and null ammo i have actually played with a few setups that push blasters to 34km with little change to its tank. yes this patch will change blaster ships forever but thats part of the fun now youll need to find a new way to use them effectively and beleive me if ccp didnt think there was a way they would implement some sort of boost to blaster boats exclusivly for instance mass reductions for equiping blasters or simply adding a high slot module that can boost web range since most blaster boats rarely get to put anything useful in the final slot. however my final comment on the speed changes is the power of the web i think it violates all laws of physics for a frigate to effectivly web a bs with how much math goes into almost everthing ccp does im surprised that they havent looked at this.. say a frigate trys to web my blasterthron in mid MWD towards another target his web would attempt to drag my ship to a stop but being how massive the bs is in comparison to said frigate this would actually drag the frigate for a ride and not slow down the bs. just a thought maybe have the webs be entirly reliant on mass a object of lesser mass will not be able to effectivly web a object of greater mass. and for those of you screaming omg this will effect tackling not really since scrams will turn of mwd it will slow a ship but it will still allow for coasting. and give blaster ships a chance of getting in range. Believe it or not, there's no reason for a blaster pilot to ever rely on any standard or faction ammo with range greater than or equal to lead. Why is that? Blasters do 1.5x the damage of railguns. Antimatter ammo does 1.5x the damage of Lead. That means that if you use lead ammo with blasters, you're getting all the range penalties of blasters, for none of the damage. You could be doing the exact same damage at longer range by using railguns and antimatter ammo, and not have to deal with any of the tracking issues blaster ships have to deal with. And do you honestly expect a blaster pilot to switch ammo in the middle of a fight to kill a cruiser? Blaster fits are all or nothing. If you don't get in range of your target fast enough you end up being blown away by their longer range guns. Wasting a precious 10 seconds to switch ammo is suicide. And even if you start out with close-range ammo and switch as you see the cruiser coming, it'll be too close by the time you finish loading. Range + Blasters = not smart. Originally by: Thiamin Mononitrate ...and beleive me if ccp didnt think there was a way they would implement some sort of boost to blaster boats exclusivly... CCP are the people who think that +7.5% armor repair per level is equivalent to +5% resistances per level. I most certainly am NOT going to trust that they know what they're doing.
Thiamin Mononitrate	Posted - 2008.09.08 09:48:00 - [595] Edited by: Thiamin Mononitrate on 08/09/2008 10:06:50 Edited by: Thiamin Mononitrate on 08/09/2008 10:04:55 1 tracking enhancer II 1 hybrid Locus Coordinator I and 3 mag stabs all V with neutrons and null optimal is 15km plus 16km Fallof anything that wants to try and stay outside this isnt going to be able to scram you aside from a arazu. this setup gives 745 dps to compare an all level 5 425mm setup with antimatter and 3 magstabs II caps at 526 dps i beg to differ on rail guns keeping up not to mention the tracking speed of rails suck. and isnt the cheif complaint here about not getting into range. let the cruiser come closer he will die by void let him stay further away and try to maintain his speed tank hes only helping the tranversal out and my null is prolly gonna smoke him. secondly a close range rail setup sacrifices almost all of your capabilitys to tank vs long range blaster setup. im merely pointing out that if for some reason you cant get into 5k range with a very minor tweak and a ammo change you still have a good chance and both these setups were checked in eft without drones this is just the rails vs the blasters.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.08 12:57:00 - [596] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Originally by: Cpt Cosmic large guns were never meant to hit cruisers while orbitting under the guns. Long range guns yes, short range guns up very close? No, given you easily kite it and stay out of range, Not really. Cruiser has to be either nano-ed (and out of webrange perma-MWDing) or nothing. That's a problem. Short range cruiser fits are just dead. BS are supposed to use counter-fittings and/or drones if they expect to see cruisers. It is not a big issue to kill a T1 cruiser in a blasterthron on SISI. Originally by: Gabriel Karade and the small matter of most cruisers are actually the size of an aircraft carrier or a supertanker (300-400m). Says 120-130M (sig radius), with rough base speeds of 200-ish m/s (or roughly 700km/h). But it's really a moot point, BS are 4x the size, etc. Originally by: Gabriel Karade Should you be able to reduce the incoming damage greatly with an AB fitting? Yes, but total immunity is stupid, with the new warp scramblers close-range Battleships are vulnerable to everything, while medium/long range boats will still be knocking cruisers down at range... AB fittings are hardly a concern (as you can laugh as he approaches at a snail pace and quite likely melt him on the approach). Sure, if he lands at 0 from you you're in a spot of trouble, but you can still use drones + a neut to kill him. I agree that close-range ships are a bit too vulnerable altogether, though - but that can really be solved by putting webs to 75%/80% and/or buffing BS tracking a bit so they'll do some turret DPS vs smaller targets and full DPS to other BS which they should. Alternatively (or in addition to that), they could fix how tracking works, so getting closer and orbiting is somewhat mitigated by the increased chance to hit a target due to it filling most of your sights It is broken that you cannot hit something (a POS,even) at 0 metres, even though there's no possible way to miss. The most annoying part of the changes isn't really vulnerability towards small stuff (which is a bit overdone and must be annoying, but the principle is sound; there's something utterly wrong when a frigate cannot out-track BS turrets up close), but rather the fact you can't fight other BS very well (which utterly breaks blaster BS). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.09.08 16:24:00 - [597] Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 08/09/2008 16:25:17 Running out of words so youÆll have to excuse the snippage 1. Cruiser sized MWD use less cap vs. average capacitor recharge, so not only can a cruiser run the MWD longer than a BS it also has a higher velocity to keep out of range. Short range cruiser fits are dead solo vs. a short range fit Battleship and that is the important qualifier: I don't see it as a problem, given that 5km sphere is a close range Battleship's niche compared to medium/long range weapons. It becomes a problem the other way round as any close-range Battleship becomes easy HAC meat, and arguably in trouble vs. a decent close range T1 cruiser (relying solely on the destructible 316.8 dps from Ogre II's). Basically, my argument is against the blanket "Cruisers should never be hit by large guns" statement, given that at longer ranges cruisers are vulnerable to Large weapons, and as seen on Sisi, a short range Battleship is now ridiculous vulnerable 1 vs. 1. 2. Remember we are talking physical size here, Most of Eve's Battleships are of the order 1km, cruisers 300-400m. that's still a very big target, also consider we can physically see Large turrets are able to turn 360 degrees in a couple of seconds, missing a webbed cruiser all the time is a bit absurd from that standpoint, and from a game balance perspective for Blaster Battleships, terminal. 3. Again it comes down to 1 Battleship vs. 1 cruiser, it should not be balanced that way, if you had 3 T1 AB-fit cruisers attacking you yes I think you should be in a lot of trouble, you may take one down on approach but the others would be able to speed tank under your guns. However it should not be a case (as you agree) that a single webbed cruiser can shrug off all Large, close range turret fire just by virtue of clicking "orbit". I agree frigates are a different proposition, and given the extreme size difference, they should be virtually immune unless multiply painted and webbed by support ships, itÆs not actually that far off on TQ, you can get in under even 90% webs, itÆs just most people tend to die at the outer edge of the web envelope and don't get to the 1-2km sweet spot where Large, close-range turrets cant really hit. I certainly agree on the last point, itÆs utterly absurd missing a Battleship sized target with Large Blasters, and anyone can play around with the tracking guide to see how bad the current Sisi situation is, fixing the tracking formula is the way forward there. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.09.08 16:38:00 - [598] Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 08/09/2008 16:38:05 Originally by: Thiamin Mononitrate Edited by: Thiamin Mononitrate on 08/09/2008 10:06:50 Edited by: Thiamin Mononitrate on 08/09/2008 10:04:55 1 tracking enhancer II 1 hybrid Locus Coordinator I and 3 mag stabs all V with neutrons and null optimal is 15km plus 16km Fallof anything that wants to try and stay outside this isnt going to be able to scram you aside from a arazu. this setup gives 745 dps to compare an all level 5 425mm setup with antimatter and 3 magstabs II caps at 526 dps i beg to differ on rail guns keeping up not to mention the tracking speed of rails suck. and isnt the cheif complaint here about not getting into range. let the cruiser come closer he will die by void let him stay further away and try to maintain his speed tank hes only helping the tranversal out and my null is prolly gonna smoke him. secondly a close range rail setup sacrifices almost all of your capabilitys to tank vs long range blaster setup. im merely pointing out that if for some reason you cant get into 5k range with a very minor tweak and a ammo change you still have a good chance and both these setups were checked in eft without drones this is just the rails vs the blasters. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove, but you have totally ignored the effects of falloff: At 30km (typical small-gang range envelope) that Neutron setup is actually only doing 373 dps, and the Railgun boat is doing 526 all the way out to 36km. At 50km (the upper of small-gang ranges) the Neutron setup is doing 0 dps, while the Railgun setup is doing 447 dps... Trying to shoe-horn Blasters into a medium-range role with Null and rigs is all well and good, but it compares poorly even to railguns, lets not even talk about Pulse lasers or Torpedos... P.s Hitting a cruiser with Void L even on TQ requires virtually zero transversal, you only manage this with baiting stupid pilots or those who are virtually afk. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Nikuno	Posted - 2008.09.09 11:13:00 - [599] Originally by: Kransthow hmmm, blasters do suck now GOGOGO CCP STYLE PATCH: large blaster now have 1 radian/second tracking, medium 2, small 4 blasters now do 3x as much damage as before Are these new figures from multiplicity? Can someone fill in the blanks on this please and let us know if this is helping at all?
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.09 18:23:00 - [600] Originally by: Nikuno Are these new figures from multiplicity? Can someone fill in the blanks on this please and let us know if this is helping at all? No, I think it was hyperbole regarding how CCP boosts/nerfs. -Liang --



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.