EVE Search - Attention: due to fuel shortages speedlimits have been reduced.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Attention: due to fuel shortages speedlimits have been reduced.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Dominious New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:49:00 - [91] Originally by: Aenis Veros Originally by: CCP Taera You do not need to start over - speed is still a viable option, we've just made it an option instead of a mandatory tool for near invulnerabilty. Relatively speaking, Interceptors are actually getting a boost! Check it out on Singularity and give your feedback in the Features & Ideas Discussion forum. :) Hydra alt detected. Bad troll spotted. All your tears are belong to us!
Shamharoth Gallente Beach Boys BeachBoys	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:54:00 - [92] Originally by: CCP Taera You do not need to start over - speed is still a viable option, we've just made it an option instead of a mandatory tool for near invulnerabilty. Relatively speaking, Interceptors are actually getting a boost! Check it out on Singularity and give your feedback in the Features & Ideas Discussion forum. :) I went to the forums looking for info and all I got was this silly statement.
Rehpyk Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.30 14:00:00 - [93] Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: Arran Ramir Stuff Was more like: [Pre Nano nerf ] Nano PvP vets : Cry me a River Carebear, its a valid Game Mechanic, L2P PvP nub, Adept or Play Kitty Online. Carbears: But CCP! Look, they are beating me everytime and it's not fair! I don't want to use the counters that are available I just want to do it MY way! NERF [Post Nano Nerf] Carebears : ROFL Cry me a River Nano**, l2Adept, or go play Kitty Online... I whined** till the Dev's intervened Guess what the Nanof@gs are doing now?
FlameGlow Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.07.30 14:54:00 - [94] Originally by: umop 3pisdn Originally by: Jimer Lins The "nerf" is really only to bring these ships into line with something resembling reason. No ship should be able to outrun missiles. Why? Missiles cant miss and have screwed up range. You can also load them with any damage type. Why shouldnt they be able to miss? Why missiles don't have critical hits, why they take time to get to target, why they can be destroyed by defenders and smarties? Because they are not guns, obviously. Oh, and it's not like they always do full damage, even if they do hit - they have 2 separate damage reductions - by signature and by speed and no modules to circumvent this(only couple rigs). Guns only have tracking and a ton of modules to boost it. _____________ I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button.
McDonALTs	Posted - 2008.07.30 15:03:00 - [95] Originally by: Fumunda minuts Ships outrunning missiles? SR-71 Blackbird? Planes have been outrunning missiles for decades. Speed is relative. Make faster missiles Duh?? The universe doesn't slow down so why should eve. Nano ships where soo fast, they outran their own missiles as they fired them. Could a SR-71 Outrun its own missiles? Nope. Also, RL stuff has no plance in eve. Eve is a u-boat simulator, not a aeroplane one. Space in eve is like going underwater.
Big Al Stoat's Ultimate Carebear Adventure	Posted - 2008.07.30 15:29:00 - [96] The really scary thing about these nerfs will be the subsequent nerfs to balance out everything else that CCP complete f-ed up in this patch.
Sheriff Jones Amarr Please Enter Password	Posted - 2008.07.30 15:37:00 - [97] Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: Sheriff Jones Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: Sheriff Jones Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 30/07/2008 07:39:01 Question and claarification tosnipa destroyer role. Because we all want that realistic scenario. What you're suggesting removes nano as the supposed solopwn, and makes BS solopwn. While i'm not suggesting anything, simply saying what would be a nice way for things to progress to, regarding your reply, BS should be more "solo-pwn" then a frigate variable. Frigates, solo, hould hunt other frigates or cruisers maybe, but not battleships. So you think that Battleships should be able to just take out anything smaller than them solo? Tbh, thats a bit more *****ed than what is going on atm. Oh no no, but Battleship should keep you alive more then a frigate. So technically, a battleship should(if fitted for frigate destruction) be able to take down a frigate if need be, but a frigate shouldn't be able to take down a battleship. Basically, make battleships hitting frigates harder, while keeping frigates "useless" against battleships. You know? My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit.*
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.30 16:44:00 - [98] Originally by: Sheriff Jones Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: Sheriff Jones Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: Sheriff Jones Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 30/07/2008 07:39:01 Question and claarification tosnipa destroyer role. Because we all want that realistic scenario. What you're suggesting removes nano as the supposed solopwn, and makes BS solopwn. While i'm not suggesting anything, simply saying what would be a nice way for things to progress to, regarding your reply, BS should be more "solo-pwn" then a frigate variable. Frigates, solo, hould hunt other frigates or cruisers maybe, but not battleships. So you think that Battleships should be able to just take out anything smaller than them solo? Tbh, thats a bit more ******ed than what is going on atm. Oh no no, but Battleship should keep you alive more then a frigate. So technically, a battleship should(if fitted for frigate destruction) be able to take down a frigate if need be, but a frigate shouldn't be able to take down a battleship. Basically, make battleships hitting frigates harder, while keeping frigates "useless" against battleships. You know? Interceptors were not taking down BS's solo, they were just holding them there. Now they can't even "intercept". --
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.30 16:44:00 - [99] Originally by: Rehpyk Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: Arran Ramir Stuff Was more like: [Pre Nano nerf ] Nano PvP vets : Cry me a River Carebear, its a valid Game Mechanic, L2P PvP nub, Adept or Play Kitty Online. Carbears: But CCP! Look, they are beating me everytime and it's not fair! I don't want to use the counters that are available I just want to do it MY way! NERF [Post Nano Nerf] Carebears : ROFL Cry me a River Nano**, l2Adept, or go play Kitty Online... I whined** till the Dev's intervened Guess what the Nanof@gs are doing now? Pointing out that this change will ruin EVE? Pvpers never wanted the game changed. Whiners did. --
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.30 16:46:00 - [100] Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: Ranger 1 Heh, Marcus, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. The voting thread Pro is full of nano pilots and all of their 16 alts/accounts. Look at the names, do some checking, you'll see what I mean. More to the point, many of those that have voted against the nerf as it stands now have expressed the opinion that "something" needs to be done... they just aren't happy with one part of the patch or another... not taking into consideration that these values are out there to be experimented with and tweaked and are not meant to be final. So no, most pilots do NOT think the status quo should stand as it is. Many are not pleased with the current state of affairs on Sisi and that is fair enough, but the mature players in the game recognize that things are a bit out of whack now. You could say the same thing about both of those threads. Or do you think only pro-nano players have multiple accounts? MAYBE the status quo is not correct, but to totally **** the game like this is rediculous. Thank you for making my point. Yes, but the thread against the nerf has way more people. So I haven't proven any of your points. I said that both sides have people with multiple accounts that likely cancel eachother out. The thread against the nerf has double the amount of pages... --
Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:07:00 - [101] has anyone suggested on feedback that afterburners need a bigger speed bonus and possibly an agility bonus as well? New Ship Idea: Tender Supply Ship, The Logistics Sister
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:10:00 - [102] Originally by: Marcus Druallis Edited by: Marcus Druallis on 30/07/2008 05:27:26 Originally by: MotherMoon Quote: I have never encountered an instance where speed resulted in near invulnerability try longing in some day? Try using the ingame counters that have been provided some day? EDIT: You people sit there and ***** about how you don't wanna fly a huggin, or curse, or neut fitting BS to counter nanos. Fine, don't. You don't have to, but when your rock meets the nano's paper, you will die. Same as the rest of the game. Don't you see how flawed that is, though? Nano is a fitting trend that works across a huge number of ships in the game from every sub-capital ship class. You seem to think it's reasonable that the only effective counters for this are more nano, 2 specific ships, and a specific fit of one ship class. The number of "nanoable" ships vastly outweighs the number of effective counters to nanoships. Furthermore, those counters are "niche" counters. Good(ish) for countering nanos, but not so great against non-nanos. Finally, the efficacy of those counters is dubious at best. The huginn is definitely effective, but a curse or a neuting battleship is more likely to chase a nano off than it is to actually score a kill. This makes "nano defense" a more appropriate moniker than "anti-nano". That being the case, why would anyone choose to counter nano by using an "anti-nano" fit instead of just fitting nano themselves, thus fighting fire with fire AND retaining all of the capabilities that nanoships possess?
Sheriff Jones Amarr Please Enter Password	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:28:00 - [103] Originally by: Marcus Druallis Interceptors were not taking down BS's solo, they were just holding them there. Now they can't even "intercept". But more then one can right? My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit.
WAuter Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:49:00 - [104] Originally by: Nova Fox has anyone suggested on feedback that afterburners need a bigger speed bonus and possibly an agility bonus as well? So now you want AB to make ships invulnerable? No, but i do agree that interceptors should have an AB boost...
Radix Salvilines dearg doom	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:50:00 - [105] god bless ccp for the speed nerf! finally pvp has the chance to be fun :) ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥-☻BPINC☺-♥ ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:53:00 - [106] Originally by: Mahke Edited by: Mahke on 30/07/2008 05:54:52 Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton Originally by: Ash Vincetti Edited by: Ash Vincetti on 30/07/2008 04:12:50 Originally by: CCP Taera Relatively speaking, Interceptors are actually getting a boost! Check it out on Singularity and give your feedback in the Features & Ideas Discussion forum. :) No, they are not. As a nearly dedicated interceptor pilot, the viability and utility for them is completely out. Can't afford snakes, never could, but I was able to tack in on a battleship from 200km out quickly enough that I could have him tackled before I was vaporized. With the way the interceptors have been changed, they neither have the speed or transversal to do that, nor the survivability to tackle up close and remain alive. Yes Large guns won't hit it if it's orbiting sub 10km, But a neut + drones will still mess you up, and what battleship pilot doesn't carry those two these days? I'm sorry, but "proportionally" there is no "boost" to interceptors. They are now deader than ever. heh warrior IIs will catch you unless you are snaked, and then (with snakes) you will get hit by all sorts of small turrets and light precision missiles. sitting on sisi in a zealot with 4 overdrive IIs, a snake set, and doing less than my tq zealot with no snakes 2 od 1 nano (2758 sisi vs 3077 tq) Oh noes, precision lights, warrior IIs, and small turrets can hit you now? So the exact weapons that SHOULD be useful for fighting fast ships can now actually do significant damage, and your spreading your sweet tears like a fine manure over the forum over this? As representatives from CCP have stated, speed should mitigate incoming damage, not altogether eliminate it. Don't get me wrong, I think maybe minmatar ships in particular and ceptors should keep a bit more of their speed, its what makes them them, but seriously, your tears about being able to be hit by stuff particularly geared towards hitting small fast stuff is exactly why a nerf was needed. see the thing about that is small turrets could still hit a 10km/s ceptor on tq right now, and I don't have a problem with that. with current mechanics warrior II's (or really any light drone) and a heavy neut and the interceptor is dead. It's like throwing scissors to the nanos paper rather than being a rock like he predicts. its more of a hmm who uses warrior IIs? oh right battleships. sure there are some cruisers/bcs that have a drone bay large enough to, but it is mainly battleships where the drone bay is big enough to fit warrior II's and a set of damage dealing drones. and I do think a snake set should give you one hell of an advantage on that 3month old character in a destroyer. and no, I don't have a snake set. heh and you seem to agree that speed should mitigate incoming damage at 5-6km/s you aren't mitigating very much damage, defiantly not enough to tackle at least. ps: no tears from this amarr battleship pilot with falcon alt
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.07.30 19:42:00 - [107] Quote: Yes, but the thread against the nerf has way more people. So I haven't proven any of your points. I said that both sides have people with multiple accounts that likely cancel eachother out. The thread against the nerf has double the amount of pages... No Marcus, I'm sorry I meant my other point. That even people firmly against the changes almost universally agree that the current system is out of whack. Primarily the disagreement centers around what things the proposed patch will nerf, and to what degree. I don't think CCP is too far off with the "types" of things they are addressing... and I have no problem with them attempting to balance a number of things at once (as one bit at a time changes tend to make things worse, and make CCP look inept as a result). I am however looking very closely at the DEGREE to which certain things have been nerfed, and it's quite probably that a few of the changes need to be made a little less radical. It will probably take a while for any of us to make an informed opinion in that respect, as I don't think they are done tweaking other aspects of gameplay (explosion velocity on missiles and such). I think that all of the negative critisism that has been "constructive" and "factual" after obviously testing in a variety of circumstances is great. Those are the types of posts that the DEVS will be paying the most attention to, and rightly so. However the rash of CCP sucks, the game is ruined, I quit, WAAAAaaaaagh posts are nothing but a waste of time and space.
Faife Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa	Posted - 2008.07.30 19:56:00 - [108] god, i just can't figure out why devs don't bother posting much in the forums. really. i love the "you used the word 'invincible' and that clearly means you're a moron that needs to die because you were obviously not using it as an exaggeration but literally and you're never literally invincible oh my god you should die" crowd. overall, this whole thread does humanity a great service. the arguments, the flaming a dev trying to explain their rationale, the massive inability to sort out who's quoting whom... keep it up guys. well done. i'm already on the new FOTM. are you? - -
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.30 19:58:00 - [109] Edited by: Marcus Druallis on 30/07/2008 20:03:04 Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: Yes, but the thread against the nerf has way more people. So I haven't proven any of your points. I said that both sides have people with multiple accounts that likely cancel eachother out. The thread against the nerf has double the amount of pages... No Marcus, I'm sorry I meant my other point. That even people firmly against the changes almost universally agree that the current system is out of whack. Primarily the disagreement centers around what things the proposed patch will nerf, and to what degree. I don't think CCP is too far off with the "types" of things they are addressing... and I have no problem with them attempting to balance a number of things at once (as one bit at a time changes tend to make things worse, and make CCP look inept as a result). I am however looking very closely at the DEGREE to which certain things have been nerfed, and it's quite probably that a few of the changes need to be made a little less radical. It will probably take a while for any of us to make an informed opinion in that respect, as I don't think they are done tweaking other aspects of gameplay (explosion velocity on missiles and such). I think that all of the negative critisism that has been "constructive" and "factual" after obviously testing in a variety of circumstances is great. Those are the types of posts that the DEVS will be paying the most attention to, and rightly so. However the rash of CCP sucks, the game is ruined, I quit, WAAAAaaaaagh posts are nothing but a waste of time and space. It just angers me to no end that, as stated in the dev post, they sat down for 5 hours. 5 HOURS! Are you kidding? A supposed issue with that was hounded about for months, and you sit down for a few hours over a beer to discuss what you're gonna do? Then you walk out of the meeting and throw every single idea into the mix which completely obliterates the idea of a speed tank. CCP states that they want more options. Then why completely remove speed tanking. Don't tell me it's still viable. EDIT: Okay, I'll admit ships like Ishtar, and ships that can do full damage while maintaining a constant (while boosters remain) speed tank while doing full damage were a bit bullshit. But why did ships like vagabond need nerfing. You can't even do damage while MWDing, and MWD barely lasts. I mean cmon. --
Ephemeron Retribution Corp.	Posted - 2008.07.30 20:44:00 - [110] Originally by: CCP Taera You do not need to start over - speed is still a viable option, we've just made it an option instead of a mandatory tool for near invulnerabilty. Relatively speaking, Interceptors are actually getting a boost! Check it out on Singularity and give your feedback in the Features & Ideas Discussion forum. :) That's a wrong type of thinking. You have to understand the psychology of the powergamer before you throw such statements about. I am a powergamer. You said that "right now speed is mandatory". Do you understand why that is so? In theory, it is just another option. For a powergamer, there are no real options, there's just the best thing, which becomes mandatory. By removing speed as the best option, you simply shift focus to something else. Even if that something else is just 1% better than everything else, then 99% of powergamers will use that. People will start crying about how overpowered that option is because everyone is using it, even tho in reality it's just 1% better. You cannot remove "mandatory" setups from game, not while you allow powergamers to play. You know what would fix the current nano problem, bring balance to PvP? Banning of all the high skilled players who spend many hours a day training to fight. Yes, if you ban all the experts, you will achieve the balance you so desire. Don't believe me? try it on a test server, start some PvP fights and don't let any powergamers play on it. Quote: a mandatory tool for near invulnerabilty What is that? Ok, you are new in CCP, maybe you are new to EVE PvP as well. I shouldn't need to explain why that is a bad statement to make. There is no need for logicial arguments, just a listing of facts, that you need to learn: http://www.killboard.net/ http://www.eve-razor.com/killboard/?a=home https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/ http://killboard.red-alliance.su/ http://killboard.goonfleet.com/ Look at who's killing who, how many, and with what There's not a hint of unvulnerability. Everyobody dies. Why do so many people, who apparently play the game, have all these big opinions on what is going on with PvP if they refuse to look at the facts? Why do I have put force people to look at them as if I'm training a puppy not to pee on the floor?
Ephemeron Retribution Corp.	Posted - 2008.07.30 20:52:00 - [111] My solution? Admit and there will always be "the best" / "mandatory" setups and ship tactics. Choose the one that is the most enjoyable and least harmful. Stick with it. Speed is there now, speed is actually a fun mandatory tactic.
sg3s Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.30 20:55:00 - [112] Edited by: sg3s on 30/07/2008 20:55:28 The only problem I have now is that interceptors will become obsolete after the patch, because, as pointed out above, they die if they come within disruptor range of a battleship (or even destroyers and above). Really, think about it. Originally by: Tarminic Because even when EVE sucks, it sucks less than every other MMO out there.
Natalia Kovac Minmatar Phoenix Tribe	Posted - 2008.07.30 20:58:00 - [113] Originally by: Doc Fury Edited by: Doc Fury on 30/07/2008 04:12:05 Originally by: CCP Taera You do not need to start over - speed is still a viable option, we've just made it an option instead of a mandatory tool for near invulnerabilty. Relatively speaking, Interceptors are actually getting a boost! Check it out on Singularity and give your feedback in the Features & Ideas Discussion forum. :) It is reassuring to see the newbie DEV has already been fully briefed in CCP damage control and spin tactics level V. "The war with Eurasia goes well comrades! Enjoy your surplus chocolate rations!" Brilliant.
Kazuma Saruwatari Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.30 21:04:00 - [114] Originally by: CCP Taera You do not need to start over - speed is still a viable option, we've just made it an option instead of a mandatory tool for near invulnerabilty. Relatively speaking, Interceptors are actually getting a boost! Check it out on Singularity and give your feedback in the Features & Ideas Discussion forum. :) -
bloomich Caldari In Siders	Posted - 2008.07.30 21:06:00 - [115] Edited by: bloomich on 30/07/2008 21:07:35 Originally by: Faife god, i just can't figure out why devs don't bother posting much in the forums. Devs are following good game design, which is to see what the user ARE actually doing and not what they say they are doing. Remember Zerg rush in starcraft? Well, Blizzard ignored what people said they were doing and actually looked at what they were really doing. Turned out that countering the Zerg rush was harder than just zerg rushing back so they fixed it to be balanced. The original Red Alert was destroyed by player feedback. In the end, all multiplayer games were just who can build medium tanks faster. Ironically, the medium tank on the mov would take little damage so mass micromanagement won multiplayer games. Bottom line. Players know little. They are only good for highlighting a previously unknown issue. But NEVER beleive a players solution or future predictions. Use REAL data and REAL observation and never take a forum posters word for it. Nano reduced risk so much that it had to be nerfed.
bloomich Caldari In Siders	Posted - 2008.07.30 21:11:00 - [116] Originally by: Ephemeron http://www.killboard.net/ http://www.eve-razor.com/killboard/?a=home https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/ http://killboard.red-alliance.su/ http://killboard.goonfleet.com/ Look at who's killing who, how many, and with what There's not a hint of unvulnerability. Everyobody dies. Why do so many people, who apparently play the game, have all these big opinions on what is going on with PvP if they refuse to look at the facts? Why do I have put force people to look at them as if I'm training a puppy not to pee on the floor? Because a Users word for it only gives half the picture. E.G A killboard does not show the nanoships that got away. In fact, almost all nano kills on that killboard have a nanoship tackler (the only ones I could find without nanoship tackler are doomsday kills) CCP looked at how teh players were behaving and fixed not only nano issue and web being too strong issue, but also fixed the old problem of MWD being a 100% requirement on pvp ships. AB's are now viable on pvp ships. CCP thought this out well and they came up with a better long term solution that pretty much anybody here could.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.30 21:23:00 - [117] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 30/07/2008 21:23:47 Originally by: Marcus Druallis Pointing out that this change will ruin EVE? Pvpers never wanted the game changed. Whiners did. I'm a PvP-er and I'd be bored if we didn't have periodic changes. Takes a bit of a brain to adapt to new cirrumstances, which gives me a competitive advantage over FOTM followers tbh. I always used to call the whiners stupid, because you could fight nanos before, or at least fend them off, provided they don't outblob you. Now things are changing, and I will adapt again and be successful (as will many people). Whiners won't, and FOTM chasers won't either, I like it. Furthermore, the overall changes are way better then any of the 'nerf/adjust/etc nanos' people was championing anyway. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
chiefyuk Amarr The Doctrine	Posted - 2008.07.30 21:26:00 - [118] Originally by: CCP Taera You do not need to start over - speed is still a viable option, we've just made it an option instead of a mandatory tool for near invulnerabilty. Relatively speaking, Interceptors are actually getting a boost! Check it out on Singularity and give your feedback in the Features & Ideas Discussion forum. :) Nano fits were never mandatory. If that were so i would be taking down a pos in a vaga. Infact... i may even be trying to stop a bs blob from entering 0.0 with just a few nanoships. Il give you a hint, it doesnt work like that. Period. ------------------------------------------------ You can kill the protester but you cant kill the protest ------------------------------------------------
Ephemeron Retribution Corp.	Posted - 2008.07.30 21:31:00 - [119] The main reason why appear to be on a crusade against this nano nerf is because I whole heartedly beleive that the game will become less fun. For me, the fun factor is a major reason why I play
KISOGOKU	Posted - 2008.07.30 22:10:00 - [120] Edited by: KISOGOKU on 30/07/2008 22:11:02 Well an alliance tried to repelling a capital fleet and support with nanos at its own reinforced pos and you are telling nanos were not mandatory . You know their name Originally by: chiefyuk Nano fits were never mandatory. If that were so i would be taking down a pos in a vaga. Infact... i may even be trying to stop a bs blob from entering 0.0 with just a few nanoships.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: 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.