EVE Search - Physics in tracking: Unrealistic?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Physics in tracking: Unrealistic?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Captain Falcord Gallente Ghost Festival	Posted - 2008.11.06 12:47:00 - [1] I know, I know, game mechanics > realism, however, there's something that has always bugged me and I wondered if you find it a little annoying as well. When I first heard of the Vagabond and what the ship concept was about, I got really excited, because I assumed the Vagabond's tracking would be always perfect when fighting slow targets. Why? Because when you orbit someone, the body of your ship rotates to face him/her, therefore the turrets are not supposed to do that part of the effort, right? If the tracking mechanics were correct, you should only need to take into account the transversal generated by your target, and not yours (as long as you're orbiting) because the "side" of your ship moves, therefore, if you base your XYZ reference on the ship itself, there isn't any relative movement. (This would make vagabonds REALLY overpowered ^^) Just bored, don't flame me much :P ---<---@ JackFalcord
Rhatar Khurin Minmatar Free Ammatar Aid Organisation	Posted - 2008.11.06 12:50:00 - [2] Indeed, if you can orbit perfectly your guns do not even have to move therefor at exact optimal tracking so should in theory hit 99% of the time.
Vosk Gorn	Posted - 2008.11.06 12:50:00 - [3] This is very true, and always bugged the hell out of me too. For those of you whose brain is melting, point your arm at something in the middle of the room, then run circles around the object. Did your arm move? The problem is like you said, you thought nano was bad before, it would be insane with that sort of change.

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2008.11.06 12:51:00 - [4] That's not what I heard. Secure 3rd party service ■ Veldspar

Vosk Gorn	Posted - 2008.11.06 12:54:00 - [5] Originally by: Chribba That's not what I heard. Vague post is vague.
FlameGlow Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.06 12:59:00 - [6] Edited by: FlameGlow on 06/11/2008 13:00:02 Well, EVE physics in regard to tracking assumes ships to be a point, not some shape. That simplifies calculations but also is the reason why you can't hit at short range even as your target covers entire screen. For a point orientation of ship has no meaning as well, so you get exactly the same angular velocity relative to target as it gets to you. _____________ I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:00:00 - [7] You have to wonder what the original design thoughts were. It maybe that you had to pilot your ship manually always, there may not have been an orbit button. If that were true you'd never orbit perfectly, and the quality of your hits were dictated by how well you could maintain an orbit in flight. If that were true then I would expect missiles to be more powerful... but would you set them at what someone could do with guns perfect? or something less than perfect? May be where they ran into trouble, and decided to come up with a different system.
DubanFP Caldari Evil ALT Corp	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:02:00 - [8] Your mistake is assuming the actual movement speed of the turrets has anything to do with tracking. Tracking happens to be the digital movement of two objects through 3 dimensional space and how it relates to the 2 dimensional plane that surrounds your ship "as far as you v them is concerned". Additionally you need to compensate for where a ship will be when the rounds arrive which the difference depends on the target's angular velocity, not the actual movement of the turrets. If the turrets physically couldn't keep up them Tracking Computer II would be useless but it has little to do with it. It's about determining where a target is, where it will be, the correct angle of fire to directly intercept the target, and the angular velocity to turn the turrets in order to maintain a steady aim. These are all CPU intensive and are affected by both your position and your opponent's position as it changes how things act on the 2 Dimensional plane of angles that the turrets need to fire on. The idea that the other target doesn't move relative to your ship is a misconception at it's best, and completely false at it's worse. Even the velocity of your own ship will alter the round's trajectory as the bullets pick up the ship's inertia. From both a realism and gameplay perspective it simply makes sense. _______________ "White, Black, Minmitar, Achura, Male or Female it doesn't matter to me. I'm an equal opportunity killer"
Rhatar Khurin Minmatar Free Ammatar Aid Organisation	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:02:00 - [9] Anyway, i say do away with tracking altogether and lets just bring back the merry art of broadsides and fixed gun emplacements. Frigates can only fire directly ahead, cruisers upwards fire broadsides with the occasional shot from the bow or stern. YAR!
Vosk Gorn	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:02:00 - [10] Originally by: Christari Zuborov You have to wonder what the original design thoughts were. It maybe that you had to pilot your ship manually always, there may not have been an orbit button. If that were true you'd never orbit perfectly, and the quality of your hits were dictated by how well you could maintain an orbit in flight. If that were true then I would expect missiles to be more powerful... but would you set them at what someone could do with guns perfect? or something less than perfect? May be where they ran into trouble, and decided to come up with a different system. When the game was first created, there was no tracking system, all guns hit all the time.
Rhatar Khurin Minmatar Free Ammatar Aid Organisation	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:04:00 - [11] Originally by: DubanFP Even the velocity of your own ship will alter the round's trajectory as the bullets pick up the ship's inertia. From both a realism and gameplay perspective it simply makes sense. Lasers?
Vosk Gorn	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:05:00 - [12] Originally by: DubanFP If the turrets physically couldn't keep up them Tracking Computer II would be useless but it has little to do with it. It's about determining where a target is, where it will be, the correct angle of fire to directly intercept the target, and the angular velocity to turn the turrets in order to maintain a steady aim. These are all CPU intensive and are affected by both your position and your opponent's position as it changes how things act on the 2 Dimensional plane of angles that the turrets need to fire on. It the target is stationary, and your turret is on the correct side of the ship, it can remained 100% fixed and always be on the target if you are in a perfect orbit. Literally would not have to move, there would be no tracking involved.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:09:00 - [13] What we have in EVe is a forced orbit, one where the ship use constantly thrust to stay within an orbital path, not a orbit where gravitational forces keep the ship in its path. Left to the inertial and gravitational forces a ship would sail in the distant space, not orbit another ship (yes, it is much more complicated, but this is not a physic book). So in RL and EVE too your ship would be constantly applying lateral thrust to keep in his orbital path around an immoble target. That would require some level of tracking to keep up with the position of the target. If then we do that against a moving (even slow speed) target it become even more complicated as we are keeping a corkscrew path, not even a forced orbit. So it will always require some level of tracking, even if probably it shoul require less than what is required today.
Vosk Gorn	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:10:00 - [14] Originally by: Venkul Mul What we have in EVe is a forced orbit, one where the ship use constantly thrust to stay within an orbital path, not a orbit where gravitational forces keep the ship in its path. Left to the inertial and gravitational forces a ship would sail in the distant space, not orbit another ship (yes, it is much more complicated, but this is not a physic book). So in RL and EVE too your ship would be constantly applying lateral thrust to keep in his orbital path around an immoble target. That would require some level of tracking to keep up with the position of the target. If then we do that against a moving (even slow speed) target it become even more complicated as we are keeping a corkscrew path, not even a forced orbit. So it will always require some level of tracking, even if probably it shoul require less than what is required today. In this situation your ship would have tracking, not your guns, but yes this would make sense, but thats not how they have it setup in the game
DubanFP Caldari Evil ALT Corp	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:11:00 - [15] Originally by: Vosk Gorn It the target is stationary, and your turret is on the correct side of the ship, it can remained 100% fixed and always be on the target if you are in a perfect orbit. Literally would not have to move, there would be no tracking involved. This is just what I went over. Maybe from a physical movement perspective, but not from a tracking perspective. Sure they wind up cancelling out in the end but the computer still has to do a myriad of calculations to find the perfect trajectory to find out they they don't move much. The computer doesn't know the difference it still takes the same amount of work to figure it out. _______________ "White, Black, Minmitar, Achura, Male or Female it doesn't matter to me. I'm an equal opportunity killer"
Vosk Gorn	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:12:00 - [16] Edited by: Vosk Gorn on 06/11/2008 13:12:26 Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Vosk Gorn It the target is stationary, and your turret is on the correct side of the ship, it can remained 100% fixed and always be on the target if you are in a perfect orbit. Literally would not have to move, there would be no tracking involved. This is just what I went over. Maybe from a physical movement perspective, but not from a tracking perspective. Sure they wind up cancelling out in the end but the computer still has to do a myriad of calculations to find the perfect trajectory to find out they they don't move much. The computer doesn't know the difference it still takes the same amount of work to figure it out. In this situation your ship would have tracking, not your guns, but yes this would make sense, but thats not how they have it setup in the game
Captain Falcord Gallente Ghost Festival	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:14:00 - [17] Originally by: DubanFP Your mistake is assuming the actual movement speed of the turrets has anything to do with tracking. Tracking happens to be the digital movement of two objects through 3 dimensional space and how it relates to the 2 dimensional plane that surrounds your ship "as far as you v them is concerned". Additionally you need to compensate for where a ship will be when the rounds arrive which the difference depends on the target's angular velocity, not the actual movement of the turrets. If the turrets physically couldn't keep up them Tracking Computer II would be useless but it has little to do with it. It's about determining where a target is, where it will be, the correct angle of fire to directly intercept the target, and the angular velocity to turn the turrets in order to maintain a steady aim. These are all CPU intensive and are affected by both your position and your opponent's position as it changes how things act on the 2 Dimensional plane of angles that the turrets need to fire on. The idea that the other target doesn't move relative to your ship is a misconception at it's best, and completely false at it's worse. Even the velocity of your own ship will alter the round's trajectory as the bullets pick up the ship's inertia. From both a realism and gameplay perspective it simply makes sense. All that makes sense, But it's a much deeper analysis than what I was talking about :). Anyway, given all that, the influence of orbital speed should be much smaller than the raw speed, applied as if you were running past the target at 1m distance. And to the guy who said it would take much more calculations to considere ships as 3d objects instead of points... Not really, since you can tell where your ship is looking at, right? (therefore the server can, too ^^) ---<---@ JackFalcord
gfldex Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:14:00 - [18] It is totally unrealistic that a siege tower can move as fast as a food soldier. Chess really needs an overhaul. -- There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
Tzar'rim	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:17:00 - [19] Originally by: FlameGlow Edited by: FlameGlow on 06/11/2008 13:00:02 Well, EVE physics in regard to tracking assumes ships to be a point, not some shape. That simplifies calculations but also is the reason why you can't hit at short range even as your target covers entire screen. For a point orientation of ship has no meaning as well, so you get exactly the same angular velocity relative to target as it gets to you. This
Vosk Gorn	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:17:00 - [20] Originally by: gfldex It is totally unrealistic that a siege tower can move as fast as a food soldier. Chess really needs an overhaul. Yeah, queen is OP, I mean honestly, how would she ever kill a knight. She should be placed off game board in the kitchen cookin where she belongs.
Daevonar Minmatar Starfish Operating Syndicate	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:18:00 - [21] Originally by: Vosk Gorn It the target is stationary, and your turret is on the correct side of the ship, it can remained 100% fixed and always be on the target if you are in a perfect orbit. Literally would not have to move, there would be no tracking involved. How many targets are truly stationary? Everytime I've orbited a stationary target it seems my guns do indeed hit pretty much all the time. As has been said when the target is moving you 1. do not get a perfect orbit, at best its a spiral, and 2. you are not aiming at where the ship is now, but where it will be, which is affected by your orbital motion. As for lasers and such I agree that a laser beam has an almost instantaneous travel time at the kind of distances we use, however for balance they have to be treated the same. This is easily explained by saying that the delay between pressing the fire button/trigger/whatever and your shot hitting the target is not created by the beam travelling through space, but by the time it takes to generate the energy for the beam in the first place. Dae.
Captain Falcord Gallente Ghost Festival	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:22:00 - [22] Originally by: Daevonar Originally by: Vosk Gorn It the target is stationary, and your turret is on the correct side of the ship, it can remained 100% fixed and always be on the target if you are in a perfect orbit. Literally would not have to move, there would be no tracking involved. How many targets are truly stationary? Everytime I've orbited a stationary target it seems my guns do indeed hit pretty much all the time. As has been said when the target is moving you 1. do not get a perfect orbit, at best its a spiral, and 2. you are not aiming at where the ship is now, but where it will be, which is affected by your orbital motion. No, no. Your orbital motion doesn't matter at all, as long as you anchor your reference point to the ship axis. Imagine a 3 dimension space in which X always means left, Y front, and Z up, from your ship's point of view. Your rotational move is the only thing that matters, because the reference system changes. However, those small changes can be applied as extra "movement" for the objects you want to track. It's easy for a computer to calculate that ---<---@ JackFalcord
DubanFP Caldari Evil ALT Corp	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:36:00 - [23] Edited by: DubanFP on 06/11/2008 13:39:41 Originally by: Captain Falcord EDIT: I re-readed your post and I think I don't agree with your model of turret tracking. It makes sense, but it's not the optimal way for a CPU to do the tracking. It's like calculating a circular trajectory using the Cartesian Coordinate system: You can do that, but the Polar Coordinate system will make it much easier and save a lot of calculations. I'll be the first to admit i'm not the most experienced person with the Polar coordinate system. Still as far as I can see there's a couple problems with doing the analysis that way. It works fine if you're a steady reference point but you will have to adjust for your own weapon's inertia and changes in trajectory. Additinally all your turrets aren't located in the center of your ship nor are they located at the same point. You would need pinpoint accuracy which would mean every turret would need it's own reference point so you would have to make an enitrely new equation for every single turret you have fit and you would get wild changes mathmatically every time your ship turned "the turrets would be thrown around the centerpoint of your ship at high velocity". A Cartesian Coordinate System would place more definate significance on the locations of you and the target. Your opponent's location would be more definate and you would only have to recalculate the the final part of the equation to account for the slight changes in your turret location. _______________ "White, Black, Minmitar, Achura, Male or Female it doesn't matter to me. I'm an equal opportunity killer"
Mithfindel Gallente Gariushi Foundation	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:38:00 - [24] Originally by: Venkul Mul What we have in EVe is a forced orbit, one where the ship use constantly thrust to stay within an orbital path, not a orbit where gravitational forces keep the ship in its path. Left to the inertial and gravitational forces a ship would sail in the distant space, not orbit another ship (yes, it is much more complicated, but this is not a physic book). So in RL and EVE too your ship would be constantly applying lateral thrust to keep in his orbital path around an immoble target. That would require some level of tracking to keep up with the position of the target. If then we do that against a moving (even slow speed) target it become even more complicated as we are keeping a corkscrew path, not even a forced orbit. So it will always require some level of tracking, even if probably it shoul require less than what is required today. Try again. Gravity is a very weak force at long ranges, specially when the shell part of the ammunition can be assumed to weight very little in the astronomical scale. Technically the explanation could indeed be that the other ship maneuvers trying to "dodge" shots (even if it actually doesn't do that ingame, expect in cases where the target tries to keep transversal up, too), so the orbit is never exactly perfect. Stationary targets do break this, however, since you end up with stationary targets requiring tracking, as well. Technically it'd be a simple fix to count the angular velocity and subtract the change in the angle of the ship's course from it. Even if the ship is considered to be a point in space with no direction, we still can use its velocity vector to estimate where its fore is pointing, for example.
Captain Falcord Gallente Ghost Festival	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:43:00 - [25] Edited by: Captain Falcord on 06/11/2008 13:44:26 Originally by: DubanFP A Cartesian Coordinate System would place more definate significance on the locations of you and the target. Your opponent's location would be more definate and you would only have to the the final part of the equation for each individual weapon. It's cool to have discussions like this, they help me with my homework ^^. You have a point there... however, I still think everything would be easier with a polar, or spherical, coordinate system. The real life cannon tracking systems use spherical coordinates, which basically take into account horizontal angle, vertical angle, and radius. If you set up a range of angles every singular turret can't point to (let's say forbidden angles, because the turret would point to the ship), you forget the problem of shooting yourself. Also, when you're shooting at distances like 10-100 km, the little 9 meters between turrets can be neglected. Therefore, the only calculations you need to do would be applying your base acceleration to the equation, to calculate the extra momentum the projectile gets (that's just a bit of trigonometry) and the target's relative transversal. I might be missing something though.. dunno :S ---<---@ JackFalcord
IR Scoutar Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:49:00 - [26] Originally by: DubanFP Edited by: DubanFP on 06/11/2008 13:18:02 Your mistake is assuming the actual movement speed of the turrets has anything to do with tracking. Tracking happens to be the digital movement of two objects through 3 dimensional space and how it relates to the 2 dimensional plane that surrounds your ship "as far as you v them is concerned". Additionally you need to compensate for where a ship will be when the rounds arrive which depends on the target's angular velocity, not the actual movement of the turrets. If the turrets physically couldn't keep up then Tracking Computer II would be useless but it has little to do with it. It's about determining where a target is, where it will be, the correct angle of fire to directly intercept the target, and the angular velocity to turn the turrets in order to maintain a steady aim. These are all CPU intensive and are affected by both your position and your opponent's position as it changes how things act on the 2 Dimensional plane of angles that the turrets need to fire on. The idea that the other target doesn't move relative to your ship is a misconception at it's best, and completely false at it's worse. Even the velocity of your own ship will alter the round's trajectory as the bullets pick up the ship's inertia. From both a realism and gameplay perspective it simply makes sense. yes and no your explenation would have consequence on any other system that requires "interaction" with a target aswell (works great irl thou ... ) Originally by: Rhatar Khurin Anyway, i say do away with tracking altogether and lets just bring back the merry art of broadsides and fixed gun emplacements. Frigates can only fire directly ahead, cruisers upwards fire broadsides with the occasional shot from the bow or stern. YAR! this a thousand times (and some special ships that do the head on thing )
Tzar'rim	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:50:00 - [27] Tracking wasn't added to add realism, it was added to add balance and gameplay. The direction your guns/ship are facing has nothing to do with the tracking calculations in EVE since the game only calculates points and vectors. So both you and your target will have exactly the same transversal and angular speed towards eachother. This isn't a spacesim :)
Captain Falcord Gallente Ghost Festival	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:54:00 - [28] Originally by: Tzar'rim Tracking wasn't added to add realism, it was added to add balance and gameplay. The direction your guns/ship are facing has nothing to do with the tracking calculations in EVE since the game only calculates points and vectors. So both you and your target will have exactly the same transversal and angular speed towards eachother. This isn't a spacesim :) Yeah, well, the problem with this thread is that we're discussing two different topics: What CCP does, and what an in-game tracking system would do under a "roleplay" perspective, if you know what I mean. Obviously, CCP model is quite simplified and easy to understand. However, it's cool to think how many theoretical calculations would a real turret need to do :). ---<---@ JackFalcord
Chimii Lecto Gallente	Posted - 2008.11.06 14:15:00 - [29] Linakage to my old thread. ---------- /Pretty Posting.
Omarvelous Caldari Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2008.11.06 14:52:00 - [30] Dude - you can shoot through asteroids and spaceships - explain that first before you worry about tracking calculations! Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
Capn' Krunch Gallente Pluralistic Intentions Guild Services	Posted - 2008.11.06 15:51:00 - [31] Edited by: Capn'' Krunch on 06/11/2008 15:51:15 Immortal spaceship pilots who spend their existence in pod of goo.. Unrealistic?? >-------------------------------------------------< Asteroids are my breakfast cereal.
IR Scoutar Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.11.06 16:09:00 - [32] Originally by: Capn' Krunch Edited by: Capn'' Krunch on 06/11/2008 15:51:15 Immortal spaceship pilots who spend their existence in pod of goo.. Unrealistic?? nope perfectly fine immortal spaceship pilts that have their conciousness downloaded to a clone at the other end of the galaxy even when instapopped... mmmmm
Ehranavaar	Posted - 2008.11.06 17:12:00 - [33] the tracking issue is greatly overblown in eve. even today with our meagre tech we have weapon systems that can pick a 5" shell out of the air multiple km from the ship shooting at it. even the smallest frigates are a couple thousand tonnes which is to say larger than a modern patrol frigate. the question really ought to be how the heck do you miss something that size orbiting your ship at 4 km. you are after all aiming at where it will be not where it is.
Writt Inwater	Posted - 2008.11.06 17:29:00 - [34] Orbiting is a much bigger physics hole than tracking. A ship trying to fly in circles around another ship would have to accelerate / decelerate its entire mass four times in order to complete a single orbit: At the top of the circle, your velocity is 100% east At the right of the circle, your velocity is 100% south At the bottom, 100% west At the left, 100% north. It would be much, much faster to accelerate in a series of straight lines towards your target, then flip around and decelerate in a series of straight lines. In short - no reason whatsoever to for a ship to 'orbit' another ship.
Fistme	Posted - 2008.11.06 17:46:00 - [35] Originally by: Writt Inwater In short - no reason whatsoever to for a ship to 'orbit' another ship. Fail...
Spurty Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.11.06 18:42:00 - [36] has anyone mentioned centrifugal forces, inertia and momentum yet in this thread? Man goes to the doc, with a strawberry growing out of his head. Doc says "I'll give you some cream to put on it."
Stunna Shade	Posted - 2008.11.06 19:42:00 - [37] Dont worry, you wont have anymore tracking problems on your vaga when the nano-nerf hits.
LoKesh Amarr InQuest Ascension Skunk-Works	Posted - 2008.11.06 20:15:00 - [38] I only read through the first page, so my apologies if someone actually posted this on page two. I saw a lot of good logic, without the most important fact. Watch a drone orbit something (make sure you have trails on). The drone doesn't go in a circle - it makes a series of discrete turns to stay near the target. Your ship (in Eve) orbits the same way, although the turns are often smaller and more frequent. So - your orbit isn't circular, but is actually a polygon. At any given point your traveling along a straight line while your target is stationary. Hence - tracking applies to your guns. xFoundation, xVC, xRISE Proudly serving Skunk-Works
Korbann Domini Umbrus R.U.R.	Posted - 2008.11.06 20:18:00 - [39] Originally by: Writt Inwater Orbiting is a much bigger physics hole than tracking. A ship trying to fly in circles around another ship would have to accelerate / decelerate its entire mass four times in order to complete a single orbit: At the top of the circle, your velocity is 100% east At the right of the circle, your velocity is 100% south At the bottom, 100% west At the left, 100% north. It would be much, much faster to accelerate in a series of straight lines towards your target, then flip around and decelerate in a series of straight lines. In short - no reason whatsoever to for a ship to 'orbit' another ship. Sorry buddy, looks like you need some basic physics courses, circular paths (orbit) = constant acceleration.
Mithos Victus Minmatar	Posted - 2008.11.06 20:22:00 - [40] Edited by: Mithos Victus on 06/11/2008 20:26:10 So let me get this straight even though I am sure it has been addressed in one fashion or another already. So... you want realism that is entertaining but not realism that is detrimental to the game play experience? Please define entertaining. Okay, fine, loaded question. For argument's sake, why are you not just as concerned about there being a distinct lack of pitch, roll, and yaw in the game's combat mechanic esp. concerning being hit by a considerably powerful payload of cruise missiles one after the other and your ship remains on course and tracking of your own guns is unaffected. Or how ships with only rear thrusters can decelerate at all in a frictionless medium when you never see separate thrusters firing graphically? Or why damage through to structure or armor does not randomly destroy external modules. After all, ship destruction itself does already. Where does it end? It ends somewhere along the lines too much of a good thing. The game is just complicated enough to warrant that the person playing it, should they actually want to understand the intricacies of the game, probably needs to have a high school education or better (esp. when it comes to some of the finer points of marketing). CCP has done a good job of giving us just enough complicated mathematic, geometry, and kinematics to make things interesting and entertaining without bludgeoning us to death with the reality that space combat would be so technical to the point you'd have to study it for years just to participate let alone dominate. How many years do you think the average air force training regimen lasts before being sent off to active duty? Leave the rest to the rocket scientists, alright?

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.