EVE Search - Stop Denaturing Eve

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Stop Denaturing Eve

» 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)
Gael Itrus	Posted - 2008.11.12 01:49:00 - [1] My proposal is simple: roll back every nerf you've deployed over the last 3 years, and start creating content for your customers. Fancy graphics and pretty explosions are great, but the truth is this game is about war. If there were no combat in Eve you wouldn't have a game, and it was under these pretenses that I started playing Eve in the first place. The difference is that in a war, you have multiple sides in a continual arms race to destroy one-another, whereas in eve, you have multiple sides nerf'ing their weapons to play nice and keep in fair. I don't care about "balance". If my missiles can't hit a nano'd vaga then I want longer ranged stasis webs and stasis bubbles. Instead you release an expansion that is 80% nerfs. That might abate some whining, but it also threatens to make you exactly like your MMO competition. Imagine that. You could have created new weapons and ships to counter overpowered torpedo's, nano'd vagabonds, etc. Instead you implement sweeping changes across the board in the name of "balance." That isn't what I'm paying for. Thanks
jason malitz	Posted - 2008.11.12 01:54:00 - [2] Originally by: Gael Itrus My proposal is simple: roll back every nerf you've deployed over the last 3 years, and start creating content for your customers. Fancy graphics and pretty explosions are great, but the truth is this game is about war. If there were no combat in Eve you wouldn't have a game, and it was under these pretenses that I started playing Eve in the first place. The difference is that in a war, you have multiple sides in a continual arms race to destroy one-another, whereas in eve, you have multiple sides nerf'ing their weapons to play nice and keep in fair. I don't care about "balance". If my missiles can't hit a nano'd vaga then I want longer ranged stasis webs and stasis bubbles. Instead you release an expansion that is 80% nerfs. That might abate some whining, but it also threatens to make you exactly like your MMO competition. Imagine that. You could have created new weapons and ships to counter overpowered torpedo's, nano'd vagabonds, etc. Instead you implement sweeping changes across the board in the name of "balance." That isn't what I'm paying for. Thanks well i agree to a point ok but in all truth keep the up grades but add more systems and more combat ready ships
Pheonix Dragoon	Posted - 2008.11.12 02:13:00 - [3] Originally by: Gael Itrus My proposal is simple: roll back every nerf you've deployed over the last 3 years, and start creating content for your customers. Fancy graphics and pretty explosions are great, but the truth is this game is about war. If there were no combat in Eve you wouldn't have a game, and it was under these pretenses that I started playing Eve in the first place. The difference is that in a war, you have multiple sides in a continual arms race to destroy one-another, whereas in eve, you have multiple sides nerf'ing their weapons to play nice and keep in fair. I don't care about "balance". If my missiles can't hit a nano'd vaga then I want longer ranged stasis webs and stasis bubbles. Instead you release an expansion that is 80% nerfs. That might abate some whining, but it also threatens to make you exactly like your MMO competition. Imagine that. You could have created new weapons and ships to counter overpowered torpedo's, nano'd vagabonds, etc. Instead you implement sweeping changes across the board in the name of "balance." That isn't what I'm paying for. Thanks Amen...tired of seeing my ship builds go down the hole.
Righteous Deeds Diverse Endeavors	Posted - 2008.11.12 02:25:00 - [4] Edited by: Righteous Deeds on 12/11/2008 02:25:42 Agree with the OP completely. Does it even matter anymore what race you choose? They're all the same but for a couple of starting skills. The weapons have different names and graphics, but they all have essentially the same capabilities. CCP needs to stop giving in to the call for changing the rules from the vocal minority, and leave well enough alone. Any balance issues should be dealt with, if at all, with the slow development of counter technologies. And really, it's OK for the races to have different capabilities. I'm sick of wasting my time with a skill plan not knowing what the rules are going to be 3 months later. Focus on improvements, not this continuous changing how things work.
Gael Itrus	Posted - 2008.11.12 04:39:00 - [5] No I don't see a meaningful difference in the races anymore, which is odd for all of CCP's talk of what is and isn't in the spirit of Eve. Whenever these nerfs happen I hear PVP pilots say "adapt or die," but the truth is the game is being nerfed precisely because they adapted. CCP isn't supporting creativity, they are enforcing homogeneity. After Quantum Rise is deployed we will watch the entire PVP landscape change for a few months. Dominant strategies will re-emerge, and eventually we will see CCP nerf their game again. There is an obvious and better way of handling this.
Doc Iridium Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.11.12 05:24:00 - [6] I do tend to agree about CCP nerfing being bad. In games, if you have a long term balance issue, you fix it by giving more to players, not taking things away. Depending on what actually happens with T3 ships, this may be partly moot in a few months, but it is a pattern that CCP does need to look at. My understanding of the T3 ships is that they will be modular. Hopefully they will be cross-race modular. This might end up causing some pilots to fly ships even uglier than current Minmatar ships, and less symmetrical than Caldari ships, but it should allow pilots to have a lot more control over what their ships can actually do. Only time will tell. I fly only Amarr ships with this character. If I can fly an Amarr base ship with a good armor tank, a Minmatar module that allows me to have webber bonuses and a Caldari module to give me missile bonuses? Hrmmm. Sold. Provided of course that webbers and missiles are still worthwhile in 6 months. meh. Well, I've said my piece - wait, is that Veldspar over there? Woot!
Dasfry Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.12 09:31:00 - [7] Edited by: Dasfry on 12/11/2008 09:32:08 Originally by: Righteous Deeds ...I'm sick of wasting my time with a skill plan not knowing what the rules are going to be 3 months later... I realize i'm taking what you said here out of context. But just to address what your sick of... It sounds like u want a static game universe. This is NOT what I want I like a ever changing and growing universe, adapting to it is part of the fun. *********** Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation Military Tactics
Doc Iridium Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.11.12 10:10:00 - [8] Originally by: Dasfry Edited by: Dasfry on 12/11/2008 09:32:08 Originally by: Righteous Deeds ...I'm sick of wasting my time with a skill plan not knowing what the rules are going to be 3 months later... I realize i'm taking what you said here out of context. But just to address what your sick of... It sounds like u want a static game universe. This is NOT what I want I like a ever changing and growing universe, adapting to it is part of the fun. I'm pretty certain the OP wants that as well, they just don't like having their learned skills being made less useful over time. When you spend weeks or months training to use a ship, expecting one thing, then you get it, spend some time in it, and then rules change making that ship less effective than it was, that's a letdown. There were lots of people throwing their hands up in the air in disgust when they broke nosferatus, for instance. Many people put significant time into training nosferatu skills and Amarr cruiser / recon ships + drones skills because the Force Recon Curse was a very potent solo 0.0 ship with it's nosferatu and drone bonuses. Then nosferatus were changed to be far less potent. CCP should be more concerned with developing counters for overly potent equipment, rather than nerfing it. Especially equipment that has been overly potent for a very long time. If there is a release and within a week or so it is adjusted, no big deal (freighter cargo capacity was changed quickly when people started talking about hauling dreads and carriers around in them in highsec, for example). If something is in game for months, even years, then it gets changed, people are gonna be annoyed. Well, I've said my piece - wait, is that Veldspar over there? Woot!
Righteous Deeds Diverse Endeavors	Posted - 2008.11.12 11:33:00 - [9] I'm not looking for a static environment. I've said the same thing after the last 3-4 changes. No more nerfs, no more buffs. Evolve and expand. It's how the universe really works, and it's how games are played. I'm tired of buying a radio to see it spontaneously become a toaster three months later.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.11.12 11:35:00 - [10] I'm going to do something I rarely do here, which is rant, because I'm so sick and tired of these pompous asshat whines. Originally by: Gael Itrus I don't care about "balance". This quote alone shows that the OP has no idea what he is talking about. Go design and run your own MMO, or join CCP, if you think you have such a great and vast knowledge to improve EVE. Somehow I bet you're not prepared to step up to that challenge but instead wish to whine from the shadows. Secondly, whilst denature is potentially technically accurate, it refers to protein chains specifically. I've a chemistry background prior to moving into software development so I can't help but be pedantic. What you are asking for is bigger better stuff to counter broken mechanics. What a great idea. Why didn't anyone else think of that? I can't imagine why... Possibly because this is a game, not real life. Did the consequences of what you're requesting even begin to flicker through your brain? Originally by: Gael Itrus That isn't what I'm paying for. Then go away and stop paying for it. If I had an ISK for every whine or rant over the last year or more that finished with 'this isn't what I'm paying for' or 'me and my accounts are unsubscribing' and yet the posters curiously enough don't leave, I'd be substantially richer than I am now. Seriously, had you come in and said 'here's an idea, how about greater player-driven arms development instead of static weapons fed by CCP' I could have debated about that and would have had time for it - but no, you had to come in and whine as though you're right and anyone else who disagrees is wrong. I'm bloody sick and tired of all this negativity as though somehow this doesn't happen in every online game ever written and every time some poor soul's learned skills (including mine, thank you very much) are less meaningful thanks to changes, it's like the world ended. Grow up. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects

Koyama Ise Caldari Equestrian Knight Order of Lolicon	Posted - 2008.11.12 11:55:00 - [11] Originally by: Doc Iridium I'm pretty certain the OP wants that as well, they just don't like having their learned skills being made less useful over time. Or just being changed completely. Boost don't nerf, unless it's absolutely necessary.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.11.12 12:08:00 - [12] Originally by: Koyama Ise Or just being changed completely. Boost don't nerf, unless it's absolutely necessary. Boosting is a nerf. It's semantics. Increase X, decrease Y, it has the same relative effect. The distinction is whether you go for game balance - a level playing field where you try and keep everything relatively the same level - or ever bigger increases to compensate for player ingenuity. The former is stable. The latter is unstable. Which would you pick for a long-lived game? ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Angel Guardian	Posted - 2008.11.12 12:29:00 - [13] Originally by: Astria Tiphareth Secondly, whilst denature is potentially technically accurate, it refers to protein chains specifically. I've a chemistry background prior to moving into software development so I can't help but be pedantic. sorry to drag this off topic for a moment but that word is not just specific to that the simple definition is simply to deprive of natural qualities. for example denatured fissile material is material that has been rendered unusable in weapons. Its also used to describe the process of making something that would normally be drinkable (say methalated Spirits) not drinkable. ItÆs a word that has a very specific meaning but only within cirten industries. Out side of them it mean something different (like corporate buzz words) If you want new content you will need nerfbats and what you propose would make eve a massively complex game. Such that after several expantions you would need to be some sort of cyborg to work out if you have attuly fitted your ship in a reasonable way.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.11.12 12:49:00 - [14] Originally by: Angel Guardian sorry to drag this off topic for a moment but that word is not just specific to that the simple definition is simply to deprive of natural qualities. for example denatured fissile material is material that has been rendered unusable in weapons. Its also used to describe the process of making something that would normally be drinkable (say methalated Spirits) not drinkable. ItÆs a word that has a very specific meaning but only within cirten industries. Out side of them it mean something different (like corporate buzz words) Also sorry to drag off-topic, but fascinating, thanks, I'd never heard it used outside of the biological/chemical context except in corporate buzzwords, which don't count. I'm still not convinced it applies to EVE but anyway, enough off-topic-ary. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Gael Itrus	Posted - 2008.11.12 13:41:00 - [15] Edited by: Gael Itrus on 12/11/2008 13:42:11 Originally by: Astria Tiphareth Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 12/11/2008 12:09:29 Originally by: Koyama Ise Or just being changed completely. Boost don't nerf, unless it's absolutely necessary. Boosting is a nerf. It's semantics. Increase X, decrease Y, it has the same relative effect. The distinction is whether you go for game balance - a level playing field where you try and keep everything relatively the same level - or ever bigger increases to compensate for player ingenuity. The former is stable. The latter is unstable. Which would you pick for a long-lived game? The problem being that the former isn't stable; player innovation will continue, and the game will see nerfs indefinitely. After five years of this it's a safe conclusion that balance with Eve's mechanics isn't really possible. The real difference between nerfs and what is being discussed here is that with this methodology your character doesn't watch entire skill trees rendered useless every 5 months. The game would see a net increase in weapon and ship diversity, with the effect that your ship is affective sometimes, as opposed to never.
Sir Substance Minmatar MagiTech Alliance Inc. MagiTech Corp	Posted - 2008.11.12 14:29:00 - [16] Originally by: Gael Itrus After five years of this it's a safe conclusion that balance with Eve's mechanics isn't really possible. then what we need to strive for is more rapidly fluctuating imbalance. for the longest time, the amarr players complained that they were the worst race. then changes were made, and the amarr got a bit better, while the caldari got worse. now, the dial has swung again, and the gallente and minni are getting indirect nerfs, by the damage to webbers, speed and MWD's. currently, these swings between the powerful races are taking a long time. perhaps, they should be shorter. im not saying CCP should go "ok, its minnis turn to be epic, give all their stuff a 10% boost next patch". but make more on the fly, reactionary adjustments, and make them frequently. keep changing and rebalancing stuff every month or so, without really big boosts or really big nerfs, just tweaks. if we cant get a constant image of balance, we should go for the CRT effect. rapid enough change can seem fair, even if its not. sure, maybe my webbers got nerfed to hell this month. but next month, large projectiles get a buff? - PvPers always say "GB2WoW". the message is that EVE is hard, and people just need to deal with it. wasn't it funny how when nano's started making it hard for them, that all went out the window?
Mithrandere	Posted - 2008.11.12 16:29:00 - [17] I could'nt agree more (to a point). I dont know about rolling the last 3 years of nerfs back, coz I havent been playing that long. But I do think nerfs are a poor excuse for actually DEVELOPING a game - see my angle on this in the 'Anti Nerfing' topics: part 1: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=921524 part 2: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=921525 part 3: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=921530 Come on CCP someone must be able to hear us!
Washell Olivaw	Posted - 2008.11.12 16:33:00 - [18] Originally by: Gael Itrus My proposal is simple: roll back every nerf you've deployed over the last 3 years, and start creating content for your customers. I recommend you read the patch notes for the last 3 years, then come back and say you still want this. Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
Gael Itrus	Posted - 2008.11.12 17:51:00 - [19] Edited by: Gael Itrus on 12/11/2008 17:52:24 Edited by: Gael Itrus on 12/11/2008 17:51:09 Originally by: Washell Olivaw Originally by: Gael Itrus My proposal is simple: roll back every nerf you've deployed over the last 3 years, and start creating content for your customers. I recommend you read the patch notes for the last 3 years, then come back and say you still want this. Like Battleships Online, or ships achieving near warp-velocities with mods. What we have is a sandbox MMO where players are systematically punished for using it as such. If CCP relishes emergent behavior, why do they release regular patches intentionally designed to destroy it? They should be applying resources towards developing counter-technologies and expanding the box.
Nicoli Malthus Caldari The First Somerset Strikers	Posted - 2008.11.12 17:58:00 - [20] Originally by: Righteous Deeds I'm tired of buying a radio to see it spontaneously become a toaster three months later. My sentiments exactly!!!!

Sin Demon	Posted - 2008.11.12 18:58:00 - [21] I agree 100%. CCP doesn't have ANY respect for the customers. It doens't matter how long someone trained to achieve a specific goal, they simply change the rules and you must complain. It's something like to change the ball's size and weight diring a footbal match just coz you think it's too heavy. Dammit, this may make things easier for noobs but definetly is very nasty to older players.
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.11.12 19:49:00 - [22] I admit, it would have been nice if CCP took an 'advance, counter advance' approach to balance,.. or even a versioning approach... rather then the immersion-breaking nerf-centric policy. I could maybe see them sharding a 'classic' server,.. something based off the 2003 code.
ollobrains2 Gallente New Eve Order Holdings	Posted - 2008.11.12 21:28:00 - [23] u do realise they have added a lot of content Their 3 main customers are Macro miners and ratters and mission gold farmers 0.0 Alliance pvpers Mission carebears in empire
chao226 Wildcats Strike Back	Posted - 2008.11.12 23:51:00 - [24] I think the Issue with nerfing is the effort to balance the game in one area will cause another to become unbalanced. current example is the nano nerf imo this was needed as nano gangs were insanely overpowerd and it gavethe abiliy to chose fights 2 esily. before the nano gangs became a huge issue u had the nos nerf this i peronaly hated for about1 month untill i adapted to useing nutralisers on my dommi however people that piloted other ships i.e a raven stoped thowing a nos on the spare hich slot. nos as t was was an exalent wepon against nano ships but sincethe nerf u are only relly gonna see em on dommi and phoons so nano pilots can esiliy tell when targes posethem a threat and what range to stay safe at. the current nano nerf imo will causeremote rep battleship gangs to make a huge comeback and be next on the nerf list. what I would say myself is best thing ccp can do at sorting the balance issue is look at all the past nerfs and ask if its still relivent with current game mechanics some nerfs may we welcomed if reversed. in my opinion the costant nerfing is unbalanced game mechanics is leading us down one path the unbalances are getting worse and i can think fo 2 reasons for this. 1. with each new nerf someting else is getting made useless or below avarage and rarely used (i dont think nanoswill be a big thing anymore) 2. some previos nerfs have destoyed wepomns that could have been used against current issues due to the nerfing thereare becomeing lessand less variaty as there becpomes less viable gang setups more people with be flying each type of setup and as a result the overpowerd onbe will become more quickly dominent. sorry for rableing on and apoliges for spelling i'm a drunk dyslexic person
Korovyov Luminous Love Brewery	Posted - 2008.11.13 01:03:00 - [25] Originally by: Gael Itrus My proposal is simple: roll back every nerf you've deployed over the last 5 years, and start creating meaningful, non-repetitive content for your loyalist sycophants. Fancy graphics and pretty explosions are fail, because every company does them better than you. The truth is this game is about resource gathering and crafting. If there were no asteroid belts in Eve you wouldn't have an economy simulator, and it was under false pretenses that I started playing Eve in the first place. The difference is that in a real world economy, you have multiple sides in a continual profit race where competitors buyout, takeover, murder, and/or each other senseless, whereas in eve, you have multiple sides holding hands and kissing while pretending EVE is about combat as CCP slowly removes it from the game. I don't care about "balance". If my strip miners can't hit a can flipping Ibis then I want candy corn and soda pop. Instead you release an expansion that allows me to mine faster in high security, which is totally awesome and I forgive you for the lack of candy corn and soda pop. That might abate some inflation, but it also threatens to make you exactly like Sim City. Imagine that. You could have created new trade items and mining barges to counter overpowered Tech 2 BPOs, Player Owned Stations, etc. Instead you implement the worst name in history for a mining command ship. I mean seriously. Orca? I don't want anything to do with killing baby seals. That isn't what I'm paying for. Thanks EPIC FIX! ENJOY! --=--=-- train exhumers to 5 --=--=-- i see what you did here
Sir Substance Minmatar MagiTech Alliance Inc. MagiTech Corp	Posted - 2008.11.13 01:03:00 - [26] Originally by: chao226 sorry for rableing on and apoliges for spelling i'm a drunk dyslexic person it was surprisingly understandable :P and i agree, CCP should consider rolling back some of the nerfs that are no longer a problem. - PvPers always say "GB2WoW". the message is that EVE is hard, and people just need to deal with it. wasn't it funny how when nano's started making it hard for them, that all went out the window?
chao226 Wildcats Strike Back	Posted - 2008.11.13 15:09:00 - [27] Originally by: Sir Substance Originally by: chao226 sorry for rableing on and apoliges for spelling i'm a drunk dyslexic person it was surprisingly understandable :P and i agree, CCP should consider rolling back some of the nerfs that are no longer a problem. exactly I think ccp should look at previos nerfs I agree with a lot of the nerfs best example is when misstiles were changed so u coluldent load cruise misstiles into a kestral that was odviosly way outbalanced. however some nerfs have had unforseen side effects that have caused other areas to become huge problems. nanos have been nerfed sevral times but they never became a huge issue untill recently even before when they wre even more overpowerd. my issue with nerfs and i'll usethe nano and nos nerf as an example. both were overpowerd t the point they were the i win stratagy however the nerfs have made them pointless. nos went from beoing overpowerd to being almost useless similar with recent nano nerf. all I would like to see is previos nerfs being looked at and saying in the current situation is it still needed, can we make changes to bost that area sligtly without makeing it over powered. and i am a fan of adding a new wepon to combat a problem rather than changeing the mechanics to break the issue.
eliminator2 Gallente Fatality. Heretic Nation	Posted - 2008.11.13 15:25:00 - [28] Edited by: eliminator2 on 13/11/2008 15:25:59 i agree with the op when i started playing this game 2 nearly 3 years ago i loved it the PVP and PVE and mining 0.0 warefare everything was good the new ships and graphics and upgrades were good but the nerfs were really really bad i never liked nerfs and how in the hell is this game meant to get more realistic as you CCP want it to be if you nerf stuff i mean come on in a real war you wouldnt nerf your best stuff because it is "fair" to the other side you would use it to you advantage and the enemy would come up with strategy which we was doing untill someone was CBA to come up with them so he/she moaned and whined about it EDIT: some nerf are really good though for outbalanced stuff etc domi with thoughs loads of drones it used to have and the thing with kestrels posted above me nerf the wayoutbalanced stuff but not the minor stuff that is easy to beat
Sin Demon	Posted - 2008.11.22 03:51:00 - [29] I agree 100%. I trained like hell for a looong time to be a specialist Curse and Ishtar pilot using Nos + drones. 1st they nerfed the NOS 2nd they nerfed drones with the bandwidth thing 3rd they nerfed drones again, and web and warp disruptor. Then they screwed with assault frigates and HACs resistences. The fact in all of those nerfs is simple: Instead of NERFING things, just create another counter-measure (or counter tactics) module. Wanna stop down nano ships ? Make Webs more efficient against nano fitted ships. Simple, elegant and not betraying old players. Wanna counter cruise missiles against frigates ? Make frig signatures smaller ! This game had its quality dropped a lot along the time. No marketing on Earth will make me believe that those new nerfs were really necessary. 90% of the new features are CRAP. CCP said a lot about exploration. Don't make me laugh ! Same with Factional Warfare. It sucks.. Just for noobs and that's it ! CCP doesn't have any respect with the players, specially the old ones.
Ackuula	Posted - 2008.11.22 15:50:00 - [30] The problem with OP proposal is that it is not simple, not even a little. The reason you are seeing nerfs all the time is because the underlying engine that powers Eve can not do what you want it to do. The latest example, the speed nerf. The Dev's flat out tried just making the missles fly faster and catch their targets, but since this is a game, not a simulation, the end result was not the target getting destroyed like you would think. Personally I'd like to see all ships and modules have a series number, that has a little lore attached to it. All BPO's would be BPC's and the nerf's would come out through a series change. Once all the old BPC copies were used up and the built ships were destroyed they'd be gone forever. Megathron Mark I - base issue Megathron Mark II - due to a shortage of parts after company XYZ went bankrupt the new models no longer can fit warp stabs without a targeting pentalty Megathron Mark III - Gallente scientists experimenting with new fabrication processess came up with an armor that has 5% less mass and 7% more resistances as a counter to the Caldari's new missiles Megathron Mark IV a new supplier was picked to provide power grid for the MIV, the new system has a 3% boost compared to the MIII's .... etc, etc Doing it this way would cause nerf's to hurt a lot less in the short term, but the end result would be the necessary changes could be made to keep the game engine from acting wonky. One of these day's maybe they'll come up with a game engine that is more simulation and less game, so that we can have progressive improvements. Ships that fly faster and hit harder without gameplay suffering and the added benefit of old antiques kicking around in to add a little flavor, but until they do they definitely need to come up with a player friendly method for introducing nerf's.



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.