EVE Search - The Elimination of the Battleship from EVE.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The Elimination of the Battleship from EVE.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.12 23:29:00 - [1] I hear Battleships make great macro ratters though, can OP confirm?
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.13 01:27:00 - [2] Originally by: DHB WildCat Originally by: Emperor Cheney I hear Battleships make great macro ratters though, can OP confirm? Couldnt tell you. I have two accounts, my main and alt both of whom are in GE-8 fighting IT/INIT/-A-/Stain wagon ect. Well, in that case, I hope the rest of your corp learn to follow your sterling example.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.13 03:32:00 - [3] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 13/12/2010 03:35:47 Originally by: DHB WildCat The guys with the most ships will win even if the other guys have better tactics and more experience. The mechanics only allow for number superiority to be king. This is why PL is losing horribly to NC right now, right? edit to add: Quote: I'm not arguing for any ship to be a solopwnmobile, but at the same time, a battleship should stand a fighting chance. If ambushed by a 5 man HAC gang, a battleship SHOULD lose, but should be able to take down a few HACs before succumbing to enemy fire. Oh my goodness. So, in the same post you complain about blobbing, you propose the battleship be made so great it could take down multiple hac's even if ganked? In your game, the only valid ship would be the battleship, and battles would be won or lost by whoever brought more. All these gameplay suggestions by self-declared "elite" players here are absolutely horrible. And by the way, battleships are about to become the ship of the line for Goonswarm, as well as being regularly fielded by numerous other nullsec alliances. Gone indeed.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.13 03:48:00 - [4] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 13/12/2010 03:49:25 Originally by: Jonathan Xavier Originally by: Emperor Cheney Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 13/12/2010 03:35:47 Oh my goodness. So, in the same post you complain about blobbing, you propose the battleship be made so great it could take down multiple hac's even if ganked? In your game, the only valid ship would be the battleship, and battles would be won or lost by whoever brought more. So basically, your counter-argument is that if you are the gank gangs don't deserve to take losses? That no ship can be powerful enough to put up a fight to your uber 5 man HAC gang? That's ludicrous. Not only that, but I suggested later that BS double in price and have fewer EHP so as to further balance the risk/reward ratio. No one would be forced to fly only BS with the victor being decided by who brings more. It would bring more vulnerable isk onto the field to be destroyed My five man hac gang should win because HACs are pretty good ships and we brought five of them. If battleships were as you propose, there would be no reason to fly anything else. That is dumb. Also, not fun. Which is an important element to gameplay. edit to add: Do you think those 5 hac pilots would be somehow incapable of flying the ueber battleships you propose? You want battleships online. At least with supercaps online, they're at least both somewhat rare and somewhat expensive.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.13 03:57:00 - [5] Originally by: Jan'z Kolna these days battles are won by whoever brought more supercaps , boosting battleship in any way would actually lessen a gap in combat power between powerblocs and smaller entities IMO battleships are too weak, supercaps too strong flatten the curve ,says I I'd be okay with boosting the battleship to strengthen against supercaps. I hate supercaps. But strengthening against weaker targets to make HAC's irrelevant? That's silly. He, and you, are proposing blobbing because with such ueber battleships, whoever brings more BS would win. That's terrible.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.13 03:59:00 - [6] Originally by: Maghnus Is this game only fun for you when you don't lose any ships? Irony. Why would anyone of those hac pilots you're talking about not just fly battleships instead? No one flies hacs because they're economical.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.13 04:41:00 - [7] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 13/12/2010 04:43:47 Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 13/12/2010 04:43:23 RE: last post by Jan'z Kolna I'm not sure what you're proposing, or what you think I'm proposing. A boost to EHP will not change the dynamics of battleships versus supercaps. What I am against is having a battleship being vastly superior to classes below it on their own terms. A battleship that can take down multiple hacs after being ganked is a battleship that makes hacs irrelevant, along with most other sub-bs hulls. I hate supercaps. I hate them because they are great not just against each other, but against ships well below their weight class, making them counterable only by more of each other. The changes to battleships I am arguing against are silly because they make the same situation of the battleship: beatable, effectively only by other battleships. Or supercaps. (which are also terrible for the game)
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.14 01:01:00 - [8] Originally by: Kail Storm Please explain to PL`s WildCat and Evokes Abby fleets how bad they are against DrakeTrains. Yep. This whole thread is a joke.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.14 01:49:00 - [9] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 14/12/2010 01:50:22 Originally by: Ephemeron Originally by: Emperor Cheney Originally by: Kail Storm Please explain to PL`s WildCat and Evokes Abby fleets how bad they are against DrakeTrains. Yep. This whole thread is a joke. Try bring a BS and a couple friends in any other ship to 0.0 and we'll see how well you do. Have you tried roaming in BS in 0.0? let me know if the first hot drop happens within 1 hour or 2 hours. The thread topic is an exaggeration but it was prompted by something real. Small gang roaming (i.e. movements behind enemy lines) with a gigantic, slow ship isn't feasable? Unbelievable! It's an outrage! edit to add: battleships should be faster, and they should be bigger, and they should be tougher, and the should like have a big mouth that goes CHOMP and LAZER BEAMS for teeth, and and and OMG
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.14 02:23:00 - [10] Originally by: DHB WildCat Supercaps pwn them instantly and its difficult for a BS to disengage. That's the only real problem. Fix (nerf) supercaps and the battleships come back. Smaller ships should be able to outrun andoutmaneuver battleships. Otherwise, there's no point in being in a smaller ship. Quote: Anyways yes PL has started to use Abbadon fleets against drake fleets. Also, Goonswarm is moving towards artillery fit battleships as the standard, to alpha ships and thus make enemy logistics irrelevant.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.14 03:27:00 - [11] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 14/12/2010 03:05:27 Originally by: Emperor Cheney Smaller ships should be able to outrun andoutmaneuver battleships. Otherwise, there's no point in being in a smaller ship. +----------+------------+---------------+ \| Category \| Battleship \| Battlecruiser \| +----------+------------+---------------+ \| EHP \| 96K \| 94K \| +----------+------------+---------------+ \| Tank \| 273 \| 175 \| +----------+------------+---------------+ \| DPS@10km \| 678 \| 652 \| +----------+------------+---------------+ \| Align \| 12.5s \| 8.6s \| +----------+------------+---------------+ \| Velocity \| 928 m/s \| 1038 m/s \| +----------+------------+---------------+ Summary: - 98% of the EHP - 65% of the Tank - 96% of the raw DPS, much better damage application - 45% better agility [ Much better chance to disengage ] - 12% better speed Which ship obsoletes which again? Without battleships significantly outdamaging and outtanking battlecruisers (and T3s now), there's no point in being in a battleship. -Liang I don't see how you're getting such terrible dps numbers out of battleships. Anyway, you're not talking about generic battlecruisers here, you're talking about drakes (and with numbers that assume max skills). Drakes are already on the chopping block. Rejoice, for CCP is actually solving the problem you are complaining about. (Probably, eventually) As for the rest of the thread, the OP's complaints were that battleships are not used in nullsec. That is false. Then, a lot of people jump on board and agree with this false assertion, and then also propose a lot of really silly gameplay changes. This whole thread is just a lot of people that really, really, really like to pretend they're "elite" showing just how irrelevant to the game they are.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.14 04:19:00 - [12] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Emperor Cheney I don't see how you're getting such terrible dps numbers out of battleships. You have to remember that you can't devote every slot to gank when you armor tank - especially when you active armor tank. The BS fit in question is actually the ubiquitous D650/Plate+Rep solo pest fit. The utility (A pair of heavy neuts and an ECCM) are pretty nice and its only saving grace from being totally obsoleted by the Drake. But really, 50% better mobility and absurdly better damage application is utterly damning. You can slightly improve those situations by going to a "nano" pest fit, but your EHP and ability to tackle go to hell in a hand basket. And it still doesn't fix the twin problems of not being able to effective disengage and having terrible damage application. Quote: Anyway, you're not talking about generic battlecruisers here, you're talking about drakes (and with numbers that assume max skills). Drakes are already on the chopping block. Rejoice, for CCP is actually solving the problem you are complaining about. (Probably, eventually) I disagree that Drakes are on the chopping block, but disregarding that we'd still be looking at Hurricanes and Harbingers obsoleting battleships. Oh, and don't forget T3s (which at least have the grace to usually be more expensive while they deliver 100% BS damage and 100% Bs tank and 75% better mobility). -Liang So, judging from your corp and this post, I now see you're talking about solo work. Why should a battleship be able to solo effectively? Battleship deployment should be a major statement, and that's what it currently is. A battleship can't run or hide well, but it can take a lot of punishment and lay down a lot of damage. To me, that seems right. As far as harbs and hurricanes, unless I'm missing something (which I easily could be), it's impossible to get both BS-level tank and gank on them simultaneously. Which is what a battlecruiser should be, by my mind, as it mirrors the role of naval battlecruisers [battleship guns on a cruiser frame].
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.14 05:05:00 - [13] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 14/12/2010 05:11:52 I have said, many times, that I hate supercaps, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning them in 'argument' with me. Nerf supercaps, I'm on board. Whee. You've yet to show that battlecruisers are overpowered, drakes aside. A BS is better than a BC, fact. Supercaps aside, if you wouldn't rather have a bs than a bc, well, you'd lose. And we already agree on supercaps. edit to add: meanwhile, a bc can outmaneuver a bs. And all is right with the world. I do not believe battleships should have any place in small gang conflict, unless both sides have good scouts and escorts. They are really big, boxy ships. They should be deployed and utilized as such.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.14 19:39:00 - [14] Originally by: Liang Nuren I don't think we'll ever agree on this, and I think it really boils down to the fact that we traditionally live in different realms. You live in 0.0 and think of interceptors as viable solo ships. I have traditionally lived in low sec and as such see battlecruisers as the smallest viable solo ship... and frankly I'd like more choices than "Battlecruiser", "Battlecruiser", and "Battlecruiser". -Liang No, I'm in FW in the same area your corp is. For what it's worth, we reship to battleships pretty often. Because they are better. This entire thread is about a completely made up "issue." Quote: Ed: I would also like to ask just where you think blaster battleships should live, if not in small gang combat? What about battleships with active tank bonuses? Or worse - both? The Hyperion, for example, is custom made for small gang combat. It simply cannot excel in any other situations. I personally use them in small gangs. With good scouting, and intel on the area. Battleships can work in small gangs, but not alone. They are huge, hulking ships. If you roll with them on your own, yeah, you can get dropped, because they do not have the maneuverability to dictate the pace and terms of battle. Which is exactly as it should be.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.14 19:53:00 - [15] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 14/12/2010 19:54:35 Originally by: Liang Nuren Of course they do - which perfectly illustrates why battleships suck. Without even trying they're significantly less agile and slower than plated BCs and don't really deliver much more. That is a problem. -Liang EHP, drones, the ability to run a heavy neut. These are the kinds of things you learn to appreciate when your opponents are tougher than a noob in a velator. edit to clarify: battleships are, and should be, irrelevant to the playstyle of 4 dudes ganking new players at gates. Because they are slow, and so you, too, could be jumped by a larger gang. And all, is still, right with the world.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.14 21:32:00 - [16] Originally by: Liang Nuren They are, and should not be irrelevant to small gang combat. BCs bring near BS level damage, near BS level tanks, cruiser level damage application and cruiser level mobility. Sure thing. Now I'm going to make my own thread about how it's totally unfair I can't do substantial damage to sovereignty structures with my HAC. Unfair!! I mean, so long as we're on the theme of being really indignant that a ship can't do something completely unrelated to its role. Quote: You say that BCs are "cruisers with battleship guns" - but that's not quite true when they have 5-8x the tracking with those battleship guns. No, that was the original definition of a battlecruiser in naval history. In EVE, BCs are generally cruiser guns with battleship tank, but the spirit holds true to the original use of a cruiser than can serve, situationally, in a battleship role.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.14 21:43:00 - [17] Originally by: Ephemeron Edited by: Ephemeron on 14/12/2010 21:40:09 nm since we all agree that BS is the easiest target to catch and hit ever, why not make up for it with increased damage output from battleships? At least against BCs I'd be down with a moderate increase in BS damage, but this being CCP's baby, the liklihood of way overpowering BS's is just too great. The class isn't broken - BS's do get used, in high sec, low sec, and null, depending on the situation. It's just they're not usually the best. They have a pretty specific use case (either you have a lot of friends or a lot of intel). But, this leaves room for a lot of ship class diversity, which I think is a very good thing.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 00:05:00 - [18] Originally by: DHB WildCat Originally by: Emperor Cheney No, I'm in FW in the same area your corp is. For what it's worth, we reship to battleships pretty often. Because they are better. This entire thread is about a completely made up "issue." Your statement here is exactly why the rest of eve thinks FW is a joke and for the kiddy pool. Bring your FW Battleship fleet to 0.0 and see how long you last. Or fight any 0.0 corp or even ivy league with their cruiser / bb fleets and see how you do!? I wont be betting on you btw. And yours is why Burn Eden is a joke. Well, one of many. As stated many times in this thread, many nullsec alliances far better than yours are moving to fleet BS. Also, I fixed your quote tags. Hope the future banhammer doesn't destroy your entire corp, bro! Have fun botting it up and playing second fiddle to all the good alliances.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 00:42:00 - [19] Originally by: DHB WildCat Im not exactly sure why you are not making a point but just making personal attacks against me. I did bring FW into this and I think its because everyone in 0.0 and empire and low sec pirates all think its what Providence used to be. Its fun yes but lets be honest, its not where the best pilots are at. Pretty sure I, or anyone in my slightly above average FW corp could pretty easily get into a way better alliance than you ever have, is what I'm saying. I mention it because you, in a poorly formatted post, made an elitist diss on FW. Yes, there are a lot of terrible pilots in FW. There are also a ton of even worse pilots in nullsec, pilots who are generally not even PVPers (blade dot, et cetera), and of those who consider themselves PVPers, most only have to follow corp fittings and do what the FC tells them too. You made some elitist smack against me, I pointed out it's a bit silly and unfounded. Glass houses and all that. Don't start what you don't want to finish.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 01:22:00 - [20] Originally by: DHB WildCat You are correct I did bash FW and always will. If you so choose to think FW is better than 0.0 so be it. However please do not make it personal, at no time did I ever bring you or your corp / alliance into it. I only ask the same respect and curteousy. I have enough people that smack me and my corp without reading the post as it is. HEY BRO FW SUCKS LOL (time passes) WHY YOU GOT TO MAKE IT PERSONAL BRO THAT AIN'T COOL (time passes) I MEAN YEAH I'M BETTER THAN YOU BUT THAT'S NOT ELITISM (time passes) AGAIN WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS THIS IS LAME I DIDN'T SAY NUTHIN Separately, if someone insults your corp, it is not a "personal" attack unless your entire corp consists of you. Which is more botting than I think even UDIE does, frankly.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 01:51:00 - [21] You still don't know what "personal" means, for the record. It's tempting. I don't think I'll be able to play eve for the next few days (I am sure you find this concept unimaginable) but yeah, I'll eve mail you for the legendary fight of the century, whereby when you lose you say "WELL I WUZ IN A CRUISER" and probably something about "noobs." When you say "cruiser" what are you talking about exactly? t3? hac? Because I really can't afford a t3 (enter botting joke here), and I don't fly a vaga, so that's a bit weak.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 02:00:00 - [22] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 15/12/2010 02:00:59 Originally by: The Djego Originally by: Emperor Cheney When you say "cruiser" what are you talking about exactly? t3? hac? Because I really can't afford a t3 (enter botting joke here), and I don't fly a vaga, so that's a bit weak. Mate, you need to bring the BS, not the cruiser. Oh I know, I'm just seeing a whole lot of ways for optimal skeeziness on his end here. There are obviously a whole lot of cruiser hulls that can beat 99% of bs's in a staged one on one, unless fitted in some crazy fashion. Some random BS against any and all cruiser hulls where he obviously has pretty much unlimited ISK and SP is giving him all the advantages.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 02:06:00 - [23] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Emperor Cheney There are obviously a whole lot of cruiser hulls that can beat 99% of bs's El Oh El . . .in a staged one on one. Way to selectively quote there.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 02:10:00 - [24] Originally by: The Djego Mate use full honor, like any skilled BS pilot does and bring your preferred cookie cuter BS to pawn this little cruiser. You can check the KBs of real low Sec dwellers what they use and what satisfies all her "I pawned this cruiser with my BS!" needs. honor! A fast kiting ship pretty obviously has the edge in a one on one against pretty much any bs. What are you even arguing here? Is the idea that somewhere I said battleships are best for everything everywhere always? Because that's almost the opposite of what I said anywhere here. A one on one is an extremely staged circumstance in which fringe fittings thrive. I've said numerous times, here, that battleships shouldn't be deployed solo. I'm not knocking it at all, but after a whole thread talking about nullsec and lowsec fights, to suddenly make blind 1 v 1 the ultimate measure of a ship is, well, kind of silly.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 02:17:00 - [25] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Emperor Cheney . . .in a staged one on one. Way to selectively quote there. No, it perfectly illustrated exactly what the problem is with battleships. Battleships are "stupendous" and "mighty" and "contemptuous of all the small things" - and yet the small things are so incredibly powerful versus a battleship. The line of thinking that battleships shouldn't be able to affect small things needs reversed as well - small things shouldn't be able to affect battleships. Unless we just throw that line of thinking out altogether. -Liang If battleships could do all that, why would anyone fly anything smaller for dps? You're basically arguing for even less ship diversity.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 02:24:00 - [26] Originally by: The Djego You really fly a blaster BS? If so, I'm speechless. This is hilarious behind believe. http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=7521306 ? But I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I don't even know what "behind believe" means. I wasn't talking about a blaster BS necessarily, because tracking exists - I don't even know what you're talking about at all. Topics I was talking about 1) Battleships and their role in lowsec and nullsec 2) HONOURE DULES OF HONOUR
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 02:29:00 - [27] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Emperor Cheney to suddenly make blind 1 v 1 the ultimate measure of a ship is, well, kind of silly. No, it really isn't - especially when the entire discussion revolves around small gang uses of battleships. I'm completely turned around here. After me saying BS's shouldn't have a role in small gang stuff without scouts, now you're saying me not wanting to do a blind 1 v 1 against a (certainly) faster and more expensive ship in a 1 v 1 undercuts my point? No, it doesn't. I'm being perfectly consistent in not liking the things in small gang/solo work. Pretty sure a 1 v 1 also counts as small gang/solo. Anyway, I feel this discussion and my place in it is getting really weighed down on "he posted/she posted" which doesn't advance anything, and I'm posting way too much in this thread without anything being advanced. (makes "call me" motion to DBH Wildcat re: what we talking)
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 02:35:00 - [28] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 15/12/2010 02:36:05 Originally by: Liang Nuren Scouts are nearing meaningless in the age of titan bridges and supercap hotdrops. Your "small gangs" get hot dropped by supercaps often? Wow. That's pretty amazing.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 02:54:00 - [29] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 15/12/2010 02:55:48 Originally by: The Djego What is funny since you started to smack about CAOD **, that doesn't belong in a thread outside of CAOD and honestly not even in a thread in CAOD. DBH dogged on me pretty much out of nowhere, so I dogged on him back. Then he melted down completely. I mean come on, that's at least kind of entertaining. edit to add: Originally by:** DHB WildCat The entire point is to prove that a 10 mil cruiser after rigs and fitting will absolutely pwn you in a 200 mil Battleship after rigs and fittings and do so, so completely that it will leave you embarrassed and humiliated! I don't really know what this "point" has to do with anything, but okay, I will agree to fight your t1 cruiser. I'll send an evemail next time I'm online, see if our schedules work out.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 03:06:00 - [30] Originally by: The Djego Edited by: The Djego on 15/12/2010 03:01:48 Originally by: Emperor Cheney Originally by: The Djego What is funny since you started to smack about CAOD ****, that doesn't belong in a thread outside of CAOD and honestly not even in a thread in CAOD. DBH dogged on me pretty much out of nowhere, so I dogged on him back. Then he melted down completely. I mean come on, that's at least kind of entertaining. You don't need to defend FW on the forums, everyone knows it is rather questionable as far as tactics and involved pvpers go by the nature of the system itself. This is nothing personal, just the way it is. Make a point about BS balance, prove it with the epic BC stats of your main and your corp if you like or leave it be, but don't smack people because you feel like it would add something to the thread(it don't). There's terrible pvp'ers everywhere (including FW I agree). I have too much self respect to idly let randoms dog on me and just take it. The fact that DBH is happy to dish and yet flips completely out when he gets a little back makes it entertaining.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.15 04:39:00 - [31] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 15/12/2010 04:40:05 I first thought of a scorpion fitted with precision cruises and a rack of ecm, but then I thought that was cheap as hell. Then I was thinking of a neut cruiser fitted domi, but then I also thought that was cheap as hell. So yeah, I'll go with a typical pvp fit. And I really can't afford crazy faction stuff, nor would I use it here if I could. To the extent we're arguing via a 1 v 1, it's odd that we're both arguing the opposite side. I'd like to see the cruiser win, because I would like to see small ships have a chance against bigger and badder, and previously I argued here that a BS should not solo. DHB, on the other hand, said he'd like to see the BS win. I don't see this as proving anything, as 1 v 1's are basically rock paper scissors, but with the ship classes involved I think it's more like rock paper scissors where one guy promises not to use rock. It's kind of lose lose for me, because there's no upside to beating a cruiser in a bs, and if I lose it's going to be endless grief on the killmail. That said, the couple times I've 1 v 1'd before it's been fun. Originally by: Omara Otawan Originally by: DHB WildCat In anycase it will be fun and interesting. I still however wouldnt bet on the battleship solely because of lack of speed, range, tracking, ect. A battleship just simply cannot control the field witht these ships and I really think that is wrong. As long as we are talking more or less standard pvp setups (i.e. no insanely expensive faction points, or jokes like AB nos TD cruisers starting at 0km that are practically useless in general pvp), I dont see the t1 cruiser standing any chance at all against a remotely competent BS pilot tbh. Fortunately for DHB I'm barely on the outside of being a competent pilot, if that, but yeah, I think I should probably win, although some crazy fringe fit could beat me. Who knows though. It's kind of lose lose for me, but it's internet spaceships. I don't expect it to prove anything, but hopefully it will be fun.

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.