Builders set the price for starters. So do you and your kind playing moon goo games. Make your own and sell them at cost if this bother your that much. I'd buy a few...then sell at the decent markup everyone else uses.

Marauders you also have to look at grand scheme. IE empire. Where there is no carrier pve. And by many accounts they smash level 4's across the board. MJD snipe, drop in bastion and tank like a champ with little to no shiny mod need....they are great in empire.

Most things will fail in comparison versus carriers. Thing is empire bears don't get that option. And marauder therefore gets to shine there. I sold mine (rail Kronos) for the oddest reason. Pve was too boring from being sleep inducing easy. Well that and in the year I was away damn near it shot up 300mil ish in price at what I bought it at. No BP changes I know of in that year....someone got greedy. Builders or moon goo barons. And my mission pve alt can't fly it when the main leaves empire to return to pvp...I sold out for the 300 mil bonus and went back to rattlesnake which main and alt can fly fin.

I love my Marauders. They are the most perfectly balanced ships in the game. Each one is pretty much perfect in it's own right. Keep your ****ing hands off them.

Marauders need a change. Their hulls cost roughly the same as a carrier, yet they're far less capable...

That is your sov-sec's fault, not the ship's fault. Make moon poo cost less, marauder cheap, very easy stuff.

Well then don't use them?

I love covet my marauders and use them all the time. Others also use them extensively in highsec, nullsec, and wormholes. Marauders get tons of use. And I get livid whenever someone wants to make changes (usually to the Paladin), as the only thing you'll end up with is a nerf you really didn't want and never saw coming.

There's hundreds of other ships available for you to use. All of them have balances of strengths and weaknesses, as they all should. If a marauder doesn't fit your needs, I'm almost certain a pirate hull will be much closer to fitting the bill.

No poors. Isk is ridiculously easy to make. You wanna change the cost? Start manipulating the market as those that have driven up the price have.

I said lower the building requirements in a manner that would result in a 33% reduction in hull price.

Also T3 cruisers can perform nearly as well in empire L4's for less than the price of a cheaply fit marauder, and with marauders being far and beyond "overkill" for an L4, a T3 is all that's necessary.

Tengu can perform almost as well. other 3 iffy really, they shine in wh's where things like effects can aid them (i.e., wolf rayet ofr armour tanks). Unless you have a loki fit I have not seen yet that gets good dps....at range. BY range I mean 24-30 (Hamgu) or my preferred HMLgu (100 km's t1, about 70 Fury). I am all ears to that.

Tengu can and will also be slower run times. My rail kronos and now rattlesnake can cut even t1 tick off some missions full clear kill em all.

And if you haven't built t2 bs'....they have quite a bit of markup. Make them cheaper in build costs, they will still sell almost same price levels. I used to make blops. I isk warred, used the dreaded free mins pricing sometimes (miss the drone poop loot days, really I do lol), sold to people in alliance at very good friendship discounts and made good isk all the same.

T2 BS's don't have bpo's. We aren't undercut by bpo owners saying sell it cheap to get back the ROI. They are a limited market. And most sellers don't isk war to cut throat levels here. We are selling limited use items...we don't have to get our stack of 200 dead common item to the top of the jita charts.

Bears want their marauder. No other ship can do what blops does. People will pay for this. And yes we do charge.

Even more reason to justify lowering the required building materials of marauders from 33% to now even as low as 50% needed building materials.

Marauders need a change. Their hulls cost roughly the same as a carrier, yet they're far less capable.

..

You are comparing apples and oranges, essentially two very different ship roles at two different tech levels. You can't really compare their price relative to their different stats.


Marauders were designed as top of the line Tech II mission boats purposely gimped at Pvp.
Carriers are designed as entry level Capital Ships with counter sub-cap and counter capital remote warfare capability.

You might as well be comparing the prices of toasters to drill presses.

Purposefully gimped at pvp?

Yes, sensor strength was purposely set low to allow them to be easily jammed, before Bastion Mode was added years after they were originally released. Bastion Mode changes that, at a cost of immobility while it is active.

Here is a table of isk efficiencies of golems and t1 carriers:

Golem: 29%
Kronos: 42%
Paladin: 35%
Vargur: 39%

Chimera: 74.9%
Thanatos: 74.9%
Archon: 77%
Nidhoggur: 83%

Numbers don't lie

Numbers don't lie, but people do ;)

An explanation for such numbers is this: zkill has recorded efficiency through the last 5-6 years where carriers have been used in large fleet doctrines within null sec. They were extremely successful and hence their high efficiency.

Marauders were all but useless until the addition of bastion, almost no one flew them in pvp and most kill mails involving one is them being ganked


So yes, numbers don't lie. But the person presenting them with no context to attempt to reinforce a poor argument sure is.

Either way, marauder sux.

Month of August:

Golem 29.55%
Kronos 39.7%
Vargur 52.7%
Paladin 33.7%


Thanatos 73.3%
Chimera 67.8%
Archon 87.1%
Nidhoggur 58.9% (which this would be a story in itself, having dropped 20% in isk efficiency in august from the previous three months 80% average)

All of these ships show steady numbers near what's listed here. Vargu looks ok sitting around an average of 45%-50%, but the Nidhoggur sits around 70% usually.

Either way, marauder sux.

I disagree.

I feel the benefits do not justify the cost.

I feel Marauders need something to justify pilots choosing them over other ships.