Just did the daily mission from Paragon and the rewards are completely off.
First mission: acquire a Retriever (around 60m ISK) = 4000 Evermark. Declined that.
Second mission: acquire a Rifter (400k ISK) = 2500 Evermarks.
Does not really make sense, right?
Bigger ship = more marks
Anything else wouldnt make sense.
It does make sense.
Turn in cheap ships for cost-effective Evermarks.
Turn in expensive ships for time-effective Evermarks.
If you have enough ISK and cannot be bothered to wait another day to turn in ships twice, or want to have many more Evermarks fast, turning in a Retriever gives you many more marks for your effort.
Retriever 15.000 isk per 1 EM.
Rifter 160 isk per 1 EM.
That difference makes no sense. Trolling comments do not change this.
I agree. For a 60m ISK Retriever they should give at least 25 000 Evemarks. They should pump up Evemark rewards for next expansion.
Most importantly because, if there will ever be tradable items for Evermarks: what will they be worth? If some players paid 100x the isk than others for 1 EM?
If payout varies a bit: okay. But by that margin it is simply bad design and potentially asking for issues later down the road.
I always declined those hilarious expensive Paragon missions and done only Frigates and Destroyers. I sacrificed many ships. I donât know how many, but I have around 150 000 Evemarks.
The Evemarks can be very valuable in Viridian expansion. As I noticed in their Upwell Structure Personalization demos, those structure SKINS will cost from 100k to millions of Evemarks (time 2:00; 3:00).
Sounds about totally normal when it comes to CCPâs interpretation of the word âbalanceâ.
Can you please explain why it does not make sense that one ship gets you more EM per ISK than the other, while the other gets you more EM per day?
Seems to be to be a good choice for players to make depending on how they value their wallet or their time.
A 100x factor difference in terms of ISK compared to just 1.5x factor for EM sounds strange as a balance.
Not uncommon in EVE though. In fact, you see that all the time.
To stay within âEMâ terms (but a different EM), compare this:
to this:
You get 1.28x more EM resists, for a factor 977x more ISK.
Some people will have the ISK and will be willing to pay for the more expensive option, simply because itâs better.
Also to some people the difference in ISK is still pennies because they make so much ISK anyway that it is no matter to them so they welcome the greater amount of evermarks despite its higher cost which is nothing to them.
These prices are governed by player actions and supply and demand. EM are not. They are deliberately set in this unrewarding fashion by CCP.
Are you saying Retrievers and Rifters are not governed by player actions, supply and demand?
Just like how CCP hardcoded how much better turning in a Retriever is for Evermarks than a Rifter, they also hardcoded how much better an X-type hardener is than a T1 hardener.
But thatâs just one side of the equation.
The ships and the hardener prices themselves both are governed by player actions, supply and demand, so itâs a surprisingly similar situation.
Just because you donât like the answer doesnât mean it is trolling.
A reason why you have to pay in ships is, to create demand, to boost the economy. Here a Retriever clearly does it more than a Catalyst.
As mentioned before, there are players out there who easily can afford a Retriever for 4000 EM and will happily pay that price. Now, why should you give those people, from a sellers perspective, more EM? Why give them 25.000 EM for one ship when they are willing to pay six ships? - Again, you want to create demand and you also donât want the player to get to their EM goal too quickly. You want to make them login daily, to grind the vuck out of this game.
Therefore this makes absolutely sense from CCPs perspective. We have many daily missions, with cheap ships and few EM, for the less wealthy population and a few daily missions, with less cheaper ships for a bit more EM, for the wealthier population.
This wisdom is lost to many that stop by and donât stay on these forums.
I think such people are aware of this but they say it anyway because they know the answers are right and theyâre wrong thus canât address the argument itself without having to admit this or look silly denying it so they instead opt to try discrediting the opposition so they donât have to deal with the arguments.
Fortunately this never works as the people addressing their posts already know the argument laid by such people are factually incorrect. As such these kinds of acts are just a desperate attempt to save face in front of the less observant and themselves so they donât have to face the reality that they are wrong so pretend their fake reality bubble is true and everyone is just trolling.
The thing is deep inside they know all this which is the source of their frustration but will stick to it as in their view there is nothing better to do in this situation as the only alternative is admitting the facts and that their argument failed.
Their ISK price is, the EM are not. Thatâs a big difference to the price difference of your EM-Hardeners.
Resistance values are not the same as ISK or EM values. EM are equivalent to LP, which coincidentally are a player governed reward currency because their amount depend entirely on how popular missions are. EM on the other hand are hardcoded as unrewarding exchange currency for anything more than a frigate. Yes, with frigs and destroyers you may take longer to get to a given EM value, but you donât spend billions on something that is either barely visible on your ship/placed in awkward positions on your ship, or that expires every x days.
The difference here is: with the Hardeners or other usable items, you get an extra for the price. In case of the Hardeners better resists. Even if the difference seems small compared to the price difference, it gives you an (deciding) advantage on high end stuff. This price difference is hence justifiable and driven by player demand.
Paragon EM are sometimes just 100x times more expensive by design for no extra value. You can pay 150.000 ISK for 1EM and next pay 160 ISK per 1EM on another mission. There is no functional difference that justifies that difference. A 150.000 ISK EM does not give any advantage over a 160 ISK EM. They are exactly the same. This is just bad design (and might later become hurtful for economy). I am well aware EM are meant to be a sink, but this is a bad approach.
The trolls (not you, Gerard) â ad hominem â block. Donât play your silly games.
You can either wait 30 minutes in line for your roller coaster ride, or you can pay extra for a special ticket to skip the line. Two different prices for the same ride. Sounds pretty unfair right? No!
You have the option to get quicker to your goal, in this analogy to your ride, which is objectively more expensive. If itâs worth it is subjective. - The same principle applies to the different EM missions.
If you want it fair and equal - in EVE? - we could also argue that a frigate gives way too much EMs in comparison to a Retriever. Here a frigates worth is more like 65 EMs. This would be fair too but I doubt this would make anyone any happier.
The extra value are the additional Ever Marks. If the price is worth it is totally subjective and up to every player himself to decide.
Your decision regarding the value is clear to everyone in this thread. You want an equal exchange rate, which in itself a valid opinion and that is okay.
If thatâs your reaction to people with different opinions, who tried to explain in a polite manner their point of view, which a forum is there for, makes me wonder why are you even here? Why creating this post?
A mission with a Retreiver for 200.000 Ever Marks wonât happen. For reasons people you recommend to block have explained.