I don’t think so, bruv.
AKA: Whoever smelled it, dealt it.
Mr Epeen 
How could I forget you! The gang is almost all here now.
Who likes the station colors? (The owners I suppose 
) Ironic question sorry.
Makes me wish I still owned my Azbel back in the day.
I find it silly to be honest of all thing’s graphics wise. However, I do love corp/alliance emblems on my ship.
The sad thing is, that’s not even the case.
CCP interfered with the player-run economy when they spawned ships out of mid air to sell to players for real money.
CCP now is interfering again with the player-run economy by putting up NPC buy orders to turn ships into Evermarks.
It’s not like the two are connected in any way; CCP isn’t going to sell fewer ships because people didn’t turn in enough ships for Evermarks, and neither are they going to stop people from turning ships for Evermarks if they didn’t sell enough ships for real cash. The two are unrelated.
CCP just keeps moving further and further away from the player-ran economy that EVE is supposed to be known for this way.
3 Likes
TBH CCP just seems to be moving farther away from any sort of rational game design. They keep slapping in these cheap and easy one-note approaches to design issues. It’s like nobody is left at CCP who has the slightest clue how to evaluate anything they implement.
CCP should be aiming at achieving a few specific goals with any new ‘features’:
- They should encourage players to play and stay longer
- They should encourage more satisfying interactions with game mechanics
- They should encourage cash shop purchases, and “repeat” purchases
- They should encourage elements of the game that are currently lacking (such as PvP or group activity)
CCP should be coming up with systems that might encourage these things: like “cheap temporary skins for Plex, permanent skins for Evermarks”, making Evermarks available through game participation and PvP, giving discounts for being in a corp that’s earned discounts or fleet actions or whatever.
Instead they invent yet another stiff, boring, slow interface that just has people producing easy ships and turning them in. And making a big show about temporary structure cosmetics.
It’s astonishing how badly CCP can bungle just about everything they attempt. Hopefully somewhere along the line they’ll accidentally manage to let someone do some effective changes and turn this system into less of a clunker.
3 Likes
I’m not sure what all this is but pretty far very entertaining back-and-forth. 
This right here is 100% correct…
Sad thing is it all started with them selling Skill Extractors / Alpha Injectors in-game… then they moved into Game Packs and ‘Special Offers’… next was making things ‘Account Bound’… Etc, etc…
Those examples are just the ‘Tip Of The Iceberg’… Seems like they’ve now added ‘Anything Goes’ with their ‘Greed Is Good’ motto… 
2 Likes
Moved to Player Features & Ideas - EVE Online Forums
Reminder:
3. Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online if it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.
1 Like
just one change,… let the player decide how to generate/get evemarks. make them tradeable on the market in eve. let the plavers give it a value, and give those players who don’t want to spend time for it, the cance to buy it with isk.
I just want a Borg cube [ ]
1 Like
Just make sure there is an ice cube skin available for it that @Iceacid_Frostpacker can buy.
1 Like
I do agree evermarks should be tradable on the market, but the current system for generating them is pretty good. Even though I agree the ships being “bought” by paragon aren’t technically linked to the number of ships being sold in ship packs, it’s not a problem as long as the sink is larger than the faucet.
The criticism always seemed a bit hallow to me anyway, since the tutorial career agents have been handing out ships for as long as I’ve been playing (2009) creating a lot more free ships than the plex packs ever did.
In short, the evermark system does work toward trying to create that sense of immersion, even if it’s not technically linked.
I actually prefer this to remain a “play to attain” feature thank you very much! You do not speak on the behalf of everyone. Whales should not be able to buy everything, this system was created because the players rejected the idea of Devs just spawning ships and the way in would react with the player driven economy. It’s not that hard for a corp to generate evermarks from an active membership.
1 Like
Rewards should be equalized (Rifter and Retriever give pretty much the same amount of EM related to ship price). Instead there should be L1 to L4/5 Paragon agents that offer a higher investment/higher reward structure. This would include trading in Battleships and maybe even bigger. The idea of having this as a sink is good, but the implementation is bad.
To be an actual, effective sink, EM should be used to rent cosmetics on a “per asset” base, not buy once for a certain type. This would scale well with bigger corps as they have more structures.
Corps could have an EM wallet each member can donate to. This way, maintaining corp level cosmetics (structures) would become a collaborative task.
Also: why make yet another currency and not just use Paragon LP. Evermarks have no extra value over using LP. Or do they? No, i do not consider “clutter up my wallet window even more” an extra value.
1 Like
Probably because LP can’t be innately taxed in the same way em can. I know they’re working on that system now with fw… but it hadn’t ever been done before… and changing old systems like that can have big issues.
I wont be surprised if em get rolled into paragon lp later once all the kinks are taken out of the code. This is what happened with aurm and plex years ago.
1 Like
Why would anyone turn in the cheap ships if:
- ISK to EM ratio is ‘equalized’
- limited to 1 ship per day
You would be severely limiting yourself by wasting your daily cooldown on a cheap ship.
At least currently there’s a time-efficient and a cost-efficient choice. After ‘equalizing’ the EM to ISK ratio, there is only one reasonable choice left, which is the option that gives most EM per day.
That’s a reduction in player choice, and as such a bad suggestion.
1 Like
With ISK to EM equalized i am talking about being in the same ballpark on each level.
Why one would pick a lower level? People might have the wish to invest different amounts with the EM system depending on their EM needs. With a level system like we have it with other mission agents, players could choose on a daily basis how much to invest. This is the exact opposite of a “reduction in player choice”.
Why would people wish to invest different amounts if EM is severely limited by a daily turn-in rate?
You want to get the maximum amount of daily EM if there is no other consideration.
With the EM-to-ISK ratio equalized, that ‘other consideration’ is no more.
It is clever to only invest as much as you need, isnt it? Why would i look to get 50k EM and pay accordingly, when i just need 10k EM and can pay less?
I think you misread my posts. At least i do not understand where you are going here.
Might be. I hope for EM being temporary and be moved to Paragon LP at some point.
2 Likes