I don't ever think we'll see a complete reset, that is probably just a pipe dream... but maybe, a better system can be introduced gradually, and the idea of a terrible catastrophe repainting the economic map is pretty interesting. There could be some kind of compensation for previous assets, especially if Cmdrs are there and take action during the events. Everyone doesn't need to be reduced to 100 Cr and a Sidewinder.
Maybe this event could involve the introduction of a new currency? It doesn't need to be named anything fancy, just a new credit, but with the critical difference that this currency is not a pure fiat currency like the old credit, but bound to some kind of resource and activity. Every new credit gained would be the result of either Credits changing hands or being minted through some activity which would be limited in volume and maybe not even posssible for a player.
Then you need more reactive markets, with way smaller saturation limits. How many kilotonnes of LTD jewelry can the producers make before people want to spend their hard-earned credits on something else?
Hmm, a point largely made in a way that makes it worth discussing? That’s not for this thread!
Anyway, I’d assert that the whole concept of balance, and specifically, being able to ‘fix’ it is flawed. (With no disrespect intended in the phrasing used.)
You see, when people talk about balance, they don’t usually mean ‘balanced’ they mean ‘balanced in the way I personally want it’.
And therein lies the problem. FD will never be able to be able to balance the game in a way that people can’t claim is unbalanced, because of how balance is looked at by people.
To illustrate, consider any of the ‘Risk vs Reward’ posts that come up. Have you ever seen any that consider it holistically and don’t just omit very significant factors such as Fun, Experience, Learning, Challenge, etc? Or do they all just completely omit anything which doesn’t amount to ‘I should get more credits’?
And that for me has always been a good illustration of how the concept of balance will be seen and misused, no matter what.
Absolutely, but I think a big step towards making this work is adding more flexibility. That word doesn't say much, so here's an example:
Danger. It is reasonable to assume that in general, more profitable activities are more difficult, and one such example could be danger.
In my ideal world, there exists almost perfectly safe activities, maybe hauling scrap out of Sol into a neighboring system. This playstyle would be very calm, you will have no legal trouble, no bandit trouble, but income would be very low. Maybe some people would prefer this calm 'space trucker' style and happily run back and forth for 50 hours, maybe it would not feel like grind to them if they have some good music and a nice chat with the Connie pilot at the Barnard's star station mailslot. Maybe some people would play like this occasionally to wind down. But if it is too slow, then there are more dangerous activities, and these exist on a spectrum, and that spectrum goes all the way - to the ludicrously profitable, and dangerous. Elite II had a large population anarchy system that had some pretty good market opportunities, but when you dropped out (and it was quite a way to the starport, too...) you would immediatly start getting swamped by hostiles. If you switched to the system maps, you could see all these ships going straight for the little treat that just popped out of witchspace.
Imagine a player doing some kind of legendary trade run into the most crazy-dangerous space, braving enormous dangers and making a huge profit of one of the most unreachable trade deals in the galaxy. Imagine that experience. Imagine that they show off by recording it and posting on the forums. Will people complain about how all that income was 'unbalanced'? Maybe some person will, but I think in general people will be in awe, entertained by the video, and maybe inspired to do similar things ingame. And some people will succeed maybe, and some will not, and will have to pay expensive rebuy costs instead
Note that there is no absolute optimum, the level of danger you want to pick depends on how good you are at handling danger... and how much danger you actually want to face.
![[VR] scipio_77](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/62/62064.jpg?1621626354){kind=avatar}