What you’re describing was Version 1 of the economic sim, before Frontier took a chainsaw to it after receiving complaints from some of the Alpha testers who got used to income derived from a
literal gold duplication bug. The profitability of most commodities were within a few hundred credits of each other, and the few that weren’t fed the base of production chains. Markets had a base production level, which added to supply (and increased demand of its precursor) at the rate of the economic tic, which IIRC was every 10 minutes. But commodities whose production chains were supplied would be replenished at a much faster rate, and in “real time.” There were also commodities which
weren’t a part of a production chain, such as luxuries, who were only consumed at a base rate.
The discoverer of the gold duplication bug would shower gold canisters to anyone who wanted at the back of Azaban City. This was easy money, naturally, but he wasn’t always online. When he wasn’t online, people who wanted easy money would just set up a macro that would scoop up luxuries’ base production at the tic. Combine that with a five system bubble, and you had a situation where the luxury market had bottomed out.
Unless you could outrace the tic, which was entirely possible if you ignored the conventional forum wisdom at the time. You could actually get to many destinations quicker than you can today, as long as you were willing to take some risks to do so. So players like me were raking in credits much quicker than they were, but all they could see was that their profit/ton was dwindling. And since this was before the interdiction mechanic had been added to the game, the quicker you were able to fly, the fewer interdictions you faced, and the fewer potential expenses you would face.
This wouldn't have been so bad, except for the inherent flaw in the game's design: ship and module prices increased exponentially, while their capabilities increased mostly logarithmically. In other words, a ship that was twice as capable as a lesser vessel would often cost at least twelve times as much as much. Since this was at a time where operational expenses (including fuel
)
existed, and also scaled to the cost of the ship, you had a situation where hauling twice as much cargo would increase your operational costs twelve times as much.
Small ship costs were intentionally low to allow new players to make huge mistakes without suffering huge setbacks. Medium ships, IMO at least, were just right...
if you used a fuel scoop while trading. Large ships, though? Without lapping up some of that sweet duplicated gold, they'd couldn't even make a profit on bulk luxury trading.
Which, needless to say, was a problem. Frontier's solution wasn't to fix the underlying problem, but to dial base production/consumption up to eleven, and then introduce
new commodities (and their production chains) that exceeded the profits gained from the old exploit, a pattern that exists to this day. Basically, Frontier took what
could've been an X4 style economic sim, and transformed into one that's downright primitive in comparison: a static import/export market. Except when it comes to highly stressed markets, such as those involving CGs or places like Jameson Memorial. Only then, do you get a hint of the old economic sim, and baseline production is
much faster than excess production is now.
I agree that there is depth and variety in this game, but there used to be
more. A
lot more. And this is due to Frontier's default reaction to player complaints: remove the risky but entertaining
and effective options to enhance the results of the dull grindy options, or make ensure that the dull grindy options are as effective as existing
exploits. As for narrative content... I play open world games like this to forge my own narrative, as opposed to being railroaded into following someone else's.
As for my "philosophy," it isn't about philosophy, but about fun. I find inevitable success to be boring, which is why I very rarely finish any game, once the outcome is no longer in doubt. Being able to fail, though? That makes an entertaining experience, a fun story, and makes success all the sweeter. Needless to say, if the failure rate is high enough, I
do get frustrated. But that definitely doesn't describe
this game in its current state, and hasn't for a long time.
I also enjoy being able to develop strategies, and needing to weigh my options, which
also doesn't really describe this game as much as it used to. Frontier has removed much of the
nuance that used to exist in the game, in response to player complaints.
Back in the day, when considering missions while manipulating the BGS, there used to be two factors to consider: profitability, and its effect on a faction's state. The former could be negative (donation missions), while some mission types would also have a negative effect on the latter. The highly profitable missions were illegal, which also had a negative effect on a faction's state. Conversely,
credit donation missions
also had a negative effect on a faction's state, but were effortless influence. When I was helping the brave freedom fighters resist the Evil Galactic Federation, I got much better results corrupting the Federation, feeding some of the profits to the freedom fighters, than what I would've gotten simply grinding influence for the freedom fighters.
That isn't the case anymore.
Some players complained that
some missions hurt the faction they were supporting, Frontier listened, and now missions
only have positive effects on a faction, even the illegal and credot donation ones. Before, I had to balance a host of factors to be effective, which was fun. Now, it's simply a straight up influence grind. And of course, profits from missions are so ludicrous these days, that I can be profligate in my generosity, and
still be wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice.
