hello fellow gamers. I have long wanted to put this out but I know a lot of people will get crazed about it but I am going to do it anyway because I see it as a huge pitfall. While everyone thinks its easier to cross trade and sees it as an equal trade I don't know if people realize that they are loosing goods when you accept Tier 3 goods for T1 and T2. It takes more goods especially for T1 goods to equal T3 so its really not an equal trade.
There are two important numbers to consider in each transaction: cost and benefit. The cost is the production cost of the goods, including space, coins, supplies, time, energy, your anticipation of demand, etc. In other words, the cost is not just the production cost in terms of the measurable things. It must include, in addition, what it means to NOT have those goods, coins, supplies, etc. available AND it must also include the negative perceptions you might have of NOT having those items. For instance, if you have 1000 of this or that when you are used to 10,000 of it, you may hesitate to make a trade out of sense you can't because you are "running low" on that particular good. So cost has "intangibles" and each player may, in all kinds of ways and circumstances, measure them differently. The only time he/she might be hurt by this is if he/she doesn't take the time to ponder/consider/plan etc, his or her trades. I've done it myself. Started clicking on things offerered until suddenly, unexpectedly, I find I don't have enough to pick up that 10 marble trade -- I'm out of marble!
The second term "benefit" works in the same way. While the star system is measuring what can be measured and giving a rough estimate of what can be traded for what and at what ratio, it's only based upon measurable costs. And it therefore, list the benefit of the trade in those terms. But, as we can see, the perception of the value of a thing resides in the player, and some players have decided T3 are more valuable to them, so the produce T3. As they trade T3 for T2 they find eventually, there aren't as many who feel as they do and thus the shift happens as they move their production to another of the three options or to a more balanced, approach.
In my part of the world most of the middle tier players are producing T3 and trading for T2 (sometimes in very short supply) or T1 (a little more abundant but still short). This is an opportunity for anyone having an abundance of T1 or T2 (which is all I produce), and if you are inclined you can make a small but reasonable profit offering T2 or T1 for T3.
In the end, as I've argued elsewhere, using the star system as more than a rough measure will cause some to give more for their goods than necessary and to perhaps ask less than they can get. All of which underscores the need to train our people to look at the value of the trade as they perceive it, not the ratios and costs alone, and to use the star system as only a rough guideline since it represents the value of the goods as Inno perceives them -- when they don't play the game, I must add.
@BrinDarby The forum already had a conversation about the definition of the word arbitrary. Just because you dont like the values used to calculate the ratio does not make the ratio itself arbitrary. There are hundreds of post here and on beta debating the criteria and mathing incessantly over the current ratio. It is based on the amount of space it takes for a base player to produce each good in their city.
[/QUOTE]
I believe it was Soggy who corrected my use of the word a long, long time ago in the same discussion. I used it in the technical sense of "decided by an arbiter" vs the more correct in this context and general, "a decision made without regard to reason, logic or evidence." My use of the term implied Inno did not base it's measure on anything because to most people the latter definition is what they think of when they think of "arbitrary.'" It was just bad "audience adaptation" on my part. So, depending on how Brin intended it's use, he could be right....and so could you.
Isn't language fun?!
In addition, when you say "just because you don't like...." you are needlessly straying from the point being made. Guessing a person's motivations and then limiting them to one-- which is what "just because" does -- only opens doors to offense and side tracks the discussion. After all, your argument that the use of "arbitrary" is well made and makes the point without the need to tell us why Brin came to his conclusion. Perhaps you could, in the future, try to consider this in your comments? Just a suggestion and Lord knows I could be wrong.
AJ