ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Is that supposed to be a real argument? Are you asserting that in the absence of a simple marker players would be incapable of figuring out which trades consistently take more than they give? That they are less able to decide for themselves if they accept the value in a trade because it has a marker to indicate relative return on investment? Because I would assert that extensive studies on trade between individuals, and the existence of movements aimed at acknowledging the inherent flaws in current wealth distribution, show that human beings are generally competent at figuring out what isn't fair whether or not someone else calls their attention to it.
Having indicators to remove some of the effort required to calculate the actual value of trades is not what decides whether they are fair, it is a tool to remove some more-work-less-fun from a game.
First, asking how somebody would do something may imply, if read a certain way, that they are unable (could not) do it. But that's reading into the statement motivations not present in the words. "What if the star didn't show? I mean if there was no "star system" of rating? How would you, then, determine if the trade was "fair" or "gouging" or "parasitical?" is what I asked, not "how could you determine if the trade was fair" as if the star system was the only method available. My point being that you read the statement and received an impression, then went on to chastise me for the impression as if the immediate impression was the only one you could have received. But as I said in another post, you could have "put the best face on it" and assumed the question asked was not rhetoricall (implying there were no other methods the player could use) but an actual question. The sentences themselves were grammatically and syntactically correct and said what I meant. The choice of "would" rather than "could" makes it clear. That people often use "could" in place of "would" without realizing the distinction between "how the person will act" verses "what are the availble ways for the person to act" is understandable. It's a common confusion. But hopefully, you can see the question was not rhetorical but actual. I asked, what method or method, in the situation where the star system isn't there, will you choose to use to determine if the trade is fair or not?" The asking implies there are other methods and thus, implies, that the trader is able to use one or more of them.
Second, you note, "having indicators to remove some of the effort required to calculate the actual value of trades" may "remove some more-work-less-fun from the game," but that is not a statement about the game so much as a statement about how you play the game and what you find fun and what you don't find fun. It's pretty obvious that some player do, in fact, find a lot of fun in calculating things precisely. That you are not one of them does not therefore, mean that your likes and dislikes are in the majority. And even if they are, the do show a certain weakness in understanding how people make decisions for most people do not sit and calculate the value of a trade. Whatever "calculation" is done is intuitive and pretty much automatic. The psychologically "weigh" the options and make a choice. So I doubt it would be a large burden on many because almost nobody would decide that way anyway.
Third, the star system, to the degree it inaccurately reflects the current state of things for the individuals making the trade, influences the players to intuitively believe they are getting a fair trade at 2 stars when they are not. Thus, using it may be unfair in the individual transaction. Not having the star system and letting people weigh their options removes the inherent rigidity of the trade system and thus allows fairness to be determined in each transaction by the participants.
As I have written elsewhere, Inno is about macroeconomics, but trades are individual transactions. In macro-econimic theory the divide is over the amount of intervention by the governing authorities. One theory says intervene constantly, forcefully, and as needed to reach short(er) term goals, while the other says intervene rarely, foundationly, and only to reach long term goals. The first says they, usually daily, with maximum empact, and change directions as quickly as you need to avoid immediate problems. The second change the heading rarely, do it at the foundational level with minimum changes, and as little course correction as you need to get to the long term goal. The first takes constant supervision and is costly, the second less costly, but allows the markets to fluctuate more and thus entails a larger short-term risk. The star system is a macro-economic system which is in the middle and thus at the least effective spot along the continuum. It does not change quickly enough in response to market conditions, it steers peoples opinion of what is fair too much and it is often headed in the wrong direction.
Even if you were to have to calculate the value of the goods rather than let the system do it, your valuation would probably be more accurate for you exactly because the system assumes an aggregate value across thousands of transactions and sets the "fair market value" based upon that measurement. However, "individual results may vary" and the value of a thing at this time and place may or may not be in a standard deviation of the norm. In other words, just because the system assigns an average value to to a thing doesn't mean the value is applicable to every transaction. That's just basic market economics.
And, finally, I would argue that your implying that people would have a difficult time evaluating trades and need the help of the system telling them the value of their trade, is, itself, a statement of your opinion of people's abilities. You seem to pretty much imply that players would be unable or unwilling to do the calculations or unable to develop the intuitive grasp of the relative values of their goods within the context of their wants, needs, and desires. In other words, you own statement implies a belief in the relative weakness of the players to decide for themselves.
Having said that, I do admit an star free system would have more volatility. But the dips and peaks would be shorter lived because players would immediately adjust their thinking and actions and not have to wait for the ocassional "re balancing" by the devs. In the long run it would, I believe be more fair to every player as they would develop their own measure of fairness, and less costly to Inno as they would not have to make such changes but could just let the markets prevail.
AJ