• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

The case FOR open trading.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
It is a good thing. Right up until enough players of this game consider your step and say no thank you over and over again. Then it just becomes you beating a dead horse.

From what I've seen and read, it isn't the disagreement causing that sentiment, it's the delivery. Many here have tried to point out where they feel your delivery is difficult. A majority of the time such attempts are met with more of the same delivery.

But it's been dealt with. Over and over. Again, beating a dead horse is not a debate tactic or even a great way to get a point across. It just fatigues and frustrates.

I would agree with your first point but the attempt to refute my point of view has been weak at best. Most of the refutation has been ad hominem and the rest avoid discussing the central problems with the current system or simply stating, in one form or another, "I prefer the current system" as if preference should determine it all. Show me where anyone has said: "the star system is a better measure of fairness" in contradistinction to "the star system is an artificial measure of fairness." That's a central tenant of my position. Nobody addresses that other than to say "the star system is easier and if everybody just went along with that it would somehow be better." Or show me where a person has argued that the rules do not put any social pressure and train players to treat the star system as the best measure of fairness. Or how about that such pressure is not an attempt to impose on others a system that is patently harmful to them? Perhaps I keep repeating my arguments in the hope that somebody will actually engage and debate my arguments. Wouldn't that be nice.

What about the delivery? Do I attack your motivations? Do I not respond to what you say in a more or less civil manner? What about the delivery -- other than it's intensity for which I will not apologize -- makes you, or anybody, uncomfortable?

And of course, not actually engaging in the question is also not a debate tactic, it's stonewalling, side stepping and hiding from the actual question.

So I ask, again,

1) Is the star system an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade?
2) Do rules not put social pressure on players and train them to believe the "proper" way to trade is to follow those rules?
3) If the star system is an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade is it not, therefore, also harmful to some players who use it?
4) If something is harmful to some of the players should we not get rid of it if we can?

Four simple questions. How hard can it be to actually discuss these? That people keep thinking the horse is dead is obviously untrue because they never took a shot at it, they spent most of their ammo trying to shoot the messenger! (LOL). Come on, we can do better than that. Let's just focus on the four questions above and forget your frustration with my tenacity. I just want to actually discuss the question because I think answering them honestly and taking action by joining the Open Trade movement will be better for players of the game in the long run.

Thanks,

AJ
 

StarLoad

Well-Known Member
I wish the real world worked like that. If it did Bolivia would probably not be forced to rely on tin exports, since tin is in good supply and that's all they really have. Yeah, they could just move south a bit and take over northern Chile. Then they could have some copper to go with their tin. In the real world you are given resources and they might very well be things that the real world doesn't value as much as you'd like. Nothing you can do about that.
AJ, I know this was just an example but it is incorrect. Bolivia was a major exporter of tin but that ended in the late 1980s. The main export item, now, is Hydrocarbons, Zinc, Lithium, Iron, and then Tin.

The main point is that any real economy can remake itself if it has to, change can happen, but inside the game, we are locked to the boosts. That alone means we cannot apply the same rules and measures to the economy.
 

T6583

Well-Known Member
I wish the real world worked like that. If it did Bolivia would probably not be forced to rely on tin exports, since tin is in good supply and that's all they really have. Yeah, they could just move south a bit and take over northern Chile. Then they could have some copper to go with their tin. In the real world you are given resources and they might very well be things that the real world doesn't value as much as you'd like. Nothing you can do about that.

There aren't any intricacies of real world economics you need to understand to move to Open Trade. It might be better if you did, but all you need for Open Trade is a removal of the rules against Open Trade and a realization that the star-system is only one small factor in measuring the fairness of a trade.
I disagree. I am not convinced on your point of view nor do I think I ever will be. I'm no longer going to be following this thread. Soggy has already made a post that seems to express how I'm currently feeling about the forum at the moment with some of these discussions. You continue to trade your way and I'll continue to trade my way.
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
I would agree with your first point but the attempt to refute my point of view has been weak at best. Most of the refutation has been ad hominem and the rest avoid discussing the central problems with the current system or simply stating, in one form or another, "I prefer the current system" as if preference should determine it all. Show me where anyone has said: "the star system is a better measure of fairness" in contradistinction to "the star system is an artificial measure of fairness." That's a central tenant of my position. Nobody addresses that other than to say "the star system is easier and if everybody just went along with that it would somehow be better." Or show me where a person has argued that the rules do not put any social pressure and train players to treat the star system as the best measure of fairness. Or how about that such pressure is not an attempt to impose on others a system that is patently harmful to them? Perhaps I keep repeating my arguments in the hope that somebody will actually engage and debate my arguments. Wouldn't that be nice.

What about the delivery? Do I attack your motivations? Do I not respond to what you say in a more or less civil manner? What about the delivery -- other than it's intensity for which I will not apologize -- makes you, or anybody, uncomfortable?

And of course, not actually engaging in the question is also not a debate tactic, it's stonewalling, side stepping and hiding from the actual question.

So I ask, again,

1) Is the star system an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade?
2) Do rules not put social pressure on players and train them to believe the "proper" way to trade is to follow those rules?
3) If the star system is an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade is it not, therefore, also harmful to some players who use it?
4) If something is harmful to some of the players should we not get rid of it if we can?

Four simple questions. How hard can it be to actually discuss these? That people keep thinking the horse is dead is obviously untrue because they never took a shot at it, they spent most of their ammo trying to shoot the messenger! (LOL). Come on, we can do better than that. Let's just focus on the four questions above and forget your frustration with my tenacity. I just want to actually discuss the question because I think answering them honestly and taking action by joining the Open Trade movement will be better for players of the game in the long run.

Thanks,

AJ

I've read through the last 4 pages of comments and thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

You asked:
"1) Is the star system an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade?"

Yes and so is your open trading system (more on that below).


"2) Do rules not put social pressure on players and train them to believe the "proper" way to trade is to follow those rules?"

Yes.


"3) If the star system is an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade is it not, therefore, also harmful to some players who use it?"

No. Artificial and incomplete do not equal harmful. They may be less beneficial to some players in some circumstances perhaps but your proposal of an open trader is just as likely to be "harmful" (read: less beneficial) to some players in some circumstances as well.


4) If something is harmful to some of the players should we not get rid of it if we can?

No. Even if you could prove harm you'd also have to prove that the harm was unavoidable, unreasonable, presented a significant impediment to successful trading AND that you could guarantee that open trading wouldn't also cause harm.


As others have pointed out, for open trading to work as intended we would need to have an open trading environment and we don't. I know you, AJ, have said that market forces would still come in to play and whilst I think they probably would I don't think the extent would be anything like real world examples. We're talking about an incredibly simple trading system where the goods we trade are comparable to consumables. Once we use them for quests, tourneys and in payment for upgrades they disappear into Inno's belly.

For real world economic influences and principles to be considered useful here we would need to be able to choose what boosted goods we want to produce for trade and also be able to move about the map to secure a lucrative trading market. If I'm the poor schmuck who got lumped with scrolls as my boosted T2 and I happen to be in a neighbourhood where the majority also produce scrolls then regardless of open/closed trading I'm disadvantaged. Now I could shop around and try and find a fellowship that needs a scrolls boosted player and maybe I'd get lucky but the trading system won't fix the imbalance because it didn't cause it. My scrolls will always be lower in value because there's simply more of them available and until you can either increase demand or decrease supply (both of which are ultimately controlled by Inno and not the players) the problem will persist.

We have no way of knowing how Inno manages supply and demand when it comes to the goods we produce. They are the only ones with access to the data required to know if there's an imbalance between supply and demand nor do we know whether they tweak the algorithm to ask for more scrolls (or whatever goods are over supplied), during tourneys, quests and events to mop up excess. Without such knowledge we have absolutely no way of accurately predicting the influence or outcome of real life market forces nor can we expect the trading environment to respond as though it was an open market.

Trading is only one aspect of this game and although it's essential to progress it was never meant to be central to the games storyline itself. We don't get to choose an individual character, means of providing for ourselves or any of the other things that might warrant an open trading system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser27062

Guest
Only filter on the app version of the Trader is to not show trades with fees. No showing only fellowship trades. No showing only standard goods. No showing only sentient goods. So two separate buildings would greatly benefit mobile players. Sure, you can look at the goods one by one, but that is very tedious. Sometimes I think that if I had to play only the mobile version of the game, just the frustration of the Trader might have made me quit the game, especially once I got to sentient goods in chapter 12.

Ummm nope... the app offers the ability to filter by offer/demand as well (great way to filter out cross trades if you don't like them).
filtered trading app.jpg
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
I've read through the last 4 pages of comments and thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

"3) If the star system is an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade is it not, therefore, also harmful to some players who use it?"

No. Artificial and incomplete do not equal harmful. They may be less beneficial to some players in some circumstances perhaps but your proposal of an open trader is just as likely to be "harmful" (read: less beneficial) to some players in some circumstances as well.

4) If something is harmful to some of the players should we not get rid of it if we can?

No. Even if you could prove harm you'd also have to prove that the harm was unavoidable, unreasonable, presented a significant impediment to successful trading AND that you could guarantee that open trading wouldn't also cause harm.

As others have pointed out, for open trading to work as intended we would need to have an open trading environment and we don't. I know you, AJ, have said that market forces would still come in to play and whilst I think they probably would I don't think the extent would be anything like real world examples. We're talking about an incredibly simple trading system where the goods we trade are comparable to consumables. Once we use them for quests, tourneys and in payment for upgrades they disappear into Inno's belly.

For real world economic influences and principles to be considered useful here we would need to be able to choose what boosted goods we want to produce for trade and also be able to move about the map to secure a lucrative trading market. If I'm the poor schmuck who got lumped with scrolls as my boosted T2 and I happen to be in a neighbourhood where the majority also produce scrolls then regardless of open/closed trading I'm disadvantaged. Now I could shop around and try and find a fellowship that needs a scrolls boosted player and maybe I'd get lucky but the trading system won't fix the imbalance because it didn't cause it. My scrolls will always be lower in value because there's simply more of them available and until you can either increase demand or decrease supply (both of which are ultimately controlled by Inno and not the players) the problem will persist.

We have no way of knowing how Inno manages supply and demand when it comes to the goods we produce. They are the only ones with access to the data required to know if there's an imbalance between supply and demand nor do we know whether they tweak the algorithm to ask for more scrolls (or whatever goods are over supplied), during tourneys, quests and events to mop up excess. Without such knowledge we have absolutely no way of accurately predicting the influence or outcome of real life market forces nor can we expect the trading environment to respond as though it was an open market.

Trading is only one aspect of this game and although it's essential to progress it was never meant to be central to the games storyline itself. We don't get to choose an individual character, means of providing for ourselves or any of the other things that might warrant an open trading system.

On point 3. You are correct that "artificial and incomplete" do not automatically mean harmful. However, in any system if the system used is less than optimal then energy is lost and efficiency lowered. The more energy lost the less efficient. Profit rises as efficiency increases so if a system produces less efficiency the "harm" is that the player has less resources than they might have under another system.

On point 4

You suggest a number of things that would have to happen for Open Trade to work in place of the current system. Even if both systems produced some harm that was "unavoidable, unreasonable and presented a significant impediment to successful trading" you are right that to point out that it may be that an Open Trade system would produce more of these things...but maybe not. Whichever system produces the least harm, is the preferred one.

The choice of boosted goods is irrelevant. As pointed out, (Bolivia), wherever you are you are limited to the resources you have. Bolivia may have shifted from tin to other resources, but the country is still land-locked and one of the poorest countries in South American and the world. Certainly if there was a way they could move to a better locations they would. But they can't and have to play the hand they were dealt. So too, here in Elvenar. I am boosted in steel, scrolls, and dust, arguably the worst possible combination. I do well in spite of that. Could I have done better with other resources? No doubt. So while it's nice to think everyone in the world market can just change what they produce in response to changes in the market, they can't and that's just like in Elvenar.

I don't think Inno does much to manage supply/demand or the current imbalances would not have occurred. But even if they do, they can't control what players are producing individually, who joins and who drops out (it's been suggested more silk producers have dropped out than other T2 goods) and so on. Just as in the real world some companies go bankrupt, hurricanes happen, and so on, market forces are effected by unforeseen events. The addition of moonstone library sets produced or contributed to the abundance of scrolls. Did Inno see that was going to happen? We don't know. Just as we don't know when a hurricane might strike Puerto Rico and cause the drug levothyroxine to become a lot more expensive because the largest production facility in the world is there. Ditto for all kinds of natural disasters, crop failures, pest infestations, etc., etc, etc. Fluctuations in supply/demand are not always planned and cannot be totally planned so long as you have multiple people involved in deciding the supply and demand. In this game the players decide to supply and demand and while Inno can introduce "natural sources of supply" it's the players who determine the value of those supplies. The current system takes that idea and says, "no Inno has said that 1 scroll is equal to 1 silk because it's 2-stars." The rules only reinforce this and thus make the market more artificial. Without the rules and a bit of training players could just as easily ignore (or take as an approximation if they like) Inno's declaration of value and the market here would function a lot more like the real world to most players benefit.

Choosing our character is irrelevant since it's not our imaginary character that is making the decisions, it's us. We are humans and we function in any economic system -- however limited it might be -- in pretty much the same manner. So, just as in the real world, restricted trading tends to slow the rate of growth (because the rules tax -- meaning adding weight to something so it takes more energy to make it function).

I've never argued that trading is the focus of the game, but it is something we do in the game and something I think we could do better. Here's the thing: If I want to use the current system and think it's better for me, under an Open Trading system I'm free to do that, no questions asked. If I want to use an Open Trading model, under the Open Trading system I'm free to do that. However, under the current system, my use of an Open Trading model is scritinized with some players putting social pressure on me to conform by writing rules, calling my trades "gouging", and even refusing to take trades clearly beneficial to them just because they aren't "fair" by the artificial and incomplete system of measurement the ahve used to set the rules.

Is an Open Trading system less harmful than the current restricted system? Certainly for some players because it will allow them to make the trades they desire to make. For others it may mean some mistakes are made, but the mistakes will be their own, not because they are following an artificial and incomplete measure of their trades. In some ways that's the ultimate nature of the game -- to make choices and do the best you can without being forced by social pressure to make choices that might not be in your best interest.

Finally, thanks for a truly thoughtful and respectful response. I do appreciate it even if we do disagree on some things.

AJ
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
So you could not read that I said exactly that in my post? And that this is not enough?
Well, I saw that you said this "Only filter on the app version of the Trader is to not show trades with fees." so assumed you meant that the only filter on the app version of the trader is to not show trades with fees. I'm sorry if that's not what you meant.
 

StarLoad

Well-Known Member
We don't know. Just as we don't know when a hurricane might strike Puerto Rico and cause the drug levothyroxine to become a lot more expensive because the largest production facility in the world is there.
This is my 1,1,1 response, Please don't bring that Karma around as I depend on the medication to stay alive .... enough said.
 

DeletedUser5676

Guest
Well, I saw that you said this "Only filter on the app version of the Trader is to not show trades with fees." so assumed you meant that the only filter on the app version of the trader is to not show trades with fees. I'm sorry if that's not what you meant.
reset the filters every time we trade?
27 times to cover the possibilities
54 times when we get to sentient
81 times when we get to the next level

thats fun
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
Well, I saw that you said this "Only filter on the app version of the Trader is to not show trades with fees." so assumed you meant that the only filter on the app version of the trader is to not show trades with fees. I'm sorry if that's not what you meant.

Only filter on the app version of the Trader is to not show trades with fees. No showing only fellowship trades. No showing only standard goods. No showing only sentient goods. So two separate buildings would greatly benefit mobile players. Sure, you can look at the goods one by one, but that is very tedious. Sometimes I think that if I had to play only the mobile version of the game, just the frustration of the Trader might have made me quit the game, especially once I got to sentient goods in chapter 12.

Here, I bolded it for you.
 

GlamDoll

Well-Known Member
AJ, you called me out...I am still waiting. I answered your question with the same question & 'logic'...

Your window of opportunity has expired. FYI- If you ever ask a girl out on a date & she doesn't reject you, do NOT take this long to get back to her.
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
Here, I bolded it for you.
Yes, and it doesn't change the fact that you started your comment by saying there was only one filter and that was for blocking trades with fees. There was a miscommunication... get over it already :)
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
Finally, thanks for a truly thoughtful and respectful response. I do appreciate it even if we do disagree on some things.

AJ

You're most welcome.

Now, in response to your comments.
You said:

"On point 3. You are correct that "artificial and incomplete" do not automatically mean harmful. However, in any system if the system used is less than optimal then energy is lost and efficiency lowered. The more energy lost the less efficient. Profit rises as efficiency increases so if a system produces less efficiency the "harm" is that the player has less resources than they might have under another system."

Profit for whom? Your open trading system allows for players to post 0 & 1 star trades with impunity. Whilst those trades might be more profitable for them and thus a more efficient use of their resources they do so at the cost of another player. Let's say Player A is tech locked and desperately needs crystals to progress. They go to the trader and see your 1 star trade of crystal for silk. Yours is the only trade offering crystals at that time so he takes it. Player A considered the trade 'fair' given the value he placed on removing the tech lock and both players got something they needed. But you profited from his need and caused him harm (by your own definition) because he now has less resources than he would have under the 2 star fair trading system. If reducing harm and increasing efficiency is your motive and argument for encouraging open trading then it fails.


"The choice of boosted goods is irrelevant. As pointed out, (Bolivia), ..."

Bolivia is a great example here as it proves my point and disproves your own. Bolivia doesn't operate a free market economy because they are limited by what they can produce. Instead they suffice with a mixed economy which is the best they can do under their very limited circumstances.

But, besides that, the argument here isn't whether people could do better with different boosted goods or better neighbours but whether the market forces of supply & demand will come into effect under open trading to ensure everyone can get what they need. I am suggesting that a critical element is missing and that is the freedom to produce according to need.

"I don't think Inno does much to manage supply/demand or the current imbalances would not have occurred. But even if they do, they can't control what players are producing individually, who joins and who drops out (it's been suggested more silk producers have dropped out than other T2 goods) and so on. Just as in the real world some companies go bankrupt, hurricanes happen, and so on, market forces are effected by unforeseen events."

Inno is a business with paid employees. Being profitable will be their no. 1 priority so it's unbelievable to me that any aspect of the game would not be monitored. They don't need to control production because they already control demand which determines what we need to produce. Perhaps the imbalance exists because it's something that can be monetised or perhaps there is no imbalance at all and it's simply a case of confirmation bias.

You keep referring to real life events as though they mean something here. Surely we've established that the trading economy on Elvenar is far too simplistic to make such a comparison? In the real world some god doesn't pick up cities and move them to better areas (and if they could do such a thing then they ought to start with Bolivia), but here, Inno does do that. And it's Inno that decides the demand, not the players. We trade to get the goods we need to pay for upgrades, negotiations and tech activation. These prices are set by Inno and are non-negotiable. Without these demands the need to produce would be gone.

"Without the rules and a bit of training players could just as easily ignore (or take as an approximation if they like) Inno's declaration of value and the market here would function a lot more like the real world to most players benefit."

I agree that without rules the trading market would probably become more like the real world in some aspects but it would not be beneficial to most players. Those who are well resourced would be in a better position to absorb fluctuations in the market and take advantage of beneficial trades. The "poor" would suffer greater hardship because their desperation means they'd be more likely to accept bad deals and have fewer resources for workarounds. There would be a massive increase in shark trading because in a virtual world the consequences of starving out a small city simply means ruining someones fun, not literally leaving people to go hungry or homeless.

Rules and boundaries are meant to offer a balance of freedom and security. No one gets all of what they want but rather we make concessions - we trade certain aspects of freedom for security to the benefit of most people.

"Choosing our character is irrelevant since it's not our imaginary character that is making the decisions, it's us. We are humans and we function in any economic system -- however limited it might be -- in pretty much the same manner. So, just as in the real world, restricted trading tends to slow the rate of growth (because the rules tax -- meaning adding weight to something so it takes more energy to make it function)."

I think you're placing too much reliance on perceived real-world trends especially considering real world economic modelling is pretty hit and miss. Studies of macroeconomics on virtual worlds show that they operate in surprisingly unexpected ways. Rather than moving toward a position of supply & demand equilibrium with naturalised pricing these virtual world economies quickly converge at equilibrium, then they disequilibrate themselves before finding some other equilibrium and so on and so on. I don't know enough about it to say whether they're replicating some sort of Schumpeter's Gales but it's interesting all the same.

Anyway, we don't have a virtual society capable of sustaining this type of economic system but my point when mentioning characters and roles was simply that to rely on market forces in your argument in the way that you have you need to be talking about a system capable of generating them and we don't have that here on Elvenar.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
How is it that you missed I already am?

This is the only question or comment I saw that may have required and answer. I only went back a couple of pages so maybe there was something before this? In any case, this response of yours, was in my response to a question I asked about how you could have missed that Open Trading is about the ability to trade as you want without the social pressure of badly thought out rules. That's a general statement and therefore didn't specifically look at your trading style or methods. It, therefore, would have not been a comment on or denial of your trading as you wish.

And I don't date except my wife of 40+ years. She's usually the one who asks me out since I'm a "like to stay at home" kind of guy.

AJ
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
"On point 3. You are correct that "artificial and incomplete" do not automatically mean harmful. However, in any system if the system used is less than optimal then energy is lost and efficiency lowered. The more energy lost the less efficient. Profit rises as efficiency increases so if a system produces less efficiency the "harm" is that the player has less resources than they might have under another system."

Profit for whom? Your open trading system allows for players to post 0 & 1 star trades with impunity. Whilst those trades might be more profitable for them and thus a more efficient use of their resources they do so at the cost of another player. Let's say Player A is tech locked and desperately needs crystals to progress. They go to the trader and see your 1 star trade of crystal for silk. Yours is the only trade offering crystals at that time so he takes it. Player A considered the trade 'fair' given the value he placed on removing the tech lock and both players got something they needed. But you profited from his need and caused him harm (by your own definition) because he now has less resources than he would have under the 2 star fair trading system. If reducing harm and increasing efficiency is your motive and argument for encouraging open trading then it fails.
"The choice of boosted goods is irrelevant. As pointed out, (Bolivia), ..."

Bolivia is a great example here as it proves my point and disproves your own. Bolivia doesn't operate a free market economy because they are limited by what they can produce. Instead they suffice with a mixed economy which is the best they can do under their very limited circumstances.

But, besides that, the argument here isn't whether people could do better with different boosted goods or better neighbours but whether the market forces of supply & demand will come into effect under open trading to ensure everyone can get what they need. I am suggesting that a critical element is missing and that is the freedom to produce according to need.

You keep referring to real life events as though they mean something here. Surely we've established that the trading economy on Elvenar is far too simplistic to make such a comparison? In the real world some god doesn't pick up cities and move them to better areas (and if they could do such a thing then they ought to start with Bolivia), but here, Inno does do that. And it's Inno that decides the demand, not the players. We trade to get the goods we need to pay for upgrades, negotiations and tech activation. These prices are set by Inno and are non-negotiable. Without these demands the need to produce would be gone.

"Without the rules and a bit of training players could just as easily ignore (or take as an approximation if they like) Inno's declaration of value and the market here would function a lot more like the real world to most players benefit."

I agree that without rules the trading market would probably become more like the real world in some aspects but it would not be beneficial to most players. Those who are well resourced would be in a better position to absorb fluctuations in the market and take advantage of beneficial trades. The "poor" would suffer greater hardship because their desperation means they'd be more likely to accept bad deals and have fewer resources for workarounds. There would be a massive increase in shark trading because in a virtual world the consequences of starving out a small city simply means ruining someones fun, not literally leaving people to go hungry or homeless.

Rules and boundaries are meant to offer a balance of freedom and security. No one gets all of what they want but rather we make concessions - we trade certain aspects of freedom for security to the benefit of most people.

Of course if I post a trade of 1,000 for 10,000 of other same tier item the system labels it as a "bad trade," because the production costs of the two goods are the same so it must be that 1,000 of something is worth 1,000 of other same tier good. But since the value of the two goods fluctuates on the principle of supply and demand, how can the "referee" be even accurate on even that level? They can't. And if they can't then how can they also take into account all the intangibles?

"Choosing our character is irrelevant since it's not our imaginary character that is making the decisions, it's us. We are humans and we function in any economic system -- however limited it might be -- in pretty much the same manner. So, just as in the real world, restricted trading tends to slow the rate of growth (because the rules tax -- meaning adding weight to something so it takes more energy to make it function)."

I think you're placing too much reliance on perceived real-world trends especially considering real world economic modelling is pretty hit and miss. Studies of macroeconomics on virtual worlds show that they operate in surprisingly unexpected ways. Rather than moving toward a position of supply & demand equilibrium with naturalised pricing these virtual world economies quickly converge at equilibrium, then they disequilibrate themselves before finding some other equilibrium and so on and so on. I don't know enough about it to say whether they're replicating some sort of Schumpeter's Gales but it's interesting all the same.

Anyway, we don't have a virtual society capable of sustaining this type of economic system but my point when mentioning characters and roles was simply that to rely on market forces in your argument in the way that you have you need to be talking about a system capable of generating them and we don't have that here on Elvenar.

Your concept of profit is too limited. If I trade 10,000 scrolls for 1,000 silk the system tells me I've been ripped off. It's an "unprofitable" trade. But the intangibles of wanting to really, really finish the last chest in an evolving building event might make the trade very profitable to me. Intangibles mean that I am the only one who can determine profit for me. And, in general, people often take a "hit" on paper to achieve some other goal. Your example is good because it illustrates how measuring profit from outside the trade is artificial and incomplete.

Bolivia is a good example because, as you say, within the country they have a mixed economy. Part of the mines are owned by the government (which lose money), part by coops (which are a mixed bag), and part private (which create profit). But what you miss is that the global economy in which Bolivia functions is a free market. They don't consume the various minerals they produce but trade them on the global market. Thus the forces of the free market do impact their economy. In fact, their whole move to a mixed economy was after a long period in which the government owned the mines and ran them very badly. The country suffered in a completely controlled economy and they eventually moved away from that model.

I believe the disconnect here is based upon a belief that "real world" economic events are somehow patently more complex than in game ones. I'm not convinced. While the in game system has fewer input (types of goods to be traded), the complexity in trading in both worlds is based upon human psychology. In both worlds the trade is made by humans. In both worlds humans base the value of the trade on numbers and on intangibles. In both worlds humans respond to shortages by raising prices, and surpluses by lowering them. And they generally don't calculate, use complex mathematics and modeling, they decide. The decision is only a general sense and takes into account a rough estimation of their goals and desires -- the intangibles -- and if those goals and desires can be further met by trading X amount of this for Y amount of that, they do so. In other words, my whole argument is only secondarily about economics. Economic systems are descriptions of human trading behaviors. Having the referee's (the star system and it's rules) try to control human behaviors by telling everyone what is worth what, is not necessary or overall beneficial to the game.

You are right that real world predictions of how this or that will impact things, is pretty shady the farther into the future the predictions are done. The tendency of things to move to equilibrium is shown to be true....but the environment is constantly changing so they seldom reach that for any appreciable time period. The system is chaotic and so far whatever models we use diverge from expectations the longer into the future we project.

I agree that rules are generally there to protect somebody from something. And that no one gets all of what they want and we make concessions. But bad rules are still bad rules if they remove freedom unnecessarily. Is it necessary to have a referee tell a trader he or she can't make that trade because in the referee's view it's a bad deal? If I'm wanting to finish an event and need X amount of this for Y amount of that, should the referee be able to tell me that my desire to finish the event shouldn't be part of the equation? And if he or she can tell me that, does it not mean that he or she can, therefore, decide for me that I don't need to finish that event? Is that a necessary restriction?

I trade 1.1 scrolls for 1 silk. Why do I do that? Because if I offer 1 scroll for 1 silk nobody takes the trade. In spite of the game declaring that 1 scroll is equal to 1 silk, market forces are at play and do move the value of goods, even in this game. Market forces are just another term for how humans respond to perceived changes in supply and demand and their personal desires. They do that here and that is "market forces" at play.

AJ
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
Yes, and it doesn't change the fact that you started your comment by saying there was only one filter and that was for blocking trades with fees. There was a miscommunication... get over it already :)

Seriously? Sorting by good and filtering by normal, sentient, fellowship or no fee are totally different things. So you get over it.
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
Your concept of profit is too limited. If I trade 10,000 scrolls for 1,000 silk the system tells me I've been ripped off. It's an "unprofitable" trade. But the intangibles of wanting to really, really finish the last chest in an evolving building event might make the trade very profitable to me. Intangibles mean that I am the only one who can determine profit for me. And, in general, people often take a "hit" on paper to achieve some other goal. Your example is good because it illustrates how measuring profit from outside the trade is artificial and incomplete.

Bolivia is a good example because, as you say, within the country they have a mixed economy. Part of the mines are owned by the government (which lose money), part by coops (which are a mixed bag), and part private (which create profit). But what you miss is that the global economy in which Bolivia functions is a free market. They don't consume the various minerals they produce but trade them on the global market. Thus the forces of the free market do impact their economy. In fact, their whole move to a mixed economy was after a long period in which the government owned the mines and ran them very badly. The country suffered in a completely controlled economy and they eventually moved away from that model.

I believe the disconnect here is based upon a belief that "real world" economic events are somehow patently more complex than in game ones. I'm not convinced. While the in game system has fewer input (types of goods to be traded), the complexity in trading in both worlds is based upon human psychology. In both worlds the trade is made by humans. In both worlds humans base the value of the trade on numbers and on intangibles. In both worlds humans respond to shortages by raising prices, and surpluses by lowering them. And they generally don't calculate, use complex mathematics and modeling, they decide. The decision is only a general sense and takes into account a rough estimation of their goals and desires -- the intangibles -- and if those goals and desires can be further met by trading X amount of this for Y amount of that, they do so. In other words, my whole argument is only secondarily about economics. Economic systems are descriptions of human trading behaviors. Having the referee's (the star system and it's rules) try to control human behaviors by telling everyone what is worth what, is not necessary or overall beneficial to the game.

You are right that real world predictions of how this or that will impact things, is pretty shady the farther into the future the predictions are done. The tendency of things to move to equilibrium is shown to be true....but the environment is constantly changing so they seldom reach that for any appreciable time period. The system is chaotic and so far whatever models we use diverge from expectations the longer into the future we project.

I agree that rules are generally there to protect somebody from something. And that no one gets all of what they want and we make concessions. But bad rules are still bad rules if they remove freedom unnecessarily. Is it necessary to have a referee tell a trader he or she can't make that trade because in the referee's view it's a bad deal? If I'm wanting to finish an event and need X amount of this for Y amount of that, should the referee be able to tell me that my desire to finish the event shouldn't be part of the equation? And if he or she can tell me that, does it not mean that he or she can, therefore, decide for me that I don't need to finish that event? Is that a necessary restriction?

I trade 1.1 scrolls for 1 silk. Why do I do that? Because if I offer 1 scroll for 1 silk nobody takes the trade. In spite of the game declaring that 1 scroll is equal to 1 silk, market forces are at play and do move the value of goods, even in this game. Market forces are just another term for how humans respond to perceived changes in supply and demand and their personal desires. They do that here and that is "market forces" at play.

AJ

Going back to your original points, you said:

"1) Is the star system an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade?"

Yes and so is your open trading system as has been proven and argued by your own reasoning.

"2) Do rules not put social pressure on players and train them to believe the "proper" way to trade is to follow those rules?"


Yes and so does changing those rules to the new rules you suggest which is that players ought to choose for themselves how they determine value and profit in trading.

"3) If the star system is an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade is it not, therefore, also harmful to some players who use it?"


No because as you've stated a trade cannot be determined as harmful by outside measures.

"4) If something is harmful to some of the players should we not get rid of it if we can?"


As above - harm cannot be determined by anyone except the individual player. To make any change would be to assume harm where there may be none present.

If we accept that only the player can determine the profit and value of a trade then it cannot reasonably be argued that any trading system is unfair or harmful.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Going back to your original points, you said:

"1) Is the star system an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade?"

Yes and so is your open trading system as has been proven and argued by your own reasoning.

"2) Do rules not put social pressure on players and train them to believe the "proper" way to trade is to follow those rules?"

Yes and so does changing those rules to the new rules you suggest which is that players ought to choose for themselves how they determine value and profit in trading.

"3) If the star system is an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade is it not, therefore, also harmful to some players who use it?"

No because as you've stated a trade cannot be determined as harmful by outside measures.

"4) If something is harmful to some of the players should we not get rid of it if we can?"

As above - harm cannot be determined by anyone except the individual player. To make any change would be to assume harm where there may be none present.

If we accept that only the player can determine the profit and value of a trade then it cannot reasonably be argued that any trading system is unfair or harmful.

Very close, but the star system is an imposed system, and that means by imposing artificial and incomplete measures you have harmed the players by making them do it your way. An open system leaves them free to use the star system or not -- it's their choice.

There is a difference between imposing a potentially harmful system and letting people choose what system they desire to use without pressuring them to use a potentially harmful system through rules and social pressure. This leaves the valuation of the trade completely in the hands of the traders and removes the judgement (and moral condemnation implied by declaring a trade "unfair").

In the end it's not the system that is the problem it is the imposition of the system as "fair" when the player should be determining that. Most players never stop to evaluate their trades from a more robust view and just go along with the inaccurate, incomplete and artificial system they are given. The player sponsored rules reinforce this and thus, I'm for removing the rules so that the players can learn to measure the value of the trade by their own needs/desires. Open Trading is only about removing rules that potentially drive players into harming themselves, usually without knowing they are doing so. It is not, in itself a free market or any other system. I wanted to use the term Free Market to designate the freedom of the players to choose their own way of evaluating each and every trade without having to follow the rules, but "free market" is just to loaded, so I choose Open Trading instead.

AJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top