Don’t forget the cooperation.
Oh, yeah. You read about Marx in college and think you would even have video games to play without capitalism? Hilarious.
This is patently false. It’s a fallacy of composition. Just because it can occur in the system doesn’t mean the system is founded on it or can’t function without it. Capitalism is founded on the voluntary exchange of goods and services, usually through some medium of currency.
It’s no wonder you’re so wrong about everything trade and economics. You don’t even have good definitions or understanding of what the concepts are.
So yes, you need to grow up. 
Capitalism without exploitation is called Communism.
Profit is literally exploitation.
Otherwise, every single corporation in the world would be a 501c3 (non profit).
Yes, I’m sure you’ll win over lots of people with that failed logic. 
As fun as these threads have become, they’re also going nowhere given that neither of you will budge. It’s not a discussion, you’re both shouting at the wall.
Look, if a video game “economy” is purely fair (don’t ask me how to achieve that, but go with me here), then Player A is trading to Player B an identical value of what Player B is trading to Player A.
- If it is not fair, and one player makes out in the deal, then its not trading - its exploiting. Its profiting. Its gaining an unfair advantage with those 16 hrs/day you have that the other player doesn’t have.
- If it is fair, and the trade value is dead-on equal, then its not an Economy. Its just players swapping items with each other, and the concepts of “currency” and “profit” don’t exist, so there is no need to shoe-horn the trading system design into using those mechanisms.
So, do people want fair trade or do people want unfair profit and exploit?
Those that want to take advantage of other players are scum, and deserve no consideration or courtesy any moreso than botters, hackers or RMTers. I refuse to act like exploitive people deserve respect.
- What if both players trade a lower-value item to them and get a higher-value item from their point of view?
That’s the ideal.
1 Like
I did say “I have no idea how to accomplish a measure of objective fairness”, though. 
To be fair. (See what I did there?)
As long as you think “profit = exploitation,” you won’t have a persuasive argument to make on anything regarding trade. Llama provided a perfect example of why. Let me give you another, using PoE as an example:
Player [DogeCoin420] has an item I want, but it’s priced higher than 3 other players, say 70c. I can’t reach 2 of those players, but the 3rd one has an inferior version of the item for 50c.
For 1, What is the item worth?
And 2, If I’m happy to save some currency to buy the cheaper one or would rather have higher quality and pay a little more for it, Who is being exploited?
Lastly 3, If I value that item more than I do my currency and the other player values the currency more, again, Who is being exploited? (This being Llama’s point)
It’s not as simple or cut and dry as you try to make it sound. It’s why the Marxist theory of value is incorrect. You have a lot more homework to do, so stop trying to tell people they don’t enjoy economies, because most people clearly do. It’s fine if some people don’t, but that doesn’t make it some “plague on gaming” as you said earlier.
In your example, you’re failing to grasp where 70c came from.
70c came from.
- I bet I can get 50c for this item (it sells). Yep, I can.
- I bet I can get 70c for this item (it sells). Yep, I can.
- I bet I can get 100c for this item (it doesn’t sell). Nope, seems people are ok with 70c.
You and Llama are putting that forth as some sort of fair deal. i.e. Obviously, someone else didn’t value 50c or 70c as much as the item, but many people valued 100c more than the item.
A few problems:
- If you leave it at 100c longer, it might eventually sell to someone.
- Any price you set is based on greed - i.e. how MUCH can I get for this item, and not value.
- With prices being visible, you are into full blown economy mode, with people undercutting prices to get a quick sale, others cornering items and driving up the price, etc. All of that is pure exploitation and greed.
The problem you guys have is you are willing to white-wash all those exploitive behaviors of the actual economy, not to even MENTION how you’re avoiding the Bots/RMT issue like Superman avoids Kryptonite.
You are also unwilling to admit that IF (and I will return to my caveat about being unable to define “100% fair” here), but IF trades are actually “100% fair” regardless of what criteria you use, then there still is no need for currency and an economy. There is no mechanical difference between getting 70c and then buying the item, versus putting some item you found (in the time it would take to get 70c) up for free, and then seeing a cool item you want and grabbing it for free.
The fundamental basis is that both players put up an item representing their time, and got an item from another player which represented their time. That’s it.
Layering on real-world economics doesn’t make that trade better. It only makes it more familiar.
1 Like
No, son. What you’re missing is the one critical element of it all:
An item is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
Value doesn’t have any objective source. It’s completely subjective. Economies are all about finding that balance between supply, demand, and price.
This doesn’t work because of supply/demand, even if you try to exclude price. Also, your proposal doesn’t ensure that people get what they want–only what’s available (and what’s available will be significantly inferior)–the classic problem with communism. You don’t get to just skip the mechanics and call it equal. It’s not.
I’m starting to get the impression from all this talk about capitalism being exploitative that you might not like your job very much.
1 Like
I’m getting the impression he might not be very high on the totem pole. 
Supply and Demand works only in cases of limited Supply.
I hate to use fiction (but, we’re talking about a video game, so I feel its fair… 
), the premise of “no money” in Star Trek was that there was, in effect, infinite supply (if you aren’t a Trekkie, its because of replicators.)
If there is a pile of items in a searchable list, and you search that list to see if there’s anything to fit your build (“I just need a Sapphire ring with mana regen and Phys resist!”), then the existence of 100,000 other items doesn’t impede your ability to find that item.
There are also ways to cut down “inferior” items. Here’s just one idea (I’m sure there are more):
- Items have rarity, Item Level, individual affix tiers, and a combined/total affix tier.
- If players need to be “incentivized” (i.e. carrot on a stick) to put up good items, then grant a reward they would desire based on the “quality” of the item donated. I suggested a character buff but honestly, just go with “you get a scaling reward based on item quality”.
- In return, you can now avail yourself of that same free system to get items for yourself. So, once players get into the cycle, it would go:
– I donate a good item for that sweet, sweet buff (the crappy items don’t give me much so I just vendor that crap).
– I go play and make use of that buff
– I come back, and search for a good item for myself. I appreciate that the system works both ways.
With a system like that, there will be so many items posted, I can’t imagine running “low” on anything. Will there be thousands of Tier 20 items up there with the perfect stats you need for your build? At first, no way. But eventually because no one can manipulate the system to “short” the supply. Its not manipulatable by players like an economy is. That’s the advantage.
Just gonna call out a technical error here. Replicators don’t create something from nothing. They recycle used mass into energy and they create mass from stored energy. It isn’t infinite. There are episodes that address the issues with them.
As for the proposal, it’s borderline off-topic to keep posting about it here when you have a thread dedicated to it and it’s been pretty well debunked, despite your protestations and excuses to the contrary.
Or just use an economy, because that’s a tried and true method that works–and is what the devs stated in the kick starter.
Nothing about the 70c, cornering the market on items to drive up prices, bots, RMTs… just superior Trek knowledge to mine, and a repetition of “Economy good!” with nothing to back it up? Really?
Also, I’ve already made the appropriate arguments.
This is actually an amazing idea, we could make it like gold or something which they could then use to get other items they want.
3 Likes
That’s what I’ve been saying in all these threads.
Btw. What’s wrong with exploitation for profits? I love it. Especially in an ARPG.
2 Likes