What to do when reviewer wants p-values, but I prefer to use significance stars to prevent clutter in table? My regression tables have coefficient estimates, standard errors, and significance stars indicating the range of p-values (e.g. two stars means p &lt; 0.05).

A reviewer wants the exact p-values. I personally think it would make the table more cluttered than it already is, and I have 12 regression tables. 

Should I adopt the reviewer's suggestion, simply because they are the ones who will play a big role in determining whether my paper is accepted? Or should I attempt to explain, saying that the p-value can be calculated from the coefficient estimates and standard errors (besides, the significance stars already give a good guide to the p-value?) 

=====

Edit: I decided to get rid of the significance stars and insert the p-values. Thanks for the feedback! (Interestingly, the paper was accepted, and the reviewer recommended the paper for acceptance, but they suggested I have both the significance stars and the p-value. But I didn't take their comment)
In general you are not obliged to comply with all reviewer wishes in your revision, unless maybe the editor has mentioned such a point explicitly in the decision letter. If you don't want to follow a reviewer's suggestion for revision, just explain in your response letter in a factual way why you choose to do so, and see what the editor and reviewer think about it. You have good points for such a response in your question already.

I would nevertheless suggest to make the reviewer's life as easy as possible. Even if you don't want to have them in the paper, you could maybe add a list of p-values to the response letter for exactly that comment, stating that for the convenience of the reviewer you calculated the p-values from the data given in the paper (instead of expecting the reviewer to do this). You could also offer to put such a list in any supplementary material if the journal has such and the reviewer thinks it's important that readers see that.