Screemnigcheesepuff wrote:For dec count, i would definitely be willing to help if you are looking for more people. As for active/inactive accounts, do we acctually know what the cut off point is for what is considered to be an inactive account? Otherwise logging that would have to rely on a made up cut off which im not sure how helpful that would be. But otherwise i like the idea of trying to figure out a omgsr to ext rare ect ratio and getting a better understanding of pet values that way.
As for which years, i am thinking its probably a good idea to count this coming dec 18th as there are likely going to be a change to the process this year so this would be the most accurate for how the rarity system is now. And its probably a good idea to avoid the year that had two release days (cant remember which one that was sorry) just because it clearly didnt work as they intended it to that year.
In the mean time, separate idea, if people are thinking the c$ chart is looking finalised, it might be a good idea to have a poll that runs for a while (several weeks) just with a few option for people to share their opinions on it. This is because we have seen from previous polls people are much more likely to click a few buttons than comment on this thread. I would recommend allowing people to select multiple options for answer
It would probably work best at the top of this thread, and maybe have options of;
I would/wouldn’t use this chart,
all prices are too high/low,
some prices are too high/low,
i have a different chart that i would prefer to use
And maybe a couple if other options, or rewording of these options as this is just a rough idea.
This could just run in the background for a while other parts like dec 18th are focused on to allow as many people to be able to have a say in the c$ chart without as much pressure to comment on the more complicated aspects of calculating c$ values.
(Sorry if any of this is worded poorly, i am more than happy to clarify anything if wanted)
--
I like this, but I think there are going to be multiple charts to vote on, so I don't know if there is a singular chart that should have the poll, or if we should do two separate polls like the above with both charts.
I might make a version of the chart that reflects how people are currently valuing 2010-2011 rares together (as much as I hate that people are doing that) and then group by years since people tend to like grouping some years together.
I'd also separate the options. I think "I wouldn't use this chart" can go unsaid if people are answering that prices are too high/low. Polls can have up to 10 answers so I'd do:
-I would use this chart
-All prices are too high
-All prices are too low
-Some prices are too high
-Some prices are too low
-Some prices are too high and some are too low
-Some of the year gaps are too big
-Some of the year gaps are too small
-I want a chart that has a price/range for each year.
-I have a different chart that I would prefer to use (Share?)
As for the previous pet counts and Dec 18th stuff:
I think the old data needs to be recollected. As much as it might be useful, it was clearly kind of borked and not doing very well. I don't want to use a script. There's think Chrome Extension called URLNext that could probably help us a lot to manually collect data.
This Dec 18th seems like
the time to be collecting this data. I think older years can be just as useful, but this one feels like it might be different.
A few things to look out for with the count:
-Is there a disproportionate amount of specific OMGSRs that may prove (or disprove) our theory about OMGSRs being released more often as they reach a rarity "limit"? (If that's the case we'd probably expect to see quite a few URs from last year, as well as old pets that are reaching this "limit"- think like the Sunjewel and stuff.)
-is there a ratio between New URs to Older URs that are released on Dec 18th?
-What kind of ratio is being created on Dec 18th in terms of pets to other pets, and do those ratios persist throughout the years? If they change: How, and does it suggest that all ratios are coincidental? (I.E. A sporadic change of ratio between sorbs to nons might suggest there's just no ratio at all being taken into account. If it's 4:1 Sorb:Non one year, but then there are more Nons than sorbs another year, then it might be reasonable to assume that either, A: There is no ratio being taken into account, or B: Certain Nons may have reached the rarity 'limit' and been released more often. In either case, we'd need more data from more years.)
Especially if we have data like,
20xa: 4 Sorbs : 1 Non
20xb: 2 Sorbs : 1 Non
20xc: 4 Sorbs : 1 Non
20xd: 3 Sorbs : 1 Non
20xe: 2 Nons : 1 Sorb
Then suddenly, 20xe is an outlier. The data suggests a ratio that is being enforced except in 20xe, meaning something happened to make them release more nons in that year. Data points like that could enforce the "rarity ceiling" theory.
immortality wrote:SolarSonnet wrote:Personally.. I don't know how set I am in making a trading guide with exact valuations anymore. I think Horror might have that one down (if you guys wanna do that, I'm all for it, but I have an adult life with adult things to do and I realized that actively maintaining a guide is probably.. going to be a lot of work, that I don't have the time/energy for.)
[cut to save space]
I just wanted to say that this is the most straightforward explanation about trading values (like "non") that I have ever seen and you actually lay out WHY some pets were/are considered worth more and where the whole valuation of non even comes from. I've been at CS for a few years now and was STILL confused until I read your post.
Whatever is done for trading guidelines, there should definitely be an ELI5 post to lay out exactly where all the terms come from, because it is really hard for newbies to just jump in and understand values like these. Also, I was speaking with a potential trading partner today over PM and they explained high demand/old rares valuation by converting things to C$ (giving a high/low range) and that was also really helpful.
I'm glad it was helpful! It definitely helps things make more sense when you know why pets are valued the way that they are. It makes sense to say "Shouldn't pets of the same rarity swap evenly?" until you realize that pets of the same rarity weren't always that rarity, and it might be negligible when it comes to pets rare and under, but it definitely isn't when you get into OMGSRs.
The reason 1 OMGSR can be worth 4 other OMGSRs isn't for no reason or "just because", it's because there's actual data points that back up that trading value for them, based in old rarities. The fact that there used to be 4 sorbs for every non, makes it make sense that we're using a similar ratio to this day. It's more like 2:1 right now, but personally I'd have kept it at 4:1. I think 2:1 happened because of the demand spike that came when the pink sorb shot up to OMGSR, and some still value the Pink Sorb at 0.75n which is insane to me.
Rarity tags have demand in and of themselves, unfortunately. People thought that the pink sorb shooting up to OMGSR first and then dropping back down meant that the pink sorb was rarer than its littermates, when, in fact, there have been gaps as small as 16 pets before between VR and OMGSR. So it was likely that the entire sorb litter has been on the cusp of OMGSR for a while. I don't think that should have changed their valuation in terms of their relation to nons, though.
If the cutoff for VR-OMGSR was less than 1 pet per 1000 users, there could have just been like 10 less Pink Sorbs than Blue/Green/Yellow Sorbs, and that was enough. Then people logged on again for Dec 18th and it fell back down to VR because they were considered "active" again.
Just because a pet jumps in rarity, doesn't mean that its littermates are significantly less rare than it. It might even suggest that its littermates are of a similar rarity, have been on the cusp for a while, and it's time to re-evaluate the entire litter.
Also: Since there's nothing above OMGSR. Nons could very well be "Less than 1 pet per 4000 accounts" and Sorbs could be "Less than 1 Pet per 1000 accounts" meaning its still 1:4, it's just a different 1:4, and we have no idea, because there's no OMGSR tiers. That's what the guides and lists are for, and why a pet's rarity history is arguably one of the most important things to take into account when calculating what they're worth now. I think the change in Sorbs from 1:4 to 1:2 was arbitrary and not based in fact or actual valuation. I think all sorbs should be able to swap 1:1, as intended since the beginning.
I also don't understand the people who are like, "With the revamps we don't have any idea what the pets are worth now" as if.. the change in rarity labels negate a pet's rarity history? Yes, rarity revamps change a lot, but we can still assume valuation based in their history. It's not like there were any less or more of them before the revamp, they've had the same amount of them this entire time. Doesn't this actually give us more information than before? Especially about pets ranging from Common to VR/ER right now.
A pet that was uncommon previously jumping up to EUC now, means that this pet has been on the cusp of Rare for a while. On the flip side, a pet that was rare turning EUC means that it was likely on the cusp of being Uncommon previously. We now have more information about that pet than ever. I'd call a VUC a "true" Uncommon, since they're the middle-of-the-line Uncommon. I'd bet most pets that were previously "solidly uncommon" are now Very Uncommons. Similarly, in Commons, I'd bet that pets that were solidly 'Common' before are between Very Common and Common. This gives us more information about those pets than we've ever had in the past. I just wish we had even more rare categories with how many OMGSRs there are now.
.png)
