Should all rarities be valued equally?

[ACat]

Disclaimer: Please do not use this space to be hateful to other players/staff/artists/etc. Be respectful of the opinions of others in this thread.

A common point being made recently is that trading is becoming a confusing thing and needlessly stressful/anxiety inducing. The current trading values were community made (I believe) and with the recent rarity update, things have changed slightly.

Some users have said they wish all pets of a rarity were valued the same, no matter the year they're from, and the concept of new vs old rares be removed. With the change of rares being implemented into monthly litters to give newer players a better chance of gaining rare pets, this would make sense. As it stands they're still at a disadvantage as whilst their pet indeed has the 'rare' label, it's still not deemed to be worth as much as a pet of the same rarity from an older year.

Another point, more personal to myself, is that the concept of 'species demand' really ought to be obsolete nowadays as it's honestly a personal preference. If a pet is on a person's wish list then it's 'in demand' for that person and they shouldn't be expected to overpay/need overpay for it (e.g. rats/horses/etc).

So, I have the following questions for everyone!:

- Do you think pets of the same rarity should be of equal value no matter the year? Why/Why not?
- Should the rarity system be further categorised by terms like 'Rare close to VR' or 'EUC close to Rare'?
- Does the trading system as a whole need to be reworked?
- Should a set value for all pets be put in place?
- Any other thoughts on this topic?

[Note: This does not include pets with specific demand or store pets]

Check out my other discussion threads too!:
Pets with confusing worth
What are your CS hot takes?
Should all rarities be valued equally?

[Space Cadet Marz]

While I definitely see the point in rarity equality, demand has always been a part of CS because there are always going to be designs people like more than others.
I have all rares on my wishlist because it makes it easier to pick them up in the pound, not because I am particularly hunting for that pet during trades. I wish they would give us separate wish lists, like a pound list that only we can see, but since they don't, I use a disclaimer in my trade rules to say which pets I'm not actually looking for actively.

You'll never get rid of demand, in the sense that it is based on personal preference. People just like dogs more, and then there will be aesthetics even within the dog pets that people like more than others. Nick dogs, for example, appeal to a smaller demographic for aesthetics and those seeking complete collections, than say the 2009 GSD, which is a realistic looking dog that people relate to their pets, fursona, etc.
So if I realllly wanted a GSD to dress up as my fursona, I'd be willing to pay a little extra to get what I want, rather than someone offering me a Nick dog that I've only got on my list for completion, or because I think they are silly/funny and could take it or leave it.
There is no way to mitigate demand, other than people just refusing to pay more than what a pet is worth, which isn't something that can really be enforced.

[Minimanta]

No.
That's just not how supply and demand works.
And it's not so much the year that matters, really, it's how many of a particular pet is in supply that matters and that fluctuates within a rarity label.
Rarities are based on how many pets exist on all active accounts, the less there are of a particular pet the rarer it will be. But on a spectrum. There could be 500 of this pet and 1000 of that pet but they could still be the same rarity (fake numbers, obviously ^.^). And not all of those 500 or 1000 pets are available for trade because people keep them for their collections and/or hoards shrinking the number in supply.

One way to give some stabilization to the CS economy would be if the staff would reveal how many of each pet exists. That way we'd KNOW there are x amount of this pet and y amount of that pet therefore one is rarer than the other. Or there are z amount of this pet and roughly z amount of that pet therefore they're roughly equally rare.
But for whatever reason they refuse to give up those numbers.

[LLHBBB]

sorry but I will never value a 2022 rare worth the same as a 2009 rare. Years to me make a difference even if the amount of active pets are the same as well as actual value. That might not make sense but it's how I feel.

[Buck Ruffler]

I'd say species demand IS the personal preference... if a lot of people personally prefer dogs over horses, well there's your demand. Its not really something you can control. If people don't want to trade for linearts they don't like, even if they're just as rare, they wont.

Anyway, I love answering questions oh boy!!
I don't think the rarity system needs to be categorized further in that way, I think it'd freak people out. Someones gonna see their dog, for example, with a "close to extremely rare" tag and demands gonna go crazy! everyone's gonna suddenly want that thing! and then maybe it wont turn extremely rare after all. we can see pets dropping and going up in rarity every rarity update (you know, the ones every month or so), i think that's good enough for trying to identify pets on the cusp of changing.

Does the trading system need a rework? Nah. You ask for some pets, offer some in return.. they either accept or decline, boom. I don't see a reason to mess with that (or a way to).

Set value for pets? I'm not actually sure what that means. Who is setting their value? What dictates their value? I think values should just be left up to the community, either way. But take all my opinions with a grain of salt, i'm just a humble bystander to it all.