"The" Rares List Guide - Do not ask about new UR's!

[The Last Raven]

@Asurei
Here is my issue with your statement. If you actually read the bottom of the first post on that thread it explains exactly why the list pet's are worth the different amounts of c$. They talk about the exact calculations that you have posted.

Why don't C$ values add up like pets?

Many people ask, "a mid advent is worth 7 09 rares, and an 09 rare is anywhere from 30-45C$. But the mid advent is only listed at 85C$! Shouldn't it be 210-315C$?"
There is a reason why we don't do this.
19C$ = $1 US Dollar
An 09 rare is roughly 30C$. (Just using this as a middle ground, they can be more or less.)
A mid advent is 7 09 rares, so 210C$. ($11 USD - that's already a lot.)
A blue rose dog is worth 7 mid advents, so that would be 1,470C$, or $77 USD. That's a lot of money.
And to take a big jump, a nondog is worth 36 blue roses. That would be 52,920C$, or $2,785 USD.
And finally, a sunjewel is worth 5 nondogs. 264,600C$ or $13,926 USD.
This is why we simply cannot use rarity math like this. A sunjewel right now, at 1840C$, is worth $105 USD which is still a lot of money, but clearly a lot more doable than nearly 14k.

So in reality it doesn't particularly prove that the list is a broken system. They even mention that pet prices and c$ prices are different. You are dealing with real money vs pure pixels. They cannot be a straight across exchange. That would get out of hand fast.
I do not disagree that there are issues with the list, but the c$ list cannot be used in a case against it.

[nickjr]

I added in a second column running a simulation assuming the lowest tier advent was worth C$1. The final result is that a Sunjewel is still worth the totally reasonable sum of 12,661 Chicken Dollars.

... in other words, according to the List, the Sunjewel is worth over 12k of the lowest advents (to those who are hung up over "C$ doesn't work like that": what this part of the post is saying that if 1 lowest-tier advent = 1 lowest-tier advent, then 1 sunjewel = over 12,000 lowest-tier advents; does it really matter what the units are here?)
(not directed at acatalepsy; you ninja'd me lol)

that... doesn't seem right to me, even when taking demand into account... we only had ~300k pets adopted during all of December 2008 (including rereleases and, of course, days where you could only adopt the non-lowest-tier advents) and ~15k adopted before August 2008 (not sure when the sun litter was taken down, I'll admit)... I mean yeah we've had rereleases since 2008 but I doubt they changed the ratios drastically...

What happened? Because the "gaps can't be calculated like that" thing is not intuitive at all and actually doesn't make sense, especially when the only reason given is "then the C$ values get ridiculously high"

Take that out of context (because it's something that ought to make sense out of context--I mean, it's trading A for B, how much more context is necessary?) and... that just... doesn't make sense. Like of course basic rarity math doesn't work (like 2 C = 1 UC, of course that doesn't work), but what about value math? How else can trades be deemed fair or unfair? I asked this years ago and I don't think I ever got a clear answer ("it doesn't work like that" okay... why? because the values get super high? that almost sounds like something a kid would say: I don't understand why it doesn't work like that, but it doesn't work like that, so I'm gonna use something that I can actually see as my reason, regardless of if it's relevant), so I stopped asking

(and no, fluidity is not the answer, because math with ranges also ought to work--unless I'm missing something)

[Solloby]

I've always had an issue with that tbh. The C$ worth and Rares List are incompatible; if they don't match up then one is wrong.

If 1000C$ is roughly fair for a non, and 500C$ is roughly fair for a Pink Balloon dog, then 2 pink balloon dogs should be fair for a non. Except a non is worth roughly 11.5 balloon dogs according to the gaps list, not 2. That makes zero sense. These two guides together essentially say it's unfair to trade 2 balloon dogs for a non dog, but it's perfectly fair to trade 2 balloons for C$1000 then trade than for a non dog. So a user paying in pets has to exchange 11-12 balloon dogs for a non, but a user paying in C$ only has to pay 2 balloon dogs. What?

As an aside, if we rework the Rares List into a Rarity Guide then the C$ worth thread would also need updating (and perhaps allow for some flexibility in pricing rather than listing exact prices for list pets?)

[lil rascal]

It's not just the C$ & list that are incompatible, the mains list with the advent list, & even the September & lower mains list with the high mains, is pretty incompatible too. On one hand we're told for example a balloon dog is worth 21 advents - then we're told no one would actually pay that many advents for one, and it only gets worse the higher you go up the list (does any one user actually own the 1260 advents that a Sunjewel is supposedly worth?). I get that the idea is to show the balloon dogs are worth a lot more than advents, but if no one would pay 21 advents for one doesn't that mean they're not actually worth that much? Likewise I can't see anyone actually handing over the 11-12 balloon dogs in the above example for a non. In the real world something is only worth what people will pay for it...

[Solloby]

There were roughly 15k pets adopted in July 08 (and Aug 1st, I have a nontag dated that).
There were roughly 100k pets adopted in Aug 08.
So shouldn't the going rate for a common July 08 (e.g. Nontag) be around 6.6 common Augusts (e.g. Pink Balloon)?
Or is that a completely invalid way of looking at this.

Although I suppose if we switched to a Rarity Guide, it wouldn't ultimately matter because people would have more freedom with what they offered, so maybe trade values might settle to something closer to that if that's where it should naturally be.

[Goostarion]

Thats hella insightful as a whole because if there wasn't any re-releases that could be completely valid for making the list and make everything easier to calculate. But in that same sentence... That's probably invalid because of re releases. If all pets are using the same ratio scale which they are, that means there are tons of pets released during dec 18th, therefore keeping rarities down. Otherwise all pets would be OMGSR from July 08

[lil rascal]

There were roughly 15k pets adopted in July 08 (and Aug 1st, I have a nontag dated that).
There were roughly 100k pets adopted in Aug 08.
So shouldn't the going rate for a common July 08 (e.g. Nontag) be around 6.6 common Augusts (e.g. Pink Balloon)?
Or is that a completely invalid way of looking at this.

Although I suppose if we switched to a Rarity Guide, it wouldn't ultimately matter because people would have more freedom with what they offered, so maybe trade values might settle to something closer to that if that's where it should naturally be.

That sounds a lot more logical than the current system, and also a better representation of what people are likely to be willing to pay in terms of bulk trade ups.

Even if it's changed to a Rarity Guide I think it's still be a good idea to make it clear that the current system is simply not logical when it comes to breaking down the values. Maybe pointing out the incompatibilities when it comes to the current high:low list system might make people more accepting of the big shake up?

[DaDwarf]

Just popping in to say the c$ guide was made based on what pets were offsite traded for, not what they are worth in pets. A sunjewel trades for around 100USD. Thats where the org prices came from.

C$ and pets will never be compatible because it drives up pet prices if you try. Look at advents. Mid tier, 7 09 rares? So a seven tier adbent is already worth 7*35 to 50 c$. Thats a ridic high ammount abd not what pets traded for. Those types of advents typically trade for 3-5 usd. Thats how the c$ guide was made and its been updated by simply upping prices as c$ got more and more common each year.

[nickjr]

There were roughly 15k pets adopted in July 08 (and Aug 1st, I have a nontag dated that).
There were roughly 100k pets adopted in Aug 08.
So shouldn't the going rate for a common July 08 (e.g. Nontag) be around 6.6 common Augusts (e.g. Pink Balloon)?
Or is that a completely invalid way of looking at this.

Although I suppose if we switched to a Rarity Guide, it wouldn't ultimately matter because people would have more freedom with what they offered, so maybe trade values might settle to something closer to that if that's where it should naturally be.

If there are about the same number of different "common" outcomes, then yeah, I think that's a valid way of looking at it.

... although wasn't the galaxy litter available for the majority of both July and August 2008? Or maybe that was the sorbets? Both litters are archived under July 2008, but both litters were available to the end of August 2008 (I have a BEG and a Pink Sorbet adopted during the last week of August 2008). I seem to remember that one of those two litters was put up maybe a week before the rest of the August 2008 pets while the other was put up with the rest of the July 2008 pets.

Wonder if that invalidates that way of looking at worth...

[Sinbreaker]

Where is everyone on the idea of store pets in relation to the list? I'll admit I ignored the problem with certain store pets like Cerbs and Ravens, as they had always been in high demand (although, have not always gone for so much.)

But I'm starting to see the entire community think ALL store pets should be something worth like a Main List? I've gotten offers recently with people offering me their Lolita's and asking for Main List around the Purple Toxic tier.
And any store pet, while I will always say have demand, are now starting to be spiked up in demand. And I believe it's a mixture of Raven's demand leaving ripples of "fear" that people will lose out on good trades with store pets unless they ask for overpay, and from the talk of this thread.

Is the idea of "removing store pets" from the list still in thought? I.e. Having them put on the side and giving them a general area of worth in relation to the list.