(UPDATED 3/1) Add an objective rarity list for pet worth

[lukas_stop]

Updated this thread with changes proposed from the replies! Do let me know what you think and please continue to give more feedback on what you think works/doesn't! The end goal is to minimize having to cross-reference 15 different user made threads and instead have a set list based on data that already exists on site to make trading easier for folks :]

- CHANGE LOG 3/1 -

Removed the text:

How many of this type of pet have been traded recently?

This is the easiest way to tell if a pet is in high demand without placing a demand-based value on it. If a lot of users are trading for a certain pet, that pet will be considered in high demand. If there was only a handful of reported trades containing that pet, then it is considered low demand.

This could also be scaled as well, similar to how the rarity scale is set (as in common/uncommon/rare/etc). Using example numbers here:
extremely low demand - less than 10 trades
low demand - 10-20 trades
moderate demand - 20-30 trades
high demand - 30-40 trades
extremely high demand - 40+ tradesThis way, users can know for sure if a pet is high demand based on the number of people who have traded for that pet, rather than what other users say. This also would allow users to better place overpay/high demand offers for pets. If a user wants double what a pet is worth, but the pet has consistently moderate demand, then there's argument to be made that that user is value pushing or attempting a scam (this is very context dependent but its still a point worth noting)

This would also help for incoming unreleased pets, or unreleased pets who are still having their values be placed. As the demand naturally slows over time, the true worth will begin to settle and users can use this data to help place a firm pin on the true value of a pet.

When a pet is sent in a trade that has both sides filled, that pet is flagged as one that was recently in a trade and the overall counter for those types of pets increases by one. It won't account for if the trade is overpay/underpay, just if the pet existed in that trade.

In favor of a system referring to wishlist data as the main contributor for demand determination:

Dawulf made an excellent point about how some pets may not have accurate trade data due to how little are in circulation. I've updated this post so that wishlists are now going to be the main method of determing pet demand rather than trade data. Additionally, tags like "high demand"/"extremely high demand" are going to be removed and replaced with a simple counter of how many pets exist on user wishlists.

This section will also be updated again if/when the individualized wishlists are added down the line (as in being able to filter wishlists by "dreamies"/"hoard pets"/etc.

The main logic behind this is that if a user wants a pet, they'll add it to their wishlist. Even if that pet only exists on a wishlist for the pound, it's still wanted by that user. The more users have a pet on their wishlist, the more demand there is for that pet. Being able to count this information will allow users to place their own personal values on what a "high demand" pet is and provide them with a bit of data to confirm that definition.

For example, if the number of users with a pet on their wishlist far exceeds the number of pets in existence, then it's safe to say its a very high demand pet!

updated the text:

trade data is very fickle and without additional context it can't be used as a method of assessing value
There is too much that goes into a trade to have the trade itself be a solid point of data. Trade data also wouldn't account for things such as art payment/offsite trades, or if a user is willingly overpaying/underpaying or giving a gift. Checking if a pet exists in a trade or not is the only consistent datapoint for pet worth, not how the trade is valued.

to better reflect the recent change of using wishlists to solidify demand data:

trade data is very fickle and without additional context it can't be used as a method of assessing value
Trade data also wouldn't account for things such as art payment/offsite trades, or if a user is willingly overpaying/underpaying or giving a gift. Circulation also plays a large role in determining trades as well. For very old store pets or unreleased pets, there simply isn't enough of them to go around to accurately measure their value without having to place personal opinions of pet worth onto them. There could be a good portion of older pets in existence, but it doesn't mean they're being traded fairly based on their true value. Many of them are very likely being traded for more than their objective worth, and thus it can be difficult to say what the true value of a pet is.

updated the sample table with the new changes for wishlist data, and also included a total count column to be used as a comparison:

image id: a simple table containing the 08 moondog litter. The table headings are "Pet Image", "Release", "Pet Rarity", "Current Count" and "Current Demand". The table contains images for each of the four dogs in the litter, their release date of July 2008, their rarity of "OMG So Rare", and various count/demand values for each dog. The count values are formatted in a similar way. The information for the first current count row reads "There are 2100 of these pets currently on active accounts!" and the information for the first current demand row reads "500 users have this pet on their wishlist!" /end id

I think there needs to be a bit of workshoping with how the wording for pet count and wishlist count is? But! For now I think this'll be a lot less confusing in the long run :thumbup:


clarified FAQ text for this question:

Will this list pet worth in terms of nons/mid advents?

No. The old rare's list was disbanded and the terms are outdated. This has lead to much confusion on what nons/mid advents are and how they are to be weighed. If you are going to use one of the user-made lists, use terminology from said lists (such as the tier system from horror's list).

This list is meant to be used as a baseline/guideline for rarity alone. It is not meant to be an indicator of current going rates (see usage for more explanation)

.

to better reflect the recent changes above:

Will this list pet worth in terms of nons/mid advents/old rares?

No. As of February 28th 2026, these terms are being retired and banned unless you wish to use them for personal definitions. The old rare's list was disbanded and the terms are outdated. This has lead to much confusion on what nons/mid advents are and how they are to be weighed. If you are going to use one of the user-made lists, use terminology from said lists (such as the tier system from horror's list). This list is meant to be used to provide a user with objective values and ease confusion on things like which omgsr pet is worth the most out of all the other omgsr pets.

This list is meant to be used as a baseline/guideline for rarity alone. It is not meant to be an indicator of current going rates (see usage for more explanation).

updated the examples:

Example 1:

I want to trade for a yellow sorbet. I know that in the archive it is listed as an OMGSR dog from July of '08, but there are a number of dogs from that same month/year that share that rarity. I have a Blue Rose Dog that is listed as OMGSR, but I do not know if this would be a fair trade.

I know that the three month rule states pets within three months of each other are generally worth the same. I also know that pets from '08/'09 have been known to have high rarity values.

I start my search in this rarity archive. I sort the pets by rarity so that only OMGSR pets appear on the page. I then sort the page so that only dogs appear on the page. I then sort by year so I am only looking at pets from 2008. That gets me a nice clean list of all the OMGSR dogs from 08 to look at.

I can see that the blue rose dog is a few dogs lower than the yellow sorb. That tells me that they're close in value, but the sorb is likely higher. I also see that the yellow sorb is listed as a "high demand" pet while my blue rose dog is listed as "moderate demand", another indicator that the sorb is worth more.

With this information, I now can start to move onto looking at other users trades to figure out just how much more the pets are currently trading for. I can use user-made guides such as Auora's list or Horror's list, I can go the route of looking at chicken dollar values, or I can ask around on pet worth/fair trade threads to get a final opinion before making an offer.

with updated text and links for specific pets to help with clarification:

These examples have been updated to reflect recent changes and to provide better clarification on usage.
Note that for numberical data I will be using placeholder values (as much as I wish I did I do not have actual numbers for how many pets exist on chicken smoothie aside from how many types of pets exist in a given month/year)

Example 1:



I want to trade for a yellow sorbet. I know that in the archive it is listed as an OMGSR dog from July of '08, but there are a number of dogs from that same month/year that share that rarity. I have a Blue Rose Dog that is listed as OMGSR, but I do not know if this would be a fair trade.

I know that the three month rule states pets within three months of each other are generally worth the same. I also know that pets from '08/'09 have been known to have high rarity values.

I start my search in this rarity archive. I sort the pets by rarity so that only OMGSR pets appear on the page. I then sort the page so that only dogs appear on the page. I then sort by year so I am only looking at pets from 2008. That gets me a nice clean list of all the OMGSR dogs from 08 to look at.

I can see that the blue rose dog is a few dogs lower than the yellow sorb. That tells me that they're close in value, but the sorb is likely higher. I can then look at the number of pets currently on active accounts and can see there are around 2000 more blue rose dogs than sorbets, meaning the sorbet is likely going to be worth more. I can also see that there are a lot more people who have sorbets on their wishlist than the count of sorbets in existance. I can assume that this means a sorbet has pretty decent demand, something that I need to keep in mind when trying to trade for one.

With this information, I now can start to move onto looking at other users trades to figure out just how much more the pets are currently trading for. I can use user-made guides such as Auora's list or Horror's list, I can go the route of looking at chicken dollar values, or I can ask around on pet worth/fair trade threads to get a final opinion before making an offer.




Example 2:



I have a heavy speckled rat I want to trade away. I go to ask for the pet's worth on the "how much would you value this pet?" thread but receive a few mixed opinions because of reports of the pet having "low demand". I want to double check to make sure the information I've been given is accurate, so I go to the rarity archive to confirm.

I sort through the archive by rarity and pets from 2008, and I see that the rat has been placed around the halfway point in the archive. I also see that while there's around 2000 instances of the pet on active accounts, only around 900 users have that pet on their wishlist, an indicator that the rat likely has pretty low demand. Using this data I can asses just how low an offer I am comfortable with without feeling like I am short-handing myself.