[🐝] Guide to Trading Every Pet on CS --- **being updated**

[SolarSonnet]

Genuiene question - is a uncommon (from 2014) worth half of a 2014 very uncommon? And then the same again for an extremely uncommon?
I'm trying to do the rarity maths but unsure of the new system XD

There’s not really a set system yet, but that’s what I’ve been doing, and I know others are using that as well.

There seems to be a bit of push-back to continuing with the 2:1 rule, because the new categories have narrowed down the values a lot more. Before this update, the 2:1 rule would have valued a rare at 2 uncommons - if we continue using it the same way, a rare is now valued at 6 uncommons. Just my opinion, but that doesn't seem fair at all.

I know there was some discussion about this in one of the other threads. There seems to be two camps. On one side, you have the people who think it's not fair that rares would now worth more uncommons using the 2:1 system. In the other camp, there are the people who never agreed with or used the 2:1 system, who are NOW saying "oh, this seems more reasonable!"

I'm personally in the latter camp. I have traded my rares for two uncommons exactly zero times in all my years on CS. To be fair, I don't trade down rares often, but when I do, I value them as 3-5 uncommons (and I offer at least that much...often more...when trading for other people's rares). The new rarities make a 2:1 system MORE like how I've always traded, and I've seen at least a few others saying the same.

(Disclaimer: I am ONLY referring to the 2:1 rule in terms of moving between rarities...NOT dates. When it comes to dates, it never made sense before and it makes even less sense now.)

One alternative that I've seen people suggesting is the "+1 rule", which would make a rare worth 3 uncommons. But I don't know how much that's really caught on. One issue is that if you keep going with that pattern, a rare becomes worth 4 commons or 5 VCs which...I could be wrong...but I don't think most people would go for that.

Replying to all of these.

In terms of both year and rarity, pre-update I used 2:1

I'm in the camp that thinks 2:1 is now MORE accurate and reasonable than ever in terms of rarity, and less accurate in terms of years. Generally for years I use a 1-5 year gap depending on the date and rarity of the pet.
For older years and higher rarities, I stick to a 1 year gap, but for newer pets especially at lower rarities, I just don't care as much unless they're like, the most knock-your-socks-off design ever.

I.E. 2012 Uncommons I wont trade for 2014 Uncommons, I might for a 2013 Uncommon (like Jan 2012 for up to Jan 2013, Feb to Feb, etc. Kind of like the 3-month rule but for years.) but I'd (usually) trade a 2018 and 2023 Common pretty evenly, even though they're 5 years apart at this point. Assuming same species as well, I still don't want a rat for a dog.

I agree that it should be 6 regular Uncommons for a rare. I think that's reasonable because Uncommons felt like they had such a range in them before that I had no idea what to even value them at, and I didn't really ever want to do 2:1 trades of uncommons for my rares. This enables me to select 2 EUCs for my rares.

I do have to ask, if it's not 2:1, then what is it? Is it still 2:1 Uncommons for Rares? Then where do VUC and EUC pets fall? Are they worth no more than regular uncommons? I think that's where it falls apart a bit. Why shouldn't 2 EUC Pets swap for a rare, especially with updated rarities giving 2 more uncommon values and giving rare pets another rare category?

I (generally) use the +2+1 Method for trading up years now, typically with rares but I guess it could be used for other pets as well?

A 2009 R* = 2 2010 R = 4 2011 R
It looks the same from there, but after that..
4 2011 R = 6 2012 R = 8 2013 R = 10 2014 R = 12 2015 R = 14 2016 R = 16 2017 R = 18 2018 R
Then it switches to +1
18 2018 R = 19 2019 R = 20 2020 R = 21 2021 R = 22 2022 R = 23 2023 R = 24 2024 R

(*Not VRs, VR = 2 09 rares)

As opposed to the 2:1 Method being

A 2009 R* = 2 2010 R = 4 2011 R = 8 2012 R = 16 2013 R = 32 2014 R = 64 2015 R = 128 2016 R = 256 2017 R = 512 2018 R = 1024 2019 R = 2048 2020 R = 4096 2021 R = 8192 2022 R = 16384 2023 R = 32768 2024 R, when it comes
So an 09 Rare is = to 23 2023 Rares, instead of equaling like 16,000 2023 Rares with 2:1 method.

In 2030, my +2+1 method will probably change, where the +1 comes after 2022 or something instead. Idk though because we're not there yet.

Edit: Fudged my math a bit, put a year in there twice. It has been fixed.

[Luscitrea]

Just here to say we should all move towards ignoring dates.

[lil rascal]

^ This is where I have a problem with any equations for trading. Who in their right mind expects or pays 23 recent rares for one normal ‘09 rare?

Why do we need to break it down to equations? Why can’t people just say “you have this ‘09 I want and I have x y and z pets that you want. Do you want to trade?”

Or if people really need a set price maybe try valuing them accordingly to their C$ prices. Which in this case if a recent rare is worth 5C$ and an ‘09 rare between 35-50C$ Depending on pet instead of that person having to pay 23 recent rares they’d offer 7-10. It’s still a lot to offer for a pet of the same rarity but much more feasible than the 23+.

[SolarSonnet]

I personally will never stop factoring dates into my rarities.

Older pets are (generally) more likely to go up in rarity at the next update.

For example, any of the VR 2009 Pets could go ER next rarity update, but VR pets from 2021 H'Ween probably aren't going to go ER for a long time.

I'd imagine, on average, the chart looks like this

'23 VRxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx| Dec 09 VR xxxx | Jan '09 'VR
VR |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| ER


And the older the pet is, the closer it is to ER. You can literally see this trend with other pets as well.

Monthly releases from August this year are mostly OMGSC, EC, VC, and Common.
But go back to monthlies from August of 2020, (just 3 Years ago) and you only have two very commons, out of all of the litters.

Go back 3 more years to 2017 and there are still 2 Very Commons, but most of the other August monthlies have hit common to uncommon or higher.

I'd argue that the 2017 August Uncommon pets are more likely on average to hit Very Uncommon before any pets of August of this year are, or pets from August of 2020. And that's why dates are important to calculating rarity.

The difference is, I don't care about losing a common or even an uncommon or two in value.

I care much more about losing rares in value. If each 09 rare is worth 2-4/50ths (1 09 r = 2 10 rares = 4 11 rares, a 'non' = 50 old rares) of a non, then I don't want to lose out on even one of them when trading.

Though, I would have to ask how higher-valued pets are dealt with in this trading system, unless they're just the same, throwing trades around, "You have this super old OMGSR pet and I have like 30 2023 Rares on your wishlist, lets trade! "

Which I internally cringe at, that's my worst nightmare scenario with CS Trading. It brings me extreme anxiety to not know what a pet is worth or for each pet to not have a solid value.

Whenever I hear arguments like these, it just makes me want to say, "Okay, then do it." Because if people really want to value their pets like that, they can.

But if you only want to trade your newer rares for older rares, then you're the one benefitting, and if you're not willing to trade your 09 Rares for 7 2023 Rares, then stop saying that's how it should be.

If you trade like that in this economy though, your account would immediately 'lose value' because people would flood traders like that with trades for their older and rarer pets, with much newer pets. So the, "then do it" point is basically redundant unless you only trade with people who trade like you.

"I have x pets, you have y pets, lets trade" is not plausible, especially after a rarity system was implemented. It might have been before any rarity system existed, but after? I don't think it could ever work that way again. Each pet has intrinsic value and even if rarities were abolished tomorrow, people would say, "This pet used to be OMGSR" or "This pet is older so I want more for it."

I also would probably quit trading on CS entirely if all trades were "vibes" and no rarity math was included. I'm very number-oriented and need hard math, values, and calculations in my trades, even if the vibes are super important.

I want more flexible trading, but I don't want that flexible trading.

-

The C$ prices (as far as I'm aware) were put where they're at for the point of making sure that pets didn't skyrocket in value like that, even if they're 'actually' worth more than that.

Tbf, I also value 09 ERs at 90 C$+, 09 VRs at 70+ C$ and 09 Rs at 50+ C$. (Depending on the pets) Meaning that even valuing by C$ isn't going to ever be a "solid" maths system when the community itself can't agree on C$ prices and the C$ prices are just weird and rather irrelevant to the pet's actual value.

C$ Math itself doesn't even make sense, because if we were valuing by 09 rares then my 09 Rares would = 50 C$ and then VRs would be more than I currently value them at- 100 C$ as opposed to 70- even more than I price ERs at as a baseline.

I use 2:1 between rarities, and think 2:1 is fairer than it's ever been. Meaning that if a current rare is worth 5 C$, then I'd value my 09 VR at 20 current rares.. Which is far below what I'd actually accept for them. In my opinion, the number should look ridiculous, because you're trading pets from like, an event 3 months ago, for a pet from 14 years ago.

It takes a stupid amount of pets to do that. Generally, Idk how many 2023 pets you'd have to offer me to make me trade an 09 rare. Especially if we're just talking about a basic dog. (Which there are no rare dog monthly releases in 2023 rn, so..)

[marmoris]

I personally will never stop factoring dates into my rarities.

Older pets are (generally) more likely to go up in rarity at the next update.

I also would probably quit trading on CS entirely if all trades were "vibes" and no rarity math was included. I'm very number-oriented and need hard math, values, and calculations in my trades, even if the vibes are super important.

I want more flexible trading, but I don't want that flexible trading.

well said, i agree a lot with all you've said. especially on the numbers thing, i hate blindly trading, hence, honestly, why i stopped seriously trading for so many years. when it comes to uncommon & below, sure, some year differences aren't a big deal and i won't realistically care about the numbers behind it, but with rarer stuff, it's a different story. i will always factor date into my trades, within reason.

[lil rascal]

^ I actually have an old rare+ C$ store and as long as people follow my trading guidelines (no non-WL rats, B-Wolves, grown horse/ponies & chameleons) I am always more than happy to trade the pets there for their equivalent value in recent Rares. My prices are usually 25-55 C$ Depending on the pet for normal ‘09 Rares and roughly double or a little less for VRs. So that means the ‘09 Rares in there would actually range from 5-11 recent Rares. I have a complete ‘09 rare collection so getting a bunch of recent Rares for the spares means I don’t have to run around like crazy trying to collect all the pets during events and gives me more pets to gift others rather than just one ‘09 for one person. The real question is do you (general you for anyone following these equations) put your money where your mouth is and trade 23+ of your recent Rares for one normal’09 rare? If so go for it, you’re more than welcome to pay more than double what the reasonable expectation would be if you insist 🤷‍♀️ Or does it only work in reverse?

I do agree that older pets are worth more. Not necessarily because they are closer to changing rarity (there are many old Rares that are quite common) but because the older pets are the more likely it is many have found a forever home or are on accounts like mine who have either given up on trading Rares+ due to inflation and equations taking any pleasure out of it or only trade for C$ or FR. The CS rarity system can’t take into account the shear number of older players with a lot of valuable pets who these days only log in to collect monthlies and/or participate in other aspects of the site. They are counted as active and their pets in circulation even if they haven’t actually traded in years. So yes older pets are generally just harder to find for trade, I don’t think most people are arguing that. What we are questioning is the shear volume of newer pets of the same rarity that equations claim is fair.

[SolarSonnet]

^ I think you make a good point, "Put your money where your mouth is" in trading 23 recent rares for an 09r.

It might make sense for you to trade them for '23 rares that're worth the same in C$, but it wouldn't make sense for me to do the same. I would say you're willing to overpay for the '23 pets that you need, not that it's a completely fair trade because the C$ match.

The problem is, I think it's so massively unreasonable on both ends that I don't want to do it, either. I don't want to accept that for an 09r, and I don't want to trade that for an 09r. I think that '23 rares and '09 rares are so far apart in value (for me), that accepting or trading any number of them between each other makes very little sense (again: for me, where I'm at rn).

You're totally right.

I wouldn't trade 23 2023 rares for an 09 rare because I could sell them for C$ and get more out of them, or start to directly trade them down using the 3 month/1 year/3 year/5 year/whatever rule and 1:1 swap them for 09 rares when I get there.

And I wouldn't take 23 2023 rares for an 09 rare because I don't want to have to sell them for C$ to make a profit or spend a million years trading them down at this point.

The only thing that's really worth anything in trading for high-value pets are 09 to 2011 rares. Why would I accept bulk for them? That's going backwards from where I want to be. I'm trying to trade for high-value pets, so accepting bulk newer rares makes no sense to me.

09 rares are high value and easy to trade. Newer rares are significantly harder to trade, sell, etc, unless they have particular demand. Yes, 2023 rares are worth 5 C$ (or whatever it is they're worth nowadays), but I've been hard-pressed to come across someone who'd actually pay me 5 C$ for my 2023 rares, when their 5 C$ could instead go towards the 35 C$ they need at your store to buy an 09 rare.

I genuinely think that trading is better when you work your way up to the pets you want. Trade your way down the years with small bits of add or 3-month climb your way down the years, and then swap your early 2010 pet for an 09. After that, do it again 'til you have enough, then throw your 09 bulk at someone for a list and be on your way. Or trade your way to a high-demand pet that someone would pay an 09 for (golden gacha dog, or a lot of the fae mischief pets or slumber party or space event pets).

I remember that was actually my favorite part of trading on CS when I first got into it. I realized I needed older pets to get the ones I wanted, and then I started trading my pets for earlier and earlier pets. And by the time I was doing that, trading pets was still a mess with 2:1 between years and rarities and I was barely getting anywhere. But I still had fun, lol.

I do have to say, having a complete 09 collection likely changes your perspective on trading by a lot. You're someone who already has a lot of value on their account, is likely missing very few pets, and has the means to trade for them. (If this is untrue lmk, you just seem like you have it all put together with the way you're talking about it)

Whenever I trade away an 09 rare, I usually only have one copy of it. I have to deliberate on if the value of the pets I'm getting is really worth it, I can't afford to be too lax. I don't have enough value on my account to be throwing (what I consider to be) overpay 09 rares at trades.

If trading in C$ value is doing it for you, great! Keep doing that! It just isn't for me with what I'm going for right now.

I have been swayed a bit by this argument, though. I wouldn't trade an 09 rare/vr for any amount of '23 rares, which is why I personally think that the number should be ridiculous. Maybe I should just leave a "I don't want pets after 20xx offered for my 09 rares" in my trade rules and leave it at that, because I'm not the target demographic of people trading their 09 rares for '23 rares.

[lil rascal]

You’re probably right that having a complete ‘09 rare collection changes my perspective a bit. I do have a very valuable collection, though am still a long way from a complete collection. But by that logic I also have a lot more to lose by arguing for more relaxed trading. I’d be much better off value wise to sit back and let people pay the overinflated amounts down to each rare for my pets. However I would prefer to actually help CS get back to the stage where trading is enjoyable rather than cutthroat.

Thank you for actually considering the reality of the 23 recent rares for one ‘09 rare example from both sides. It really highlights what I have been saying about the equations and rarity math systems. If you (once again a general you) wouldn’t accept a trade from both sides than how is it right to tell others it’s fair. This is the problem I have with a lot of the current trading advice, much of it people would only accept if they were on one side, not from both sides. It is also generally heavily biased according to the pets that person personally owns or prefers.

[Cloverstream]

Personally I can’t just stop factoring dates into my rarities. A 2008 rare is just obviously more valuable than one made a week ago to me for many reasons.

I do think at a point it gets excessive though. I mean. 8 2012 rares only being worth 1 09 rare is just a bit much. I don’t think they are really worth that much less than 2011 rares. It does get frustrating that any pet later than 2011 is just worth essentially nothing.

I can’t think of an intuitive streamlined way to quantify that though.

As for extremely rares… I just. Have no idea.

[musicgurl333]

Personally I can’t just stop factoring dates into my rarities. A 2008 rare is just obviously more valuable than one made a week ago to me for many reasons.

I do think at a point it gets excessive though. I mean. 8 2012 rares only being worth 1 09 rare is just a bit much. I don’t think they are really worth that much less than 2011 rares. It does get frustrating that any pet later than 2011 is just worth essentially nothing.

I can’t think of an intuitive streamlined way to quantify that though.

As for extremely rares… I just. Have no idea.

See, this is my problem. I know I've already expressed my feelings about the absurdity of the "2:1 rule" for dates (even before the rarity change), so I won't get into it again. BUT, my problem is, what's a different, easy rule to use instead? That's where I run into problems.

I like the "3 year rule", for more recent pets, but I don't know if I'd realistically trade a '12 rare for an '09 rare. I know that, honestly, there's probably not that much of a difference. But I've had it drilled into my head for so long that older pets are worth more, and '09 rares are like...THE standard, that it feels weird to swap them for newer pets. I could see me trading an '09 rare for a '10 rare, but a '12 rare? Ehh.... But for newer pets, I'd have no issue trading within the "3 year rule". A '20 rare for a '23 rare? Sure! That honestly seems fine.

And then, when pets are outside of the "3 year rule" (or whatever range you use), how do you figure out how much needs to be added?

Also, I'm still not sure how the "3 year rule" would work with store pets. I'm definitely not trading them for a '12 rare. If I'm being honest, I've NEVER traded them for anything less than a '10 rare, and even that only happens occasionally. I prefer to trade (even recent ones) for '09 rares and up, and honestly...I've never had much of an issue. As for the topic of putting my money where my mouth is, when I'm the one sending trades for other people's store pets, I've never offered anything less than an '09 rare or equivalent (with the exception of people specifically asking for quantity trades).

But with so few '09 rares left, where do I go with that? Do I trade them for VR pets from '09-'12? Limit it to '09-'10 VRs? Something else entirely? I have asked this before, and people had a range of answers. I'll be interested to see if the community changes how they value store pets at all, though I suspect I'll probably end up valuing them higher than the "official" values.