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

[sky,]

__________________________

To comment on the two poll questions, I think this is a great idea to both, and here is why:

Question 1 -

I think this would involve newer players exponentially. Especially with the rarity change allowing for more existing rares. This way, it is so much easier for newer players to gain more valuable pets and be able to participate in the "higher trading" platform. That was one of the biggest grievances with newer users. (As I saw on multiple discussions about the trading environment on cs) That it was near impossible to trade for one of the more popular pets, especially when their only chance was to either buy tons of C$, get super lucky on December 18th, or just grind for years. This would at the very least, double the opportunity, while making trading much easier to understand. Fantastic idea. c:

Question 2 -

Even though this will more than likely be an unpopular opinion, I do think the "non" system does need a revamp. If not the 30, 60, 90 method, I think the non - 09 rare proportion should be considered regardless. 100 09 rares for a non is just insane. There are little to no users with that kind of fodder. Especially as the userbase has increased over the years, with rares being spread out... even with the rereleases, it is still unrealistic to most users. It might catch some flack with older users because we have been trading this way for a long time and in turn, it would "lower" the value of the pets we traded for in the past. I can understand that as I would feel a similar way. But looking at the site as a whole, especially since this is a site geared towards collecting, it is probably best to make the pets attainable. c: So I am in support of the 30, 60, 90 method.

[lil rascal]

Why are things being made so complicated with the upper and lower ER and VRs?? I get it with OMGSR but the other groups are so much more refined now. There really doesn't seem to be a need for it and it just feels like it's going to keep the trading community more complicated than it needs to be

I SO agree with this, the update was to make rarities more defined and I really don't like how people are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Honestly the more I think about this the more I agree. As someone who has always valued pets more based on rarity changes and personal preference than anything I was originally of the mindset that we should do that. However, unlike other big rarity updates where we see big rarity changes from CS changing one part of the rarity system, with this update we know thanks to Nick’s information on the first post of the announcement thread that three parts of the rarity system were changed:
1 we got additional rarities, which led to
2 the benchmarks of what makes a pet fall into each category were changed, though we still don’t know the numbers behind each tier. Finally the big one that I don’t see getting much discussion
3 the way the system counts pets in inactive accounts was changed again. This last one is why we have weird things like a pet going from rare to extremely rare or uncommon to very rare with this update.

The last time we had a change to the way pets in inactive accounts were counted we saw massive changes but as it was only one change to the rarity system we were able to track it. This time with three changes at once I can’t see how we can really say that previous rarity changes are relevant to current rarity. For all we know someone with a large Malk dragon, Grinner or Tribal hoard has now been counted as inactive by the system and they are therefore now the rarest non-store pets on the game according to the system. Or maybe someone with a Guinea pig or Rainbow PPS Egg hoard has gone inactive with this new change and they are now the rarest of the Extremely Rares and on the verge of being OMGSR. (Obviously only examples, not at all saying this is the case).

I honestly don’t think we’ll really be able to genuinely know more than the current rarity labels and demand until after the next Dec18 rereleases, where pets on the lower end of the rarities traditionally drop.

[Sashtato]

3 the way the system counts pets in inactive accounts was changed again. This last one is why we have weird things like a pet going from rare to extremely rare or uncommon to very rare with this update.

The last time we had a change to the way pets in inactive accounts were counted we saw massive changes but as it was only one change to the rarity system we were able to track it. This time with three changes at once I can’t see how we can really say that previous rarity changes are relevant to current rarity. For all we know someone with a large Malk dragon, Grinner or Tribal hoard has now been counted as inactive by the system and they are therefore now the rarest non-store pets on the game according to the system. Or maybe someone with a Guinea pig or Rainbow PPS Egg hoard has gone inactive with this new change and they are now the rarest of the Extremely Rares and on the verge of being OMGSR. (Obviously only examples, not at all saying this is the case).

This 100%!!!! I always forget to mention it but I think about it all the time - people keep jumping to these conclusions but are forgetting that this change had to have had a HUGE impact on things!

[SolarSonnet]

I think the biggest issue with changing how much a "non" or an "advent" is worth.. is that people who have those pets now, don't want them to be worth less than what they paid for them.

You will end up with a bunch of people who say, "I value nons at what they used to be valued at. If you're not paying 100 09 rares for my non, you're not getting it. That's what I traded for it, and that's what everyone else can trade for it when they're trading with me."

They traded for them, likely with the expectation that they would only increase in value over the years. High-value pets are an investment that should continue to grow (imo) as the years go by and those pets become more sparse as people go inactive.

People are invested in "Nons" being "100-150 09 rares" because that's what they traded for them. Nobody wants their accounts to be worth less than they were pre-update, or feel like they got scammed in hindsight. "If only I'd made that trade after the update came out." Is going to be a really big "bad" feeling for a lot of people if/when changes like this go through.

This is what I said in the discussion post, but I know a lot of people are talking here who weren't talking there:

I just think it's important to remember (the generosity of the community) for the overall discussion if we're talking about the consideration of how hard it is for new players to get into higher trading, which I've heard brought up as an argument a couple of times. If not in this thread, then definitely in others in the past.

That, generally, no matter how fair trades work, the generosity of the community will uplift each other, and maybe considering how hard it is for new players to get trading shouldn't be the number one concern in terms of fairness or how much pets are valued at.

Because if we say that 2 EUCs should equal a rare, but there are people who feel bad about that because it makes it harder for newer players to get rares, that's not quite valuing pets based on what they're worth.(Not taking demand value into account) It's valuing pets based on not feeling too great that new players will have a more difficult time getting rares. There are events, where the token pets tend to be EUC/Rare at the end of the day. There are also free adoptions, and the community is just as generous as it is greedy, new players will figure it out.

This sentiment makes me feel kind of 'mean', but I do think that in terms of trading worth/value, that the "ease of access" for getting higher-value pets should not be a huge consideration.

[Chronixium]

Posting to make finding the thread easier! Thanks for doing this ^^

[Pyromaniacal]

....Wait, we were valuing nons at 100 '09 rares? That strikes me as frankly absurd. Sure, nons are valuable, but '09 rares (now mostly '09 VRs, lmao) are quite valuable compared to everything else too, and nons are far from the most valuable of the OMGSRs. I am all for switching to <90 '10 or '11 rares as a baseline.

I also don't agree with the idea that just because these pets used to be valued a certain way, that they should necessarily stay or increase that value - this is a casual pet trading game, not the stock market, and that presupposes a capability for infinite growth that is simply impossible. Perhaps someone traded for a pet based on the information and market forces of the time; that information and those market forces have since changed, and nobody should be guaranteed that they'll necessarily get a positive return on their investment, so to speak, especially with such a big shift in the trading landscape.

Now, given, I'm not a high value trader and am generally pretty flexible/casual with how I value pets - I mostly trade with rares and below for missed outcomes (all my high-value pets I traded art for). But those are my two cents.

[himarry 124]

....Wait, we were valuing nons at 100 '09 rares? That strikes me as frankly absurd. Sure, nons are valuable, but '09 rares (now mostly '09 VRs, lmao) are quite valuable compared to everything else too, and nons are far from the most valuable of the OMGSRs. I am all for switching to <90 '10 or '11 rares as a baseline.

I also don't agree with the idea that just because these pets used to be valued a certain way, that they should necessarily stay or increase that value - this is a casual pet trading game, not the stock market, and that presupposes a capability for infinite growth that is simply impossible. Perhaps someone traded for a pet based on the information and market forces of the time; that information and those market forces have since changed, and nobody should be guaranteed that they'll necessarily get a positive return on their investment, so to speak, especially with such a big shift in the trading landscape.

Now, given, I'm not a high value trader and am generally pretty flexible/casual with how I value pets - I mostly trade with rares and below for missed outcomes (all my high-value pets I traded art for). But those are my two cents.

i do agree 100 09 rares is to much for a non i think 80 09-2010 rares/40 09-2010 VR should be 1 non i dont agree with the rest but to each there own

[Metax]

Long post incoming. Looking for feedback c: It's time we revamp the trading system, and that's only achievable as a community.

I agree with replacing the 2009 rare standard with 2010-2011 rares, as per sky,'s post.

Question 1 -

I think this would involve newer players exponentially. Especially with the rarity change allowing for more existing rares. This way, it is so much easier for newer players to gain more valuable pets and be able to participate in the "higher trading" platform. That was one of the biggest grievances with newer users. (As I saw on multiple discussions about the trading environment on cs) That it was near impossible to trade for one of the more popular pets, especially when their only chance was to either buy tons of C$, get super lucky on December 18th, or just grind for years. This would at the very least, double the opportunity, while making trading much easier to understand. Fantastic idea. c:

I'm impartial @ the division of nons - however, as it pertains to nons and former mas, I'd like to suggest dropping the ranges and sticking to one solid number to serve as a baseline, as well as dividing nons into 10 straight-up "mas"/advents for ease of use in trading. Again - I'm suggesting this as a baseline, for pets with equal demand. Rats will probably go for less, same with equines. There are other exceptions as well - the sunback may still go for more. You know the deal. (I suggest a google form to ask the community about demand values - eg. is a sunback worth 1 - 1.5 - 2 - 2.5 - 3n?; is a coontail still worth 2n or should it be equal to other nons now, at 1n?)

The .25/.5/.75 division seems to be in the lead, so:

1 non = 100 old rares = 10ma
.75n = 75 old rares = 7.5ma
.5n = 50 old rares = 5ma
.25n = 25 old rares = 2.5ma

It's difficult to say what the new "ma" will be, which is why it's hard to say how many "old rares" one would be worth.
I'll use the previous meaning of ma to give an example -

1 ma = 10 old rares (seems fair enough, given how many there are, and how many more very rares there are as well. one could offer 5 2010 rares and 2-3 2011 very rares for a ma)
.5ma = 5 old rares

I must pose the question - which pets are we now going to use as standard metric? As per Horror's post, the new non tier is under mid OMGSRs. Does that mean the formerly 3n sunback is now 1n? How much do we take demand into account? If their actual rarity is roughly the same, I think a 3x increase in value is nuts. Same goes for the ur tiger dog and unickorn - they're the same rarity, but you'd have to trade 6 unickorns for 1 tiger dog, as per the previous list. That's pretty crazy, but... That's a talk for later.

We have to try and think in actual trading terms as well - how do we start valuing these pets in relation to one another?

High omgsrs - july tier - 2-3n?
old ur tier - 1.5-2n?

Middle omgsrs - non tier - 1n? Is this our new baseline?
Kirin, legacy tiers - .75n?

Low omgsrs - .5n?

How much are extremely rares worth? Are these our new advents? Could we do 5 extremely rares for a low omgsr, or is that too much? Could these have a baseline value of 10 old rares, as I suggested above?

Could a base demand extremely rare - blue scarf dog, or pink cookie - trade for 7 2010 rares and 2 2011 very rares? I think people will always take years into account when it comes to trading, which is why I'm anticipating that 2011 rares will be seen as lower value.
Of course, the BA would go for more, and rats for less, etc.

Lower extremely rares - .75ma? Is a white rainbow leopard worth 7-8 2010 rares?

We have to consider that there are a LOT more very rares now, which should give access to a much larger player base to high value trading, which is why I don't think increasing an ma/advent's worth would be a problem, especially if we are to try to make it make sense.

I think the biggest issue with changing how much a "non" or an "advent" is worth.. is that people who have those pets now, don't want them to be worth less than what they paid for them.

You will end up with a bunch of people who say, "I value nons at what they used to be valued at. If you're not paying 100 09 rares for my non, you're not getting it. That's what I traded for it, and that's what everyone else can trade for it when they're trading with me."

[...]

People are invested in "Nons" being "100-150 09 rares" because that's what they traded for them. Nobody wants their accounts to be worth less than they were pre-update, or feel like they got scammed in hindsight. "If only I'd made that trade after the update came out." Is going to be a really big "bad" feeling for a lot of people if/when changes like this go through.

If, as a community, we change the way trading works, even remotely - this should not be a problem. Yes, they would be worth "less", but if the same principle applies to everyone, then things should be pretty equalized.

Assuming everyone followed the same rules in trading, then everyone should be suffering from the same "loss" and we should make an effort to shift trading in the right direction - even if that means lowering the values of our high value fodder.

TLDR; I come to y'all with 3 questions.

1. Can we possibly equalize the trading system?

eg. 1 non = 10 ma = 100 old rares (= 50 old very rares?)
1 ma = 10 old rares (= 5 old very rares?)

I think this offers much more freedom to the community, and the ability to play with trading and make it more fun. With the introduction of so many new rares and very rares, as well as the 3 year rule going around, this should allow newer users to join the high value trading community.

Examples of trades;

Nontag (mid omgsr - non tier - 1n) for pink mini husky (low omgsr - .5n?) + pps cocoon (upper extremely rare - the new ma?) + pink heart advent (upper extremely rare - 1ma?) + 30 2010 rares (or 15? 2010 very rares?)

Halloween koi (upper extremely rare - 1ma?) for 2 2009 very rares (4-5 2010 rares? 6?) and 3 2010 very rares (another 5-6 2010 rares?)

2. How much is a very rare worth?

2 rares of the same year? 1 rare of the previous year + 1 rare of the same year? 1 2009 VR = 2 2009 rares? = 3-4 2010 rares?
That would put an extremely rare (the new ma?) as being worth perhaps 3 2009 VRs, which seems fine to me. I used to use the 1:2 rule for vr to rare trading, so the old rule - 3 2009 vrs = 6 2009 rares = 1 ma coincides with the proposed new one - 3 2009 vrs = 5-6? 2009 rares = just about 10 2010 rares = 1 new ma

3. Which pets are our new nons and mas?

Should we use the non tier, mid omgsrs, as a non?
Can upper extremely rares be our new mas/advents?



I will also reiterate, that I think a google forms should be posted (after we decide how much a non/ma is worth, and which ones they are), to re-evaluate high value pet demand.

[lil rascal]

I’d just like to say as someone who has a lot of high value pets I personally don’t think that worrying about people loosing value/getting less for their pets than what they paid should be a reason for why certain changes are or are not made. Every time there is a big update in the rarity system there will be some people who look back at recent trades and want to cry while others will look back and want to dance. Knowing this doesn’t stop CS from implementing their overhauls and I don’t think it should stop the community from making changes if that’s what they decide.

The reality is that a pet is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. If the majority of traders decide that an UR Tiger or Sunback are worth 4-6 lower OMGSRs or a “Non” is worth 100 ‘09 Rares than that is their trade value but if the majority of traders decide the UR Tiger or Sunback are only worth 2 lower OMGSRs or a “Non” is only worth 5-6 MAs or 50 ‘09 Rares than that becomes the new trade value. Likewise the trading community might decide that instead of the demand difference in OMGSRs meaning multiple neutral demand OMGSRs are paid for one high demand non-store OMGSR the demand gap is bridged with Extremely Rares. An owner of the pets of course has the right to reject the new valuation and lock their pet away but as these non-store pets are rereleased every year there will always be more added to circulation.

People can ask whatever they want for their pets but in reality it’s the trading community as a whole that has the power to set values by refusing to pay something they think is unreasonable.

I personally haven’t voted in the current poll as I’m not sure that I agree that it’s a good idea to keep valuing everything according to “Nons”. However if the Mid Advent/Extremely Rare Advent and “Non” markers are going to be kept, with the new rarity system, I see no reason why the breakdown has to remain at Rares. As pointed out a lot of old pets are now VR and we now have the extra ER category. So why not instead say something along the lines of a MA is worth 2-5 old VRs (depending on ages/demand of VRs) and a “non” is worth 30-50 old VRs (depending on majority of ages/demand of the VRs)? (Numbers made up)

[Metax]

-snip-

As pointed out a lot of old pets are now VR and we now have the extra ER category. So why not instead say something along the lines of a MA is worth 2-5 old VRs (depending on ages/demand of VRs) and a “non” is worth 30-50 old VRs (depending on majority of ages/demand of the VRs)? (Numbers made up)

Definitely liking this idea! There's an abundance of very rares now, though I reckon the community needs to decide on the worth of a VR to begin with.