Rule Changes to Address Misleading Trades +Spam Guide Update

[neapolitan]

-snip-

{ this pretty much exactly sums up why I'm glad these old values are going away. I did catch the explanatory response [very kind of the user to add that! /gen] but that only proves the issue-- why are we saying 10 of x value equals 1 of y value instead of just. this pet is 100 rares. this change will probably [hopefully] steer away from the chaotic tons of excessive math and just break each pet down to one or two single values. the trade economy on this site is already hell because the system is so backwards confusing to understand [even as an old player who's spent hours trying to wrap my head around it so I could help with pet values]. and who knows, maybe if we're pushed away from complicated math and can break it down to this pet is 100 rares period, the economy will start to restabilize? ♡

this feels a lot like you personally misunderstanding the value system of MA/non, because this is just how the system works already. 10 old rares is 1 MA. 10 MA is 1 non. i can just as well say my 1non pet is 100 old rares, but it saves space and maths for high value trades to shorten the terms. for example, dealing with cerbs and ravens at 10-20 non values, is it really easier to write 10000-20000 rares every time when everyone knows that's what it means already? if this isn't what you meant by this then please clarify, but right now this sounds like a non-issue

[~(SkyLiarLee)~]

I do not understand the point on this personally, as others have stated it's just going to cause more confusion to the mix because now you're uprooting already established terms; it's the understanding of those terms that are at fault; and that is subjectively- a user issue. Players should always make an attempt to educate themselves and reach out for opinions on a pet's value. Making it more vague and "fresh uprooted soil" not just for the newer users but the old school ones too is not going to resolve this. What other ways is there to describe a specific pets value aside from a desired amount of a specific year and rarity of a specific species?

[maliketh]

I do appreciate this effort to work on things, but I'm confused, I'm not sure how taking away MAs and replacing it with something else will change much or anything at all? Won't any new term people come up with still be functionally comparable to MAs, and still have the same drawbacks? I'm just confused lol

[SixLegNag]

I'm afraid I really don't see how requiring guides use their own terms will help with anything, and I think having to clarify every time you say 'MA' or 'non' that it's a personal value system is largely pointless, when most people will say it meaning whatever replaces those terms in their preferred guides. It'll probably just lead to more people accidentally being accused of misleading trading when they're just using the terms they know.

A more helpful solution in my eyes would be to require guide makers to provide a CS$ equivalent to their terms. Most of the popular guides already do this and update it regularly. This is actually helpful, because if someone says they use so-and-so's guide for values and want 2 MA for a pet, they can look it up in that guide what that equals in CS$ and what pets tend to go for that price and figure out a fair trade with math instead of vibes.

For newer players, a helpful disclaimer at the top of the trade composing page (that can be hidden) that states that "Many players use popular trading guides for value, but some players use their own. You may wish to check a few sources to see what your pets are worth on average before accepting a trade, especially for a rarer pet," would provide them a nudge to go check out the forums for trading advice instead of going in blind.

[Carabby]

I am as well just because nobody has been able to fully explain to me (or many other players I know) what a "mid advent" even is. People will always try to scam others, I feel like this will kind of start to help players who haven't been able to figure this player-made system out.

I'm in the same boat here, I could never grasp the Rare's List when it was thing and I rarely bothered with MA/Non, so for those in the same boat as me and have either been successful or unsuccessful taken advantage of due to ignorance, I'm hopeful this will be a good change in the right direction. I pretty much gave up on ever trading for pets from 2008-2011 because of this, and became way too scared to trade any rare or higher away, didn't matter what year or species it came from because I had been oblivious and taken advantage of in my earlier years. I do use Oreoz's script, and it has helped me a lot with trading this past year but only for pets that didn't use the whole MA/Non terms, because even if I tried to make sense of it, I was still somehow misunderstanding it so I just gave up on it and just focused on hoards and recent year/months. Which is still fun and all, but it would be nice to somehow have a chance at earlier year pets without having to jump through so many hoops. Otherwise, I am curious to see where all this goes and hopeful to lessen the whole scammer problem.

{ this pretty much exactly sums up why I'm glad these old values are going away. I did catch the explanatory response [very kind of the user to add that! /gen] but that only proves the issue-- why are we saying 10 of x value equals 1 of y value instead of just. this pet is 100 rares. this change will probably [hopefully] steer away from the chaotic tons of excessive math and just break each pet down to one or two single values. the trade economy on this site is already hell because the system is so backwards confusing to understand [even as an old player who's spent hours trying to wrap my head around it so I could help with pet values]. and who knows, maybe if we're pushed away from complicated math and can break it down to this pet is 100 rares period, the economy will start to restabilize? ♡

I understand what you are saying but they aren't giving players any actual method of valuation. They are banning usage of terms that already have definitions for a system that outright tells players they have to make up their own language when making trading guides. This is going to result in a BUNCH of different guides with different valuation systems and everyone on the site speaking past each other. The way they worded this change also seems to insinuate that widespread usage of terms for valuation is the issue... so what happens when a majorty of the site DOES find and start using a different name? Will they be forced to change it again?

If change was needed it should have come in the form of an official announcement/tool regarding which trade guide staff recommends/abides by. A simple "Hey, Horror's guide is the most accurate because of its basis on trade data, so please use that for valuation when trading." would have made a huge positive impact.

Think of it this way: saying "worth 10 rares" means that a new player who maybe got gifted 10 2011 rares will see it and think "oh great!" not realizing that a rare from 2011 and a rare from 2025 are not the same in value, or even close to it. MA/Non is literally just a unit of measurement. The history behind it is interesting but not necessary. We don't need to know why it is called an inch to know what an inch is, if that makes sense.

[RaeOfHope<3]

Banning these terms is just going to make it easier to ninja and scam.

Agree, there's no way a new player will understand new terms better than the current ones that have been stabilised in the past 10 years.

What they said plus most others..
Introducing new terms and everyone having different names or measurements is the opposite of helpful, it will most certainly just add confusion to the situation not illuminate it.
I agree it’s nice to see attention being paid to the situation but I agree changing the terms will only add more scamming.

[betulacarelica]

i could be wrong here but i believe the logic is that ma/non/old rare are broad and highly ingrained in the community, which means anyone can use them regardless of if they're using them the way horror (for example) does. if horror says X is 1MA but someone else says X is 2MA, then it could trick inexperienced players - "well, horrors guide does use MA" or etc.

i can definitely agree that especially in the short term i think this is going to be chaotic, but i think what the staff are saying basically is that horror can keep everything about their guide, but let's say they switch the term MA to PP. now anyone who uses PP MUST use them accurately to horrors guide, because misusing horror's terminology or misattributing horror's values (PP) would count as being misleading and thus scamming. you cant expect everyone to use MA/non in the exact same way horror does, because those terms are used by pretty much everyone in the community regardless, but if horror starts using PP, then you can no longer have your own 'personal' version of PP which you can use to trick people. does that make sense?? i feel like it does but im not sure im explaining it well enough

unfortunately some of the scamming ive witnessed has specifically involved users misusing terms like MA by attributing their own values to things, but by using the same language as horror, it's easy to mix their supposed 'personal values' up with the 'real' values as seen in horrors guide. i dont think this will mean horror has to change anything else but their terminology - the values can stay 1:1 - and people can still use terms like old rare or ma for personal reasons if they want to.

none of this to say i dont totally understand the panic, i just thought it may be helpful to explain this because im not sure if some people might be worrying too much and thinking things are worse than they (hopefully) are!!

[StellarBee]

yayyy! thank u sm this is so great! ninja trading has become a huge problem and im glad u guys r taking steps to address it <3

[catparty]

We bringing back the main rare's list and advent list with this update ✌️ /j

[KaceyCat]

If every guide has to use its own unique terms, I wouldn't be surprised to see guide-guides popping up. Guides explaining how the guides match up. "Guide A uses the fleeb system, so according to them this pet is worth 1 fleeb. Guide B uses a splonk scale, so that same pet is worth 0.75 splonk. Now Guide C is sorta based on Guide A but has some key differences, so while other pets from the same litter are 1 gleeb, that particular pet is actually 1.5 gleeb. Nobody knows why, maybe it's the guide maker's favorite." Poob. Poob has it for you.

Replacing current terms with less regulated ones does not seem to be a very good answer. Sure, the current ones aren't perfect, but I think the only way to get everyone on the same page as to exactly what every single pet is worth would be to formally declare 'This is the definitive official list of value, using these specifically defined terms' which still isn't a perfect answer for a whole slew of reasons.