Is it time to redefine "non" and "sorb?"

[jasps]

I think 100 is reasonable, god after this whole rares overhaul that I came back to a week or so ago after being inactive for a year, this stuff is so wildly different to me. But it makes sense that further discussion does need to be had

[ElementalInsanity]

That was one of the problems I saw that people had with the list. Strict numbers. While someone might be willing to pay 100 or more rares, someone else might only pay 60, and there should be that room in trading especially with bulk. Putting a specific number on what a non and sorbet is worth defeats the purpose of that.

And someone above posted but deleted lol. What happens when the rest of the sorbets become OMGSR? Then they are in fact ‘worth a non’.

[Loelya]

well, while I do understand that putting a "strict number" on popular trading terms isn't exactly a one-size-fits-all approach, my hope is kind of that discussing and trying to reach a general range value for these terms would be more helpful than a completely dual-minded approach?

right now no one can really understand what "non" and "sorb" means other than players who were very accustomed to the "old list," but those terms are all that's used in giving trading advice anymore.

I don't think (or at least I would hope not) that coming to a generalized value understanding of the "non" and "sorb" terms would make others feel forced to follow them for their own trades. just like the retired "list", anyone could choose not to follow such values. I just think that for people who have no intention to stop using common "demand" values, attempting to redefine these terms might help put more people on equal footing? maybe even help stop the crazy demand spiraling we've been seeing this year?

Edit: hmm maybe at the point that the "sorbs" become OMGSR, the terms would be "non" and "half a non" haha ^^'

[ElementalInsanity]

With how things became no one had a choice to not use the list. That’s why when most demand lists or people saying they’re ‘recreating’ the rare list get so shot down by many people. People could choose not to use the rares list, yes, but that was basically impossible at the time. I don’t think anyone could agree that you couldn’t use the list when it was active. If you go back and take the time to read comments of it, many people felt they didn’t have a choice.
It’s why I am always cautious with hard numbers.

[Loelya]

I do think it's wise to be cautious. my thought right now is that, unfortunately, I still don't think it's very possible to get away from "list" values. and if they're not going away, I think it would help if they were somewhat "updated?"

EDIT: regardless I do think it's a valid point that "deciding" on a number comes with it's own problems. I'm going to add a poll to the thread!

[Ichiban Kasuga]

If a T7 advent tends to go for about 7-10 '09 rares depending on the people involved, that's 10-20 mid advents per non.

I feel like I can agree with this. I ended up paying 16 t7 advents for my raven dog, which I value at around 1.5 'nons' due to the high demand.
That then goes to me paying around 11 of the advents for the non. which would be 110 '09 rares worth.

From this, it does seem ridiculous to be paying thousands in '09 rares for a non, when it is obvious that it really isn't that. And this is coming from someone who still does go by the list when trading.

[Ichiban Kasuga]

I just realised I double posted? I'm sorry about that.

[Loelya]

If a T7 advent tends to go for about 7-10 '09 rares depending on the people involved, that's 10-20 mid advents per non.

I feel like I can agree with this. I ended up paying 16 t7 advents for my raven dog, which I value at around 1.5 'nons' due to the high demand.
That then goes to me paying around 11 of the advents for the non. which would be 110 '09 rares worth.

From this, it does seem ridiculous to be paying thousands in '09 rares for a non, when it is obvious that it really isn't that. And this is coming from someone who still does go by the list when trading.

This is a really great example of that math working out, thank you for posting!

[serenitymontaza]

idk if this helps you at all but I was recently in a quantity trade for a dog tag. i can’t remember the exact amount of rares but there was 2 lists 6 very rares and 713 total pets. in the auction other people bidded toxics and stuff.
trades/viewtrade.php?id=85558109&userid=291208&signature=VFW2Ij3r7bc5XZ292xo2Dw

[Loelya]

idk if this helps you at all but I was recently in a quantity trade for a dog tag. i can’t remember the exact amount of rares but there was 2 lists 6 very rares and 713 total pets. in the auction other people bidded toxics and stuff.
trades/viewtrade.php?id=85558109&userid=291208&signature=VFW2Ij3r7bc5XZ292xo2Dw

any data is helpful! even if this doesn’t necessarily support one of the other numbers that’s been suggested, it’s something to discuss! I’ve got to sit down and work out the calculations for this and the other two trades; I hope to get to it soon. if you’d be willing to post this trade here, that’s another place it could be really helpful!