How Do You Really Trade? (New Poll!)

[musicgurl333]

I really really like this thread idea!! I’d hate to see it die. I’m very curious about the answers to both the “future questions” you put down. Maybe another scenario could be: A user is trading a 2010 rare with you that you really want, and asks how many newer rares they can get for it. What is the maximum number of rares you’d be willing to trade?


-I would be comfortable giving one rare plus some uncommons for their one rare
-I would be comfortable giving them two 2011 rares for a 2010 rare
-I would be comfortable giving them four 2012 rares for a 2010 rare
-I would be comfortable giving eight 2013 rares for a 2010 rare
-I would be comfortable giving more than 8 newer rares for an older rare

I’m glad you like it! I like the idea of your question idea too! I’ll add it to me list. Thanks for sharing!

I honestly can't believe that I haven't posted on this thread yet! I completely think that the old way of trading is outdated; I know for a fact I'll never get over 1000 2020 rares for my 2009 rare, and probably never could in the past when the 2:1 rule was created.

I love your poll and all the future poll ideas! For your current poll, I answered 6-10 uncommons from the same year=1 rare. I think on the lower side with 6-8 uncommons would get an accept from me, especially with newer pets. What I do a lot of is trade down my rares for bulk omgsc- uc. My going price is any 21 omgsc-uc pets for my one rare, and you'd be surprised how fast they go. I'll link some trades below (:

trade 1
trade 2
trade 3
trade 4

I definitely don't mind linking more trades, but here's a start

I probably add to this post or make a new one, but I just want to say that I love this topic idea!

I’m glad you like the topic idea! Also, thanks for weighing in and linking those trades! I’m not surprised they go fast...it’s hard to trade up commons and below for rares.

I'd personally never trade a rare on my side for any number of uncommons on their side. On the other hand I'd be willing to trade a lot of uncommons to get a rare, depending on how much I want the rare.

Uncommons and below are just not worth trading for in my opinion. They just rot away in my trade groups *shrugs*.

Yeah, after I put up the poll I realized that I probably should have included an option for “I never trade my rares for uncommons” but I already had a few votes by by then, and I didn’t want to remake the poll. Plus, I figured that it could also be interpreted as how many of your uncommons you’d trade for someone else’s rare. So even if you don’t trade your rares down, you could still answer.

When you're trading, how do you value current store pets?
Late '10 rare
Mid '10 rare
Early '10 rare
Late '09 rare
Mid '09 rare
Early '09 rare
More than an '09 rare
I don't know or I haven't traded store pets.

just a small suggestion, but maybe you could add a "less than a late '10 rare" to balance out the "more than a '09 rare" option and cover all your bases? i've personally seen people value current store pets comparatively quite low. i wouldn't say it's that commonplace, but it's probably most fair to give those people a chance to vote as well just in case.

Ooooh, good thinking! I have seen people occasionally value them at an early ‘11 rare, so I think that’s a good option to have.

[Catheren]

Lordi this is such a difficult question these days.

I feel like I try to stick to the 3 month rule for older pets but tend to be looser and go as far as a year for recent pets so long as someone isn't asking for event pets and/or doesn't seem to be, well, exploiting my occasional bout of 'I do not care enough to edit this.'

I've started being very reluctant to trade event pets for regular monthlies because they're more likely to turn rare even if they start uncommon- and they're almost always higher in demand because of their frequently more beautiful designs (praise be to the CS pet artists on their event work =3 rock on guys!)

my trades within a year tend to be 2 omgsc = vc, 1 vc =common, 2 common = uc, 3-5 uc = rare- I keep this loose because it really depends on what the rare is and what pets are being offered. Admittedly since a lot of my missing pets are 09 or earlier it does tend to be on the high side since I'm not seeking the offered pets and people really don't tend to offer popular pets because well- popular pets don't stay around long in the trade box I guess.

Everything gets yeeted out the window for VRs. Like "god why bother people have gone insane with demand and I'm really tired of trying and trading for store pets might literally be harder than buying GOLD" I remember trading a handful of rares for the Alice in wonderland Chesire Cat back when they came out and now I'm afraid to allow offers on it because my trade box might just implode from the sheer demand.

Long year gaps are currently in strategic limbo: a lot of people are pointing out that the rarity tags are a representation of a pet's rarity regardless of year- but due to their wide range that trading, say, a 2020 UC for a 2011 UC wouldn't really be fair because in all odds the 2011 UC will pop into rare sooner while the 2020 one will probably take a few more years. I'm waiting and watching and seeing if there is any kind of consensus on that. It used to be 2:1 for year gaps but that kind of exponential growth is... well: (example ahead) 1 2011: 2 2012s: 4 2013s: 8 2014s: 16 2015s: 32 2016: 64 2017- it's just EXCESSIVE. I's really really restrictive to new users looking for older pets- and there's only so much one can manage to get from the pound. Unless CS intends to add a few more rarity tags, though, I don't really feel like 1:1 is quite it either- especially not when I'm getting 2019 pets being offered on 2012s and 2011s. I might settle on something like my UC:Rare ratio, 3-5 or something like that but right now I just feel like I'm not willing to fight with someone over the fairness of "but it's THE SAME RARITY TAG" vs" Yes, right NOW it is, but this one is older and will be rarer sooner" because rarity growth rate is largely variable and keeping an eye on every single pet and when it turned what rarity to be able to really sort out 'fair' is just too frustrating.

For C$ I just generally follow the "How much is this pet worth in C$" thread, but I'm expecting that to implode any month now- given all the rarity and fairness debates going on and given how no one's even remotely following it for older and rarer pets anymore... or that could just be Auctions, I feel like the auction forums wouldn't know fairness if Totoro himself(herself?) and slapped the definition on the page in the form of a giant overlapping watermark.

[beldam.]

Lordi this is such a difficult question these days.

I feel like I try to stick to the 3 month rule for older pets but tend to be looser and go as far as a year for recent pets so long as someone isn't asking for event pets and/or doesn't seem to be, well, exploiting my occasional bout of 'I do not care enough to edit this.'

i'm seconding this! ^
the official gap i have written in my rules is 6-7 months, but honestly, when it comes to 2017+ pets i play it even looser sometimes: if it's vaguely same-year, go for it.

i feel like i had a hard enough time grasping how people traded in 2012, let alone now... personally, my rules as of now have notes on what i've observed as common, picked up from discussion threads, and what i've also decided i just can't be bothered with. i do this partially so other people can see how i want to trade, and also just so i remember, haha.

like, i think rarity math is pretty tiring - i feel like if i got a big bulk trade i would be more apt to cancel it, even if it were fair by the commonplace rules, just because i do not have the kind of patience to figure it out. if it would take that kind of rarity math for me to make an offer, i just won't bother.
and like, date and rarity in general... you know, that makes sense to me - it's hard enough to get your hands on some of these pets, that you want to make sure you can fill the void with something that's similarly hard to get.
but rules about demand and species have always been foreign to me. what matters more to me is whether i actually want it, i.e. it's on my wishlist. if i had to choose between a non-WL dog (which i would then almost certainly just put into a trading group) or a WL rat (which i would then put into one of my collection groups, possibly with a fun dressup), i'd choose the rat - and it doesn't matter if it means i'm giving up a rat, a cat, or a dog to get it.

i'm sure there are edge cases that would fly in the face of any of my above rules, but those are rare enough that i can say in general, this is how i like to trade.
of course, if i'm initiating the offer with someone who's a little more strict on these rules, i'll do my best to match them. but i don't mind trading a little "unfairly" if it means both of us are just a little bit happier in the end.

Long year gaps are currently in strategic limbo: a lot of people are pointing out that the rarity tags are a representation of a pet's rarity regardless of year- but due to their wide range that trading, say, a 2020 UC for a 2011 UC wouldn't really be fair because in all odds the 2011 UC will pop into rare sooner while the 2020 one will probably take a few more years. I'm waiting and watching and seeing if there is any kind of consensus on that. It used to be 2:1 for year gaps but that kind of exponential growth is... well: (example ahead) 1 2011: 2 2012s: 4 2013s: 8 2014s: 16 2015s: 32 2016: 64 2017- it's just EXCESSIVE. I's really really restrictive to new users looking for older pets- and there's only so much one can manage to get from the pound.

THIS! this is another thing that really trips me up a lot and has stopped me from making/considering a few offers
personally just because of the excessiveness of these gaps i would only trade 2:1 within ~2 or maybe ~3 years - it just gets so much otherwise. i don't think it's the worst guideline for going across short year gaps, but long ones... yeah, it's a wreck.
i don't know what we would need to really solve it, but... as it is, it's not really working out for every situation.

[Solloby]

I've noticed a lot of people who have 2 UC = 1 Rare in their trade rules don't actually have any rares for trade. Every time I see that I try to trade for their rares but they never have any available. So I'm not convinced that there are actually people out there trading like this? If there are then where do I find them lol.

[.Vapor.]

So I just came back to CS after several years (2015) so the way I trade is very likely to change as I get readjusted!

I feel like I would want 3-4 uncommons for a rare. But, I'm finding that I don't want to let go of my rares in general because I already have so few as trade fodder to begin with. And a lot of my rares are event pets, and I'm even less likely to let those go as I believe they have higher demand, plus I love event pets in general That being said, since I have so many 2016-2020 pets to catch up on, I may have to start offering up my rares to catch up so... We'll see!

Personally, I'm more interested in completing collections - I want to collect event pets and all monthly pets. So I'll trade with that goal in mind

[Wookieinmashoo]

The only thing I can go off of is what was posted by Nick a long time ago:
Right now the rarities are:
OMG so rare! (less than 1 pet per 1000 users)
Very rare (less than 1 pet per 80 users)
Rare (less than 1 pet per 25 users)
Uncommon (less than 1 pet per 5.5 users)
Common (less than 1 pet per 3 users)
Very common (more than 1 pet per 3 users)
OMG so common (???)

It's not accurate now but it's the only thing I can find to go off of. Because of this I do:
5-6 uncommons per a rare
2 commons per uncommon (for items it depends on what it is)
2 very commons per common.

I will trade within 1-2 years of the same rarity of a pet. I used to so 2x rares = 1 rare of the previous year, but I don't do that anymore. I never trade x amount of recent rares for 2009 rare or something similar. If people want to do that themselves, then that's how they value those things, but I would never trade multiple rares for one myself.

Uncommons and rares are the most important to me because they're mostly what I use items for. I may trade them interchangeably when I need them. When it comes to auctions though, everything goes out the window. It's whatever what people are willing to offer.

[Scarlet Janefox]

Hi! I have a suggestion for a future poll:

If someone offers a January pet for your December pet of the previous year (say they offer a January 2020 pet for your December 2019 pet), would you accept? This is assuming both pets are of the same rarity and species.

I've made this kind of offer and I've noticed some users cancel because they believe a 2019 pet is worth more than a 2020 pet regardless of whether they're a month apart. I personally think it's fair since they're within three months of each other.

So I'm curious to see what CS generally thinks. I put a poll on my trade thread but it hasn't gotten much attention and I think having it here will help more people see it.

This is how it looks in my trade thread:

Poll: If someone offered a Jan 2020 pet for your Dec 2019 pet, would you accept?

Options:
- Yes, since they're only a month apart and within the 3 month rule, I would accept.
- No, 2019 pets are worth more than 2020 pets regardless if they're a month apart.

[musicgurl333]

Anyone have any suggestions for how long I should keep the poll open?

Hi! I have a suggestion for a future poll:

If someone offers a January pet for your December pet of the previous year (say they offer a January 2020 pet for your December 2019 pet), would you accept? This is assuming both pets are of the same rarity and species.

I've made this kind of offer and I've noticed some users cancel because they believe a 2019 pet is worth more than a 2020 pet regardless of whether they're a month apart. I personally think it's fair since they're within three months of each other.

So I'm curious to see what CS generally thinks. I put a poll on my trade thread but it hasn't gotten much attention and I think having it here will help more people see it.

This is how it looks in my trade thread:

Poll: If someone offered a Jan 2020 pet for your Dec 2019 pet, would you accept?

Options:
- Yes, since they're only a month apart and within the 3 month rule, I would accept.
- No, 2019 pets are worth more than 2020 pets regardless if they're a month apart.

I like that idea, and I will add it to the list! I agree with you that they're within 3 months, so it should be a fair swap. I remember being told a long time ago that "it doesn't work that way," which didn't make any sense to me.

Lordi this is such a difficult question these days.

I feel like I try to stick to the 3 month rule for older pets but tend to be looser and go as far as a year for recent pets so long as someone isn't asking for event pets and/or doesn't seem to be, well, exploiting my occasional bout of 'I do not care enough to edit this.'

I've started being very reluctant to trade event pets for regular monthlies because they're more likely to turn rare even if they start uncommon- and they're almost always higher in demand because of their frequently more beautiful designs (praise be to the CS pet artists on their event work =3 rock on guys!)

my trades within a year tend to be 2 omgsc = vc, 1 vc =common, 2 common = uc, 3-5 uc = rare- I keep this loose because it really depends on what the rare is and what pets are being offered. Admittedly since a lot of my missing pets are 09 or earlier it does tend to be on the high side since I'm not seeking the offered pets and people really don't tend to offer popular pets because well- popular pets don't stay around long in the trade box I guess.

I agree with all of this so much. The only thing I do differently, is that I value an uncommon as 3 commons.

Long year gaps are currently in strategic limbo: a lot of people are pointing out that the rarity tags are a representation of a pet's rarity regardless of year- but due to their wide range that trading, say, a 2020 UC for a 2011 UC wouldn't really be fair because in all odds the 2011 UC will pop into rare sooner while the 2020 one will probably take a few more years. I'm waiting and watching and seeing if there is any kind of consensus on that. It used to be 2:1 for year gaps but that kind of exponential growth is... well: (example ahead) 1 2011: 2 2012s: 4 2013s: 8 2014s: 16 2015s: 32 2016: 64 2017- it's just EXCESSIVE. I's really really restrictive to new users looking for older pets- and there's only so much one can manage to get from the pound. Unless CS intends to add a few more rarity tags, though, I don't really feel like 1:1 is quite it either- especially not when I'm getting 2019 pets being offered on 2012s and 2011s. I might settle on something like my UC:Rare ratio, 3-5 or something like that but right now I just feel like I'm not willing to fight with someone over the fairness of "but it's THE SAME RARITY TAG" vs" Yes, right NOW it is, but this one is older and will be rarer sooner" because rarity growth rate is largely variable and keeping an eye on every single pet and when it turned what rarity to be able to really sort out 'fair' is just too frustrating.

For C$ I just generally follow the "How much is this pet worth in C$" thread, but I'm expecting that to implode any month now- given all the rarity and fairness debates going on and given how no one's even remotely following it for older and rarer pets anymore... or that could just be Auctions, I feel like the auction forums wouldn't know fairness if Totoro himself(herself?) and slapped the definition on the page in the form of a giant overlapping watermark.

I don't agree with the "doubling rule" at all. It gets out of hand really quickly, and it honestly doesn't make that much sense. But I still tend to follow it when there's a gap of only a couple of years (for example, an '09 rare for 3 '11 rares), partly because I don't know what else to use. For big gaps, I really don't know.

I'm in the same boat with the C$ prices as well. I don't really know how accurate it is, but I still use it because I don't have another system to replace it.

So I just came back to CS after several years (2015) so the way I trade is very likely to change as I get readjusted!

I feel like I would want 3-4 uncommons for a rare. But, I'm finding that I don't want to let go of my rares in general because I already have so few as trade fodder to begin with. And a lot of my rares are event pets, and I'm even less likely to let those go as I believe they have higher demand, plus I love event pets in general That being said, since I have so many 2016-2020 pets to catch up on, I may have to start offering up my rares to catch up so... We'll see!

Personally, I'm more interested in completing collections - I want to collect event pets and all monthly pets. So I'll trade with that goal in mind

Agreed! Theoretically, I value rares are 3-5 uncommons. But I tend not to like to trade my rares down at all. I feel like it's easier to trade rares than uncommons, even though the group of uncommons is worth more. For me, this is especially true because a lot of the uncommons on my WL are there for trade fodder or doubles. A lot of what's on my WL is rare, so I like to include some lower rarity pets to give people things to offer. But at the same time, I don't really want to trade my rares down for uncommons that will just be going into my trade folders.

The only thing I can go off of is what was posted by Nick a long time ago:
Right now the rarities are:
OMG so rare! (less than 1 pet per 1000 users)
Very rare (less than 1 pet per 80 users)
Rare (less than 1 pet per 25 users)
Uncommon (less than 1 pet per 5.5 users)
Common (less than 1 pet per 3 users)
Very common (more than 1 pet per 3 users)
OMG so common (???)

It's not accurate now but it's the only thing I can find to go off of. Because of this I do:
5-6 uncommons per a rare
2 commons per uncommon (for items it depends on what it is)
2 very commons per common.

I will trade within 1-2 years of the same rarity of a pet. I used to so 2x rares = 1 rare of the previous year, but I don't do that anymore. I never trade x amount of recent rares for 2009 rare or something similar. If people want to do that themselves, then that's how they value those things, but I would never trade multiple rares for one myself.

Uncommons and rares are the most important to me because they're mostly what I use items for. I may trade them interchangeably when I need them. When it comes to auctions though, everything goes out the window. It's whatever what people are willing to offer.

That's what I try to sort of use as a guide too. I wish that we could get an updated list.

[RattyRat]

I’m probably gonna get a lot of crazy looks here—but I ALWAYS overpay when I trade. It’s how I ensure that I get what I want, not going to lie haha. But if I don’t agree with someone’s pricing (it’s too high even for my standards), or if I’m just not interested in the offer sent to me, I’ll back out all together. I don’t see the point in editing and trying to negotiate unless I’m really desperate, and I haven’t been for a while now.
Usually I’ll overpay in C$ or offsites for things like commons, uncommons, or unknowns. Though, I’ve probably gotten my fair share of ‘unfair’ trades whenever I offer 1c$ per x amount of pets... is that wrong on my part? I’m actually not sure, but some people don’t pay attention to OMGSC or Very Common, they just wanna yeet their trading fodder.
I’ll go for at least 1500 pets of any rarity for a high or medium tier Ex-advent though. I’m sort of a filthy hoarder, but it’s not really specific anymore.... I’m after everything

[Bilaz]

Yeah I always overpay too 😂 for the longest time I only had a 2016 VC on my wishlist that I was hoarding and I just handed over bulk wishlist to anyone who had them I didn’t care if it was several recent uncommons