✨ Trading New OMGSRs Discussion

[lil rascal]

No one is saying demand and the actual number of pets should be completely disregarded when trading within the same rarity. The issue is simply that demand seems to skyrocket the value of pets way beyond what is reasonable at times. I’m not sure if this is a good example, but when trying to trade for an Aug PPS, Horror’s List says it’s worth .5MA value wise but .5N when demand is factored in (6x its actual numerical value). Also, I find it kind of interesting that in another example, for instance, the UR Peas are worth 2N less than the UR flamingo despite them both being URs and the peas being 4 years older. In that circumstance demand seems to be taking two pets that should be relatively comparable and separating them by multiple OMGSRs which seems odd to me (I may be missing something with that one, though).
Although, again, I feel like these instances are too specific. The point is that the modern way of doing things/demand is making reaally hefty gaps between pets of very similar numerical value.

yeah but be honest, what would you prefer? a pea....or a flamingo that looks more pretty? a flamingo will never have the same value as a .....vegetable! there is the english word lmao...

As someone who has the peas locked away I personally wouldn’t trade them for a flamingo, I love my peas. What could be cuter than two peas in a pod? As I’ve been saying personal preferences are not taken into account enough.

[♥Princess of Lions♥]

Two things:

1. I think store pets are extremely different from regular pets. Store pets will never be released again, so they are pets that actually SHOULD become impossible for new players to get. Let’s pretend there are a thousand skelebun that exist and all of them get adopted to permanent homes by the year 2025, anyone who joins this site after that year will not get one unless they offer such an absurd amount that it convinces someone to change their mind and sell. This is the way CS wants it to be. They said repeatedly they will never re-release store pets, so there is no other possible future for store pets.

2. The reason list pets are worth super high prices is because there is not enough supply for everyone or even most people to have one. If you really want to get rid of the list and make 1:1 swapping by OMGSR rarity tags (excluding store pets) a viable option, the ONLY way to do that will be to have CS make OMGSR pets much more common, either by giving everyone an OMGSR December 18 box and/or having more re-release dates. To get rid of a system that factors in demand, you need to increase the supply substantially enough to negate the demand. I’m sure people who paid an arm and a leg through offsite trading will still be upset and maybe even quit after suffering such massive losses though. It seems like only one group can really be made happy here: either the old players who have been loyal to this site for years or new players who might not stay on the site regardless of how common you make pets.

[Solloby]

^ I agree that store pets are very different to regular release pets. Maybe they should be a separate discussion to the other OMGSRs.

---------

I don't really get why people want OMGSRs to trade 1:1 when they won't trade lower rarities 1:1? People talk about how much the older commons are worth more than the newer commons. Why are the OMGSRs different? They may be less age based but they still have a breadth of rarity and demand, just like the commons. If we are to say that 1 common = 2 commons if there is a large rarity/demand gap between them, why wouldn't 1 omgsr = 2 omgsr if they have the same gap?

---------

So here are some interesting trades I dug up from 2011. I made these trades after coming back to the site (I left in 2009 and came back in 2011). I didn't realise that 2008 pets were super valuable and wow Main Rares List so much value.

trades/viewtrade.php?id=5329282&userid=53&signature=zzAOmdt_BY1WDUi-fFqjrQ
trades/viewtrade.php?id=5183818&userid=53&signature=a74zKVs-AW4-K_TwU57N6A

So I put a bunch of nice pets on my wishlist and said, I have some old pets to trade. I quickly received some offers that I accepted because they looked so generous, a quantity of high rarity wishlist pets. I put all of the pets into my collection and still have them today. I was so happy about them at first.

But then I shared the trade links and was immediately told that I'd been taken advantage of. The trades were apparently super unfair to me, there were no main Rares List pets, almost all of those pets weren't on the Rares List at all, so that meant the trade was bad. Except I didn't want "rares list" pets, I wanted the pets I'd hand picked for my wishlist, which were the ones offered to me in these trades. At the time I did feel bad because people on the forums were telling me I shouldn't have accepted. But I got so many nice pets in the trades, and didn't really get why everyone thought I had screwed up. Looking back, I don't think the traders were trying to rip me off either, I think they saw I had an 08 dog and that I only wanted 09/10 pets for it, so they threw everything they had at me in order to snag them for what traders at the time thought was a great deal for them.

Looking at the trades now, it's very interesting to note that each one has an OMGSR in them now. I'd be interested to know what you guys think of these trades now in 2023 with the new rarity tag changes. I suppose at the time 08 pets were significantly rarer and harder to find than 09/10 pets, whereas nowadays they may be a little closer because of how many rereleases they have been through.

For me I think the thing I like most about these trades, apart from all of the amazing pets I received from them, is that when I click both of these July 08 dogs that I adopted and traded away, they are dressed up happily in their forever homes. It wasn't with the original traders, but they found their way to where they belong.

[Bluefly26799]

Two things:

1. I think store pets are extremely different from regular pets. Store pets will never be released again, so they are pets that actually SHOULD become impossible for new players to get. Let’s pretend there are a thousand skelebun that exist and all of them get adopted to permanent homes by the year 2025, anyone who joins this site after that year will not get one unless they offer such an absurd amount that it convinces someone to change their mind and sell. This is the way CS wants it to be. They said repeatedly they will never re-release store pets, so there is no other possible future for store pets.

2. The reason list pets are worth super high prices is because there is not enough supply for everyone or even most people to have one. If you really want to get rid of the list and make 1:1 swapping by OMGSR rarity tags (excluding store pets) a viable option, the ONLY way to do that will be to have CS make OMGSR pets much more common, either by giving everyone an OMGSR December 18 box and/or having more re-release dates. To get rid of a system that factors in demand, you need to increase the supply substantially enough to negate the demand. I’m sure people who paid an arm and a leg through offsite trading will still be upset and maybe even quit after suffering such massive losses though. It seems like only one group can really be made happy here: either the old players who have been loyal to this site for years or new players who might not stay on the site regardless of how common you make pets.

I'm not like a 'new' new player but im definetly not an 'old' player. But I agree so hard with this.


I think if all pets were super easy to obtain all the fun would be lost from this site. I get that some people just like to collect and having some pets be worth an insane value makes that almost impossible, I get that frustration. But these are the same people who will only trade doubles and then wonder why they struggle to make progress :') .

I think the end result of people not coming to terms with supply + demand = value, will be players who actually worked hard to trade for pets of these high values either hoarding them as no one in their right mind is going to give their stuff away for a fraction of what they paid, or they'll quit. Either of these options would result in the supply of these pets getting even lower and therefor; say it with me, demand will go up = the price will go up....


Since this rarity change I have had probably 5+ trades offering 1-2 ma value OMGsr pets for things like my kirin in 1:1 "OMGsr swap". Its honesty becoming draining again trying to educate people, I've got the successful trade thread in copy and paste ready to go at this point :') I feel their needs to be a second tier of the OMGsr pets maybe at the .5 or 1 non mark to just give people a slight idea that their is a difference in their value.


Maybe there needs to be like a list pet value archieve / normal pet one so people can have complete collections of pets that are actually obtainable and then there would not be this frustration at people not being able to complete the collection if theyre a newish player.




Solloby

I think its super important to be happy with your trades. If getting value back was important in those trades then id feel different but you seem to love what you got thats all that matters. That first one though makes my heart hurt thinking what that low ID would have been looking at its date but again. you were happy and they were so who cares what others think! I have overpaid like mad for stuff i wanted too. My first skelebun i paid over 20 non for as i was so excited to get the rarest pet in the game

[sky,]

My point feels like it’s getting lost here.

All I am saying is, and I will die on this hill lol, that rarity is the one and only thing we can count on that is based on actual numbers (whether CS wants to give us those numbers or not idk). Demand is absolutely fine to have in trading, and there is nothing wrong with wanting a fair trade. However, a lot of demand was determined based on old threads, and people base their pricing off of these threads. When someone pays 4 omgsr for 1 sunback, and the CS community says “yeah that’s fair.” I think that is putting a serious lock on trading for people. Not everyone has 4 omgsr willy nilly to trade for 1 and the fact that this overpay is pushed onto new players as “fair” is imo not a good thing.

There has been a serious issue with trading on CS and I think part of it is the mentality we have as a community and another is not having the actual numbers. Since the rarities are the only statistical thing we have, I think it’s best to start with those and go from there. I know I’m not the only person on here with this same feeling, and I can’t help but feel this issue is why CS trading is such a mad house…

@Sky also made a really good response that I think sums up how I feel and they make a good suggestion too. I will quote their response below.

-snip for space -

link to post

but.it.isnt.overpay

a sunback is 4 nons, a Sunjewel 3, so, you need to add 1 non to add up to the value of an Sunback. An OMGSR is not automaticly same valued as another OMGSR. There can be an omgsr that has only 100 copies, it wont be less rarer then a pet that has still 7k copies in the game (a drastic example ^^) so....you say its a fair swap...an omgsr that is only 100 times in the whole game, for an pet that is 7k times in a game so its more likely to be found then the one with 100 copies (where, again an extrem example!! maybe 50 copies are on inactive accounts)

I think the point is missed by what is being said in the quoted comments. So I will try to explain it better c: If OMGSRs continue to hold their value (as I believe they should), why not compromising on making it easier to trade up rather than change what the pets are worth? I think what I posted before is a fair compromise to both sides of the spectrum. Newer users want to be able to trade for the higher rarity pets, while older users would like their pets to hold their value. There are very few 09 rares left with this update, creating a bump in the road when it come to trading for MAs, which make up nons. There are much more 2010 and 2011 rares, so in order to hold a system where we equate values by how many rare pets = omgsr, we need to reestablish the baseline.

If we were to implement "x amount of 2010/2011 rares = 1 MA , x amount of MAs = 1 non", this would make it easier to trade for higher value pets, while the Sunback would still be worth 4 nons. The difference is, a non would be worth "less". But it would be the same in relativity to the rest of the site. This is a systemic change that I think people can get behind if they look at the bigger picture.

For example:

Sunback = 4 nons

so how do I trade for a sunback from scratch? Well, if you look at the current system, you need 40 - 48 MAs to equal 4 nons. Or 400 09 rares. My point is that very few people will have that kind of rare fodder. Especially since the number of 09 rares has decreased drastically. If 2010/2011 rares, were the baseline, this would make it easier to trade up. You would still get a similar amount of "MAs" for your valuable pets, it would just be easier to get the MAs. I don't know if that makes sense.

______________________________________________________________

Another question I would like to give my opinion on is how should we value the new omgsrs? Well, just like all other pets on this site, they cannot be equal to the legacy omgsrs for the same reason (as someone pointed out) that we, as a community, don't accept a 2022 Vr for an 08 Vr. It is not fair to the system. What I suggest is, bumping them up in value slightly to create a new tier in the "list". This would give the system simplicity while giving the illusion that those pets are more valuable in relation to the rest of the omgsrs, while still holding the value of the older/more valuable pets. I think this is an okay compromise as long as we evaluate how to break it down.

linking back to how horror structured the omgsrs

OMGSR "List"

1 + non : Unreleasepets/Storepets that hold their value over 1 Non (IE. Unrelease pets/Sunback/Raven/Skelebun/Etc.)

1 non : Monthly Legacy Omgsrs (noncoon, etc.)

.75 non : .5 non pets that have more demand/Unrelease pets that have less demand

.5 non : Sorbets/Toxics, etc.

.25 non : "lower" omgsrs

MAs : "Higher" ERs

.5 MAs : "lower" ERs

this will have some exceptions, of course, when calculating demand and in individual cases. The sunback and the Coontail are perfect examples of this. (but I just thought I would throw in some pets that have a solidified value) now, back to the sunback. If you were to trade:

1 non : 60-70 "old rares" /30-35 VRs / 12 - 14 MAs

.75 non : 45-55 "old rares" /22-27 VRs / 9 - 11 MAs

.5 non : 30-40 "old rares" / 15-20 VRs / 6 - 8 MAs

.25 non : 15-25 "old rares" / 7-12 VRs / 3 - 5 MAs

MAs : 3 - 5 "old rares"

.5 MAs: 2 -3 "old rares"

"old rares" = new baseline (2010 rares or 2010/2011 rares)

This would mean that a sunback would be worth 4 nons = 48 - 56 MAs or 120 - 140 "old rares". Overall, this would mean more MAs.. which would be okay if there are more pets that hold their value at 1 MA. But as a turnaround, less rares. I believe this would systemically make it easier to trade up while still allowing players to feel comfortable when trading.

Let me know if this is still confusing! At the end of the day, I am just trying to find a solution to make both parties happy. c:

[Aaron✦]

My point feels like it’s getting lost here especially with some of the replies on my comment lol.

All I am saying is, and I will die on this hill lol, that rarity is the one and only thing we can count on that is based on actual numbers (whether CS wants to give us those numbers or not idk).

This is simply factually incorrect. The date that a pet went OMGSR is a numerical identifier of how rare it is that we can count on.

(This is is a made up example, based on the previous rarity system)
If we say that pets that exist within the range of 1 per 500 accounts - 1 per 999 accounts, and OMGSRs were 1 per 499 accounts or under. Everything gets slowly rarer. A bunny that changed from VR to OMGSR in 2009 is now at something like 1 per 50 accounts. A dog that changed from VR to OMGSR in 2022 indicates to us that it has crossed the threshold from 1 per 500 to 1 per 499 just recently.
With this update, we might say that OMGSR now includes all pets that are 1 per 1000 accounts.
The bunny from the first example is mathematically and provably rarer than either of the other two, even though all three are now OMGSR. It might well be worth 3, 4, or even 10 times either of them. This has absolutely zero to do with demand - it is an objective way that we can tell that one OMGSR is much rarer, by numbers, than another.

This is why people trade by a list that is an approximation of those dates - because it is precisely the one other dataset, aside from label, that we can count on to assess a pet's value.
If users don't personally want to trade an OMGSR for 2 other OMGSRs just because one has more demand, that's absolutely fair and your prerogative. But I take issue with the ideas that seem to be floating about that the lists or other traders are intentionally lying to get you to overpay, when 1 OMGSR could absolutely be worth very many of another. Just because they have the same label does not mean they're equally rare.
^ non staff opinion

As an aside I'm having to clean up a lot of double posts. Please make sure to use the edit function rather than double posting.

[MiaShuji]

My point feels like it’s getting lost here especially with some of the replies on my comment lol.

All I am saying is, and I will die on this hill lol, that rarity is the one and only thing we can count on that is based on actual numbers (whether CS wants to give us those numbers or not idk).

This is simply factually incorrect. The date that a pet went OMGSR is a numerical identifier of how rare it is that we can count on.

(This is is a made up example, based on the previous rarity system)
If we say that pets that exist within the range of 1 per 500 accounts - 1 per 999 accounts, and OMGSRs were 1 per 499 accounts or under. Everything gets slowly rarer. A bunny that changed from VR to OMGSR in 2009 is now at something like 1 per 50 accounts. A dog that changed from VR to OMGSR in 2022 indicates to us that it has crossed the threshold from 1 per 500 to 1 per 499 just recently.
With this update, we might say that OMGSR now includes all pets that are 1 per 1000 accounts.
The bunny from the first example is mathematically and provably rarer than either of the other two, even though all three are now OMGSR. It might well be worth 3, 4, or even 10 times either of them. This has absolutely zero to do with demand - it is an objective way that we can tell that one OMGSR is much rarer, by numbers, than another.

This is why people trade by a list that is an approximation of those dates - because it is precisely the one other dataset, aside from label, that we can count on to assess a pet's value.
If users don't personally want to trade an OMGSR for 2 other OMGSRs just because one has more demand, that's absolutely fair and your prerogative. But I take issue with the ideas that seem to be floating about that the lists or other traders are intentionally lying to get you to overpay, when 1 OMGSR could absolutely be worth very many of another. Just because they have the same label does not mean they're equally rare.
^ non staff opinion

As an aside I'm having to clean up a lot of double posts. Please make sure to use the edit function rather than double posting.

Thanks Aaron, you could explain it way better then i could since im not fluent in english. Thats what i meant. OMGSR does not immedentialy mean another OMGSR is worth the same...its like with the warrior cats etc. some Rares are more "rare" then other pets and with the OMGSR pets its even more special...since one omgsr can have only 10k copies in this game left and the other maybe 40k ...so the one with only 10k still in game is, more valuable

[Lacuna]

I don’t want to say combine all the threads but since there are so many I’m going to just share a link to a post by me that also links to another post by me so I can share my opinion, lol. Basically, I’ve always managed to get these pets (usually offsite or C$ trades) but this is the first time I’ve felt like it might be possible for me to participate in this trading scene of pets for pets, and these are my thoughts on value. (All opinions my own/unrelated to being staff.)

Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4899188&start=90#p142997062
Edit: fixed link
Please especially look at the last paragraph of that post.

[sky,]

I don’t want to say combine all the threads but since there are so many I’m going to just share a link to a post by me that also links to another post by me so I can share my opinion, lol. Basically, I’ve always managed to get these pets (usually offsite or C$ trades) but this is the first time I’ve felt like it might be possible for me to participate in this trading scene of pets for pets, and these are my thoughts on value. (All opinions my own/unrelated to being staff.)

Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4899188&start=90#p142997062
Edit: fixed link
Please especially look at the last paragraph of that post.

I agree with this! I think this is essentially what I was getting at with my post previously but with better structure. c: Thanks for posting!

[Loelya]

I don’t want to say combine all the threads but since there are so many I’m going to just share a link to a post by me that also links to another post by me so I can share my opinion, lol. Basically, I’ve always managed to get these pets (usually offsite or C$ trades) but this is the first time I’ve felt like it might be possible for me to participate in this trading scene of pets for pets, and these are my thoughts on value. (All opinions my own/unrelated to being staff.)

Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4899188&start=90#p142997062
Edit: fixed link
Please especially look at the last paragraph of that post.

I may have made a mistake in initially separating this discussion and the "new trading standards" discussion. I thought they would end up being really different conversations and wanted to see if I could offer a space to others to discuss both, but I didn't think to account for the idea that they might eventually converge into very similar topics.

if others felt strongly that combining threads would be more beneficial, and if everyone was okay with it, we could maybe quote the significant parts of this current discussion back on this thread and keep going from there. but also they can stay separate if combining them would be more difficult!