New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[Solloby]

3 year value bands aren't the same as a 3 year gap guideline though? If the guide says for example:

2021 - 2023 is 1C$
2018 - 2020 is 2C$

That is technically saying that a 2020 pet is worth more than a 2021 despite only having a 1 year gap, not a 3 year one.

I really do feel like a lot of these C$ guides are seriously overvaluing old low rarity pets. While I don't usually buy pets with C$, the one pet I used to buy a lot of was this one: trades/viewtrade.php?id=80793592&userid=53&signature=0idTKOvc5rJuiCyrt0YDFQ

I had to stop buying them because I hit 500 which is about 400 more than I had originally intended. I bought almost 500 of these dogs for 1C$ each. They are 2012 UCs. The majority were C when I bought them, but I did buy the last few while they were UC. They are a beautiful design with heavy edits, so good demand I would have thought. Surely close to 500 purchases of a 2012 C (at the time) for 1C$ ea proves that old pets from low rarities are purchaseable at this price? Who are these people paying 15C$ for a common pet, and will they buy my old trading stock from me please?

[himarry 124]

3 year value bands aren't the same as a 3 year gap guideline though? If the guide says for example:

2021 - 2023 is 1C$
2018 - 2020 is 2C$

That is technically saying that a 2020 pet is worth more than a 2021 despite only having a 1 year gap, not a 3 year one.

I really do feel like a lot of these C$ guides are seriously overvaluing old low rarity pets. While I don't usually buy pets with C$, the one pet I used to buy a lot of was this one: trades/viewtrade.php?id=80793592&userid=53&signature=0idTKOvc5rJuiCyrt0YDFQ

I had to stop buying them because I hit 500 which is about 400 more than I had originally intended. I bought almost 500 of these dogs for 1C$ each. They are 2012 UCs. The majority were C when I bought them, but I did buy the last few while they were UC. They are a beautiful design with heavy edits, so good demand I would have thought. Surely close to 500 purchases of a 2012 C (at the time) for 1C$ ea proves that old pets from low rarities are purchaseable at this price? Who are these people paying 15C$ for a common pet, and will they buy my old trading stock from me please?

the way i did things before the rairty update was common and bellow no matter the date was 1 C$ each
2014+ uncommons 1 C$ each
2013 and bellow uncommons 5 C$ each these did sell often but not as often as normal commons and vary commons, uselly it would be someone buying for hoards or taking a chunck off there WL

[LavenderRain]

I probably didn't explain it well in my original post, but the two guides were meant to be used based on how you do the 3 year gap. I've heard lots of talk of it without much specifics, so I wasn't sure if people were meaning to group 3 years at a time, or valuing pets equal to the year before and after it. The 3 year gap chart is meant for the first option, a preset 3 years, with the second chart mentioning every single year being meant for the second option, valuing them equal to the year before and below. By this method, that would mean your 2020 very rare would be somewhere between 1-2C$. This is the only way I can think of that gives value to older pets that people seem to majority agree are at least slightly more valuable.

Again in regards to older common pets, I do agree that they need to come down more. Honestly the issue I'm running into with that is how people actually value some of these new rarities. Omgsc and very common are obviously going to be super low, but what about uncommon-extremely uncommon? I don't want to just throw random numbers on the chart, there needs to be some kind of reasoning. Currently, for like omgsc, I have it going up by about 1C$ every two years. So maybe I'll try starting omgsc and vc at .5C$ and going up by .5 every two years? See how that looks on the chart? Again the issue I have is whether uncommon-extremely uncommon should follow this trend. Based on the old system I'd say yes, but if you look at recent token pets from the last year or two, I feel like these rarity do actually hold a little more value now, at least extremely uncommon?

Edit part 1: I feel like it's also important to note that 2009 doesn't have low rarities (I believe the lowest rarity is Extremely Uncommon?). So yes the C$ price for a 2008 omgsc might seem outrageous for the rarity, but the pet doesn't even exist in the first place. The only reason I included those years is because 1. I feel like its more.. fair? honest? to include the continuation of the price increase pattern, and 2. I'm lazy and don't want to browse every single pet of every year and find out which rarities even exist in which years 😅
So if we're going to figure out whether or not the older year values are truely what people will pay, I think it's actually pretty important that we look at the current oldest known pet with that rarity, and decide from there whether that pet is actually worth the C$ value. Because my chart is based on patterns, when I adjust one year, I'll adjust the years before and after to match ^^

Edit part 2: My brain would let me sleep cause I wanted to revise the chart again, so here is (yet another xD) late night re-edit of the chart xD

[Screemnigcheesepuff]

-snip-
Edit part 2: My brain would let me sleep cause I wanted to revise the chart again, so here is (yet another xD) late night re-edit of the chart xD

Just going to pop in here with my own little (much less nice to look at spreadsheet) if you dont mind. Also to be completely honest i didnt see the above table untill half-way through making mine, oops. Also means some of my numbers may need a little adjustment but i will have to do that later as i have an appointment soon.



My two overall concerns that came to mind were 1, i dont feel like certain values should jump much higher than what they used to be valued at under the old c$ guide. This is partially because whilst this update has re-organised rarity i dont feel as though pets that stayed the same rarity ect gained any particular value so why should the value suddenly be x times higher? Also there is also the bit of me that has read those threads about c$ inflation, i think it would be much better here to create a standard for ‘normal’ valued pets, then consider those high value pets individually.
So under this logic i liked the older rare value collum more as for a 2010 rare; ‘old’ how much is this worth in c$ guide (rare to VERRY RARE, so rare would likely not be at the highest end of this)= 25-40, lavenderrose previous version= 31, this above version= 40. To me 31 makes more sense as it is more in the middle rather than the upper limit of a guide ment for two rarity categories.

I really like have some clearer distinction at lower rarity levels as just cutting it off below rare makes trading up via c$ less accessible to newer players who will usually struggle to get rares for the first while.
For EU i kinda kept with just under half of the rare value because usually it just didnt split evenly, then for VU i just kept to the 3 year rule as people seem largely happy with that, but now thinking maybe 1.5 should have been 1 to keeps things simple.

Other than that i like the using 3 year rule for lower values as you have in the table above, these values make sense to me. I just couldn’t be bothered to copy them across into this table

Very sorry if things are worded oddly i am autistic & very dyslexic so am happy to re-explain/re-word anything.

[SolarSonnet]

Just going to pop in here with my own little (much less nice to look at spreadsheet) if you dont mind. Also to be completely honest i didnt see the above table untill half-way through making mine, oops. Also means some of my numbers may need a little adjustment but i will have to do that later as i have an appointment soon.



My two overall concerns that came to mind were 1, i dont feel like certain values should jump much higher than what they used to be valued at under the old c$ guide. This is partially because whilst this update has re-organised rarity i dont feel as though pets that stayed the same rarity ect gained any particular value so why should the value suddenly be x times higher? Also there is also the bit of me that has read those threads about c$ inflation, i think it would be much better here to create a standard for ‘normal’ valued pets, then consider those high value pets individually.
So under this logic i liked the older rare value collum more as for a 2010 rare; ‘old’ how much is this worth in c$ guide (rare to VERRY RARE, so rare would likely not be at the highest end of this)= 25-40, lavenderrose previous version= 31, this above version= 40. To me 31 makes more sense as it is more in the middle rather than the upper limit of a guide ment for two rarity categories.

I really like have some clearer distinction at lower rarity levels as just cutting it off below rare makes trading up via c$ less accessible to newer players who will usually struggle to get rares for the first while.
For EU i kinda kept with just under half of the rare value because usually it just didnt split evenly, then for VU i just kept to the 3 year rule as people seem largely happy with that, but now thinking maybe 1.5 should have been 1 to keeps things simple.

Other than that i like the using 3 year rule for lower values as you have in the table above, these values make sense to me. I just couldn’t be bothered to copy them across into this table

Very sorry if things are worded oddly i am autistic & very dyslexic so am happy to re-explain/re-word anything.

I like where your table is going, but I do think its time to bump up the value of some older rares. They've been at "35 C$+" since I first joined in 2015, and recently the only 09 rares I'd ever sell for as low as 35 are rats. Dogs usually hit 40-ish+ when I sell them, it starts to be the same with '10 rares, a '10 rare rat is 25 C$, a dog is 30. I've even gotten 40 out of some '10 rare dogs with normal dog lineart, no edits, not from an event, and have gotten 50 out of a normal rare dog from 2009, same thing. Just goes to show that value has increased despite the threads not following up with it, though 09 and 10 rare dog demand might just be a little high because dogs are the "standard" pet.

From what I've seen, people tend to naturally subtract when demand is low and add when demand is high, I think dogs have "base" or "neutral" demand, and so they should be the "standard" for pricing.

People will see "09 Rares are worth 40 C$." and think "Rats have less demand than dogs. Dogs are worth 40 C$, rats are worth less than that by demand, so 35 C$ for the rat."

Less people will see, "09 Rares are worth 35 C$. That means my dog is worth 40 C$ because 35 C$ is the lowest tier, like rats, and my dog is worth more than that." Especially if we're getting rid of ranges.

I made my own little example here but I feel it kind of fell apart at the end. I'm mostly focused on older rares myself and have less investment in newer pets, so all my effort on that one, admittedly, went into the older rares and I totally think some of the other charts have better spreads for the newer rares.

[Solloby]

I still disagree with separating low rarity pets by year, it's unnecessarily complicated.
Store pets and VRs, and perhaps Rares as well would benefit from a year separation.

Lower rarity pets only really need 3 categories:
Newer / Lower Demand
Average Age / Demand
Older / Higher Demand

Example charting with these categories, not sure if these are accurate but it's a starting point (the extra decimals are just to support the lack of formatting, they obviously aren't needed in a proper graphical chart):

OMGSC EC VC C UC VUC EUC
0.25 0.25 0.50 1.0 1.5 2 3
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.5 2.0 3 4
0.50 0.50 0.75 2.0 3.0 4 5

Rares, VRs & Store Pets could have a year-based chart. Store Pets in particular would benefit from this.

ERs and OMGSRs need a more nuanced chart. Not sure what the approach would be here, but it is wrong to value OMGSRs by year as that's not how their rarity works. Newer OMGSRs are URs who are no less valuable than old URs.

As a side note, store pet rarity doesn't really impact their value as it directly correlates to their popularity. Higher demand store pets have lower rarity tags compared to other store pets of the same age. Age is the biggest thing with their value since they are never rereleased.

[houndoom]

i agree that up to rare/very rare it rly should be up to personal preference. i have been trading like that for a while now even before the rarity update and its a lot better and both parties are happy with what theyre getting!

it overcomplicates an already complicated thing imo, to make any sort of "guide" for lower rarity pets and expect ppl to follow it 🤔 thats just my onion

[Screemnigcheesepuff]

A question for people who don't think lower rarities should have set values; what are you counting as a lower rarity?
Is it anything below rare? Or below uncommon ect?

Because the older guides have had distinctions for uncommon but not lower. I understand not minding about common ect and below as they never really had a set value and I usually just trading for them in bulk. but I would like to know if people are also counting the uncommon rarities in this, and if so which uncommons.

My opinion is vu and EU should have a value even if it ismore approximate but lower I don't mind. The reason is just because it isn't rare doesn't mean it has no value and it makes it friendlier to newer players who will struggle to get rates at the start.

Edit; just to clarify my view that the uncommon values should be defined relates to the fact that under old guides uncommon has been defined.

[SolarSonnet]

I still disagree with separating low rarity pets by year, it's unnecessarily complicated.
Store pets and VRs, and perhaps Rares as well would benefit from a year separation.

Lower rarity pets only really need 3 categories:
Newer / Lower Demand
Average Age / Demand
Older / Higher Demand

Example charting with these categories, not sure if these are accurate but it's a starting point (the extra decimals are just to support the lack of formatting, they obviously aren't needed in a proper graphical chart):

OMGSC EC VC C UC VUC EUC
0.25 0.25 0.50 1.0 1.5 2 3
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.5 2.0 3 4
0.50 0.50 0.75 2.0 3.0 4 5

(snip)

I've kind of been separating myself out from the lower rarity guide discussion. I think I can just figure those ones out, its the older pets with higher rarities that I'm mostly concerned with.

That being said,

I know newer players and players who don't care about the higher rarity pets might want a guide or valuation for lower rarity pets, though, so I do think it's important.

I sort-of agree that separating "lower rarity" pets by year is a little redundant, but how do we define "lower rarity"?

To me "Lower Rarity" is anything below a Common, as I still value Uncommons pretty highly. I genuinely think that EUC should be either 1/2 or 1/3rd of the rare price for that year. I think if you have a 2012 EUC, it could be worth (Off the top of my head) 12-13 C$. Which is more than twice your proposed 5 C$ for the highest-demand/oldest EUCs.

If I had to use this method, I'd separate it more like this if we're not making it too complicated.
CS Has been around for 16 years (as of next year) so each bracket should be 5.3 Years. Since that's a weird decimal I'll do some rounding. It kinda makes the 5-year rule prominent here, which I don't really agree with, but whatever.
Low Demand/New = 2019+
M Demand / Avg = 2014 - 2019
High Demand Old = 2008-2013
------------------------- OMGSC | EC | VC | C | UC |VUC| EUC
(Low Demand/New) 0.25 - 0.25 - 0.50 - 1.0 - 1.5 - 2 - 4
(M Demand / Avg Age) 0.25 - 0.50 - 0.75 - 1.5 - 2 - 4 - 8
(High Demand / Older) 0.50 - 0.50 - 0.75 - 2 - 3 - 6 - 12

Keep in mind, Idk how many Extremely Uncommon and below pets from even like, 2010 there are. Most of the litters I've looked through are at least rare nowadays. So if we cut out 2008-2009 then the chart looks more like:

New/LD = 2020+
Avg/MD = 2015-2019
Old/HD = 2010-2014

Which, imo, makes a LOT more sense to me.

I wouldn't trade a 2012 Common Dog for a 2020 Common dog, or even a 2015 common dog, I'd want there to be a little add with VC/EC/OMGSC from newer years to balance it out a little bit. Nothing like the kind of calcs I'd do to make sure rare trades are fair, but if you're offering a newer pet for an older pet, at least chuck in a few like 2020-2023 commons or lower to even out the years a little, y'know? Not expecting insane calculations of "fairness", it's a lot more low stakes since the pets aren't worth all that much, just would be appreciated to have a few extra deal-sweeteners in there.

I still would have a few hangups about trading a 2015 VC for a 2018 VC, even if they're in the same C$ bracket and within the 3 year rule. I would be more likely to make the 1:1 swap if I liked the pet or if the other person was super invested in the pet that I had and I didn't want to edit, because it's kind of negligible. Like, the other person decided that they wanted this pet out of all of the pets that I own, and went through the trouble of picking a pet from their own folders to try and trade to me for it. It's a VC. Unless I like, really wanted that pet, I'd never send someone a trade for a singular very common. This person clearly wants it more than I do and if they're struggling to offer me something of equal value to a 2015 Very Common, they probably need it more than I do too.

That only leaves EC, VC, and OMGSC as pets that "Don't really need separation", for me. Idk how much I even touched them in the edited list, if at all lol.

[Another World]

i understand why people have a want and a need for a list but tbh, its really annoying and difficult to use. i would just like a 2009 rare=2009 rare, regardless of release (if its a jan 09 vs dec 09). they really should be the same.


i understand why people don’t want to welcome the new omgsrs with open arms and trade them 1:1 because their pet has been omgsr longer, but to be honest that should not matter. just bc one pet has been vr since 2011 does not mean it is less vr than a 2015 or 2016 vr. ESPECIALLY right now. i know i keep stressing this in my posts, but really the rarities are the most accurate right now. there is no “omgsr tier” because they all sit on the same level. i mean if you really want to argue it, i would say the “rarest” omgsrs would actually be the newest UR pets, since theres only like 20 (if that) in the game.

in reality these pets that went from vr to omgsr have been at the cusp of omgsr tier for a while, they finally just got their sparkly label, if that makes sense.

i know many people disagree with this stance but i really think this change is a nice fresh start and wiping down and clearing out old trading standards and expectations is probably for the better, even if it means some of our pets “lose” value

this - i agree with all of this - it would be really great if this could actually be a fresh start and i know it's always hard for people to commit to a fresh start when there's new lists in play and you feel like you're losing out