NEW POLL CS Community Wants YOUR help on Trading Guidelines!

[SolarSonnet]

I think an equal sign might help! Some of the way it was set up made me think that the EUC was equal to all of the bunnies below it, which wasn't the case.


Can you rephrase your last paragraph? I'm getting a few things from it which is confusing me.

Specifics for demand and age would require the guide specifically mentioning pets that are high or low demand. I think in that case we should be using rats and lions.

I also realized that people are still using 2:1 Between years on the FTT and giving people inaccurate advice.. Which means our guides and conversations are not spreading as far as we'd like them to, but I have no idea how to get this to spread further. I worry we're missing a whole group of people who are still using 2:1 between years and not getting their opinions or helping them transition to the new methods.

Wdym by poll for year gaps? Like how we should be managing them outside of C$ trades? Or like the 3-year gap/5-year gap?

I think we should do a poll with some of my charts using some of my methods, and with one of your charts using community gathered information.

I.E.

• (Link to My Chart) - I think C$ valuation should match trading directly and I like the valuations in this chart. I don't want the C$ Chart and the pet valuation to be mismatched anymore.
  
• (Link to another of my charts) - I think C$ valuation should match trading directly and I like the valuations in this chart. I don't want the C$ Chart and the pet valuation to be mismatched anymore.
  
• (Link to Solloby Chart) - I think C$ and pet valuation can stay mismatched in favor of properly valuing, and I like the valuations in this chart.
  
• I think C$ Valuation should mirror pet valuation, but I don't like the charts provided
  
• I think C$ Valuations should mirror pet valuation, but I like a combination of the charts provided. (Tell us what you like in each chart!)
  
• I think C$ Valuation and pet valuation should be mismatched, but I don't like the chart provided.

(the reason I'd have two charts is because I have one where 2023 VRs are valued at like 30 C$, and I have one that still uses my trading method, but instead uses 8-10 C$ for Recent Rares and 16-20 for VRs, without taking into account how many 2023-2024 rares would = an 09 Rare)

I also like the idea of doing a poll where we have

"What rarity of pet do you think should be added between years?"

• One Rarity Below (I.E. A 2017 Rare is worth a 2018 Rare and 2018 EUC. A 2019 Common is worth a 2020 Common and Very Common)
  
• Two Rarities Below (I.E. A 2017 Rare is worth a 2018 Rare and a 2018 VUC. A 2019 Common is worth a 2020 Common and Extremely Common)
  
• Three Rarities Below (I.E. A 2017 Rare is worth a 2018 Rare and a 2018 Uncommon. A 2019 Common is worth a 2020 Common and OMGSC.)
  
• A pet of the same valuation should be added to all trades between years, regardless of rarity, down to the point of the rarity that is added. All pets below that should swap 1:1. (I.E. A 2017 Rare is worth a 2018 Rare and 2018 Common. A 2019 Very Uncommon is worth a 2020 Very Uncommon and a 2020 Common. A 2020 Very Common is worth a Very Common from any other year, or of years within 3-5 years of it.)
  
• Pets of differing valuation should be added based on what years you're going between. (I.E. A 2010 Rare is worth a 2011 Rare and 2011 EUC. A 2017 Rare is worth a 2018 Rare and a 2018 Uncommon)
  
  
  
• No pets need to be added for pets of the same rarity between dates within 3 years of each other.
  

and one that asks

"Should there be an expected gap between years? When and how? (Select two)"

There should be an expected add for all rarities between all years.

There should be an expected add for all rarities outside of a 3 or 5 year gap.

There should be an expected add for Rarities VUC and above, but not for lower ones.

There should be an expected add for Rarities EUC and above, but not for lower ones.

There should be an expected add for Rarities Rare and above, but not for lower ones.

[*]When exceeding the 3/5 year gap, the expected add should double. (I.E. 2020-2025 (or 2020-2023) could Swap evenly, but a 2023 Rare or even a 2020 Rare would be 2 2019 Rares.)

I actually realized I think there are multiple ways to trade fairly. I like the "Add a sliding scale of rarities based on what years you're going between" because some of my old charts did that. I also like, "Just slap a rarity below on it" or "add a common or two and call it good" for newer rares. I just think the add is a little less important to me than it used to be. I want it to be flexible, and it makes me think that maybe we don't need that strict of a guideline.

Maybe the polls should have a, "The add or lack thereof for each trade should be flexible and depend on pets and trader preference." option. Because I still want a little add when trading between years, but it just isn't as important as it used to be. I personally would want more add when pets are older, and less when pets are newer.

This is what my most recent chart looks like separating all of the VUC+ ranges out by year as evenly as possible. I do find that I actually like the year groups and the ranges better than exact values for each year. It is helpful for what scaling looks like, though.



For example, with this chart a 2009 Rare would equal a 2010 Rare and a 2020-2019 EUC/2011 VUC for a pet of the same demand. I do think each one of those numbers has a range within itself as well (so it can scale based on high or low demand, but the range just isn't given, and there are overlaps between the ranges. The number I put down would just be the "average" for the year. I could very well put down each of the ranges, I just haven't)

And then we can cross-check the chart within itself.

Is a Standard Demand 2011 VUC equal to a Standard Demand 2020-2019 EUC? How do we feel about the expected add for the above example?

EX:


2011
for

2019

Does that look right? Sorry it's kinda scuffed, lol.

[musicgurl333]

I also realized that people are still using 2:1 Between years on the FTT and giving people inaccurate advice.. Which means our guides and conversations are not spreading as far as we'd like them to, but I have no idea how to get this to spread further. I worry we're missing a whole group of people who are still using 2:1 between years and not getting their opinions or helping them transition to the new methods.

I've noticed this as well. I have been on there giving advice, and I've been referencing the "3 year rule". I usually bring up the "2:1 rule" for dates as well, because it is still mentioned a lot and I don't want to just ignore that. However, I make sure to add that I never liked it or used the "2:1 rule" for dates, it's outdated, it never made sense, and it makes even less sense now that we have more defined rarities. (I don't usually say all of that in one message, but you get the idea.)

I have thought that it would probably be helpful to have more people who are familiar with these threads giving advice on the FTT. Some of the most frequent posters are people who don't seem to be familiar with or don't use the proposed "3 year rule."

[nemohappyturtlepants]

~snip~



For example, with this chart a 2009 Rare would equal a 2010 Rare and a 2020-2019 EUC/2011 VUC for a pet of the same demand. I do think each one of those numbers has a range within itself as well (so it can scale based on high or low demand, but the range just isn't given, and there are overlaps between the ranges. The number I put down would just be the "average" for the year. I could very well put down each of the ranges, I just haven't)

And then we can cross-check the chart within itself.

Is a Standard Demand 2011 VUC equal to a Standard Demand 2020-2019 EUC? How do we feel about the expected add for the above example?

EX:


2011
for

2019

Does that look right? Sorry it's kinda scuffed, lol.

I love the idea of usiung a C$ chart to determine if trades are balanced, however I personally would not accept that 2011 dog trade, it just feels like too much of an age gap for a one level rarity boost. I don't know of that means the chart needs work or my values are skewed in favor of age too much though. In my opinion, a 2011 VUC would equal a 2012-2013 EUC. A 2019 EUC feels like underpay to me.

[SolarSonnet]

I agree that a 2019 feels too far in age gap, but I also don't like the idea of doing 2012 or 2013.

Specifically because making a 2011 VUC = a 2012 EUC just reinforces the 2:1 Year gap.
It'd mean that a 2011 VUC = 2 2012 VUC/1 EUC, which is what we're trying to get away from with this.

It makes the question:
Between what years should 1 pet of the lower rarity equal a pet of the higher rarity?
3? I could see a 2011 VUC going for a 2014 EUC. Also ties in really well with the 3-year rule, making a 2:1 age gap between every 3 years.

That would make the chart look something like this though.. Which is not 2:1 between Rarity, which I'd like to keep, especially between Rares/VRs. It also makes EUCs be waaay too much since I started with the rares value.



Well, we could always keep the EUC/Rare/VR chart being 2:1, and then figure out what that makes each rarity gap, and just to UC-EUC with that valuation.
So, for example.. with this version of a chart, EUC-VR stays the same, but UC-EUC are based on EUC values. (Haven't filled out the entire thing but its an example)



Standardly:
1 EUC = 2 VUC = 4 UC

With this:
2015 = 5.5:6.5
Divide each side by 5.5 and you get a
1:1.18 (1 VUC + 9/50ths or 1/5th - 1/6th of a VUC? So like, what, a Common, Very Common?)

It's weird because ideally I'd like it to run the opposite direction.

3:4 = 1:1.3
3.5:4.5 = 1.28
..
6:7 = 1.16

It goes down steadily, when I'd like it to go up steadily, but it's whatever lol.

Alternatively, you can just calculate it in C$ and ignore the steady fractional decrease as you get lower in years.
If: All commons are worth ~1 C$
And: a 2015 VUC is 5.5, and an EUC is 6.5
Then: To get from a 2015 VUC to a 2015 EUC, you need a 2015 VUC, and a common.

I.. don't really like that though. I like 2:1 better. If we did 1:1.5 then it'd be a VUC and an UC, putting them further apart in years, it's more like 5 years.
2:1 makes it 8 years.



This is weird and confusing, I actually like the 2011 VUC for a 2019 EUC better than any of these, lol.

--
I've been posting a lot on the new FTT. Or trying to, at least, haha.

I also came back here to show this trade that I just did.

x

Which is evidence of a successful "pet in C$ Valuation" interaction. They wanted 5 C$ for their rabbit, I valued my OMGSCs at 0.25 C$ each in the trade msg and said "0.25 x 17 = 4.25, but would that be okay?"

Keep in mind that the pets they wanted are also hoard pets for them, and they've overpaid before as part of an auction (I didn't win the auction, it was for a TD Blue Rose and TD Red Rose, whoever got to 1000 Sheep first and second won one each. I had 300-ish sheep)

That being said:
1000 sheep = 250 C$

With old C$ Guide:
Blue and Red Rose = 0.25 NON (each, with demand)
0.25 Non = 500-700C$

I've seen Blue go for 1000 once, but yeah.

500-700 C$ - 250 = 250-450

Meaning the "bulk" of the trade was carrying 250-450 C$ in value.

[kee;]

I think part of what makes figuring out all of this so difficult is because values are so subjective between users. for example, I probably would trade the 2011 vuc for the 2019 euc because I would prefer the pet with the higher rarity than the older one.
we need to try to take our own ideas out of what we think is fair and what we would accept because we aren’t making a guide for ourselves, we’re trying to make one everyone can use and not everyone will have the same trading ideas as us. we have to do what we can to decide what is the most fair for a guide while taking our own opinions out of our decisions.

-kee

[SolarSonnet]

I also like the 2011 VUC for the 2019 EUC, but it took doing all the math myself for me to get there.

Also- just as much as we're trying to make a guide for everyone to use.. We're also going to be using this guide to trade by, so at the end of the day, we should be satisfied with it too. Obviously, here and there, we're going to disagree with the guide's valuations. We win some and we lose some on a personal basis. The community overall decides what they think is fair. (Which is why I wanna spread this as far as possible). I wanna make sure everyone has access to all of the information they need and can trade accordingly.

All trading is subjective, and getting chest-deep, wading through the sewer water that is trading values is kind of taking a toll on me, personally.

Thinking about it is making me unravel trading as a whole and being like, "Well why is x pet worth y pet?"
I've come to realize that sometimes, what makes sense to me doesn't make sense to others. Especially in terms of lists and higher-rarity pets, with what Solloby has mentioned on Horror's thread.

All of these numbers are made up. Figuring out how to get rid of 2:1 between years is a nightmare. So is reformatting the guide/list.

Who the heck made the original list?

Why?

And especially:
How did they decide to value those pets like that? What ways did they go about polling the community for demand values? How far-spread were their polls? Who decided where new URs were placed, how?

I don't want anyone to have to ask those questions about our guide. I want "How did they get there?" to be clear. I want to do my research and site all of my sources and make the guide make the most sense possible. I want it to change as trading within the community changes, too. It's just really hard to get all of this information. We can make as many polls as we want, but if this thread isn't spread wide enough then we'll never get the widespread information we need. I don't want the same people who ignored this thread to come back later when we post our guide and say, "They clearly didn't get insight from enough of the community." Because we didn't put enough importance or effort into spreading the polls and conversation.

I hate feeling like some of this conversation is so driven by me popping up again and responding. Because nobody seems to pick it up in my absence, even when I decide leave it.

I hate that I wasn't here on CS earlier, and that I don't already have that information. Because I want that information, and I don't know where to find it.

[Solloby]

Figuring out how to get rid of 2:1 between years is a nightmare.

I wish I had an easy answer for this. Right now the only thing I can think about doing is making another google survey to annoy our community with. Asking what should be added to a 2023 rare for a 2020, 2018, 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010 rare. I don't know the answer to those questions and I'm not sure what other people think either. Which means that I don't really know what answers we could even provide in the survey for people to pick from. Something to discuss later I guess.

How did they decide to value those pets like that? What ways did they go about polling the community for demand values? How far-spread were their polls? Who decided where new URs were placed, how?

I have so many issues with pet placements, and based on our big survey, so do a lot of other people. These questions are exactly the problem. I don't know who decided to value certain pets in illogical ways, and there is nowhere to find the justification for those valuations. Who decided demand? Who decided UR values in relation to other URs despite any actual data to separate them? Who can we discuss this with to suggest changes to correct these issues?

This is one of the big reasons I want to throw away everything that's happened before and start from scratch. A lot of problems from the old rares list have carried over to the new trading ways despite them being major reasons why the rares list was discontinued in the first place.

I hate that I wasn't here on CS earlier, and that I don't already have that information. Because I want that information, and I don't know where to find it.

I've been here since 2008 and have no idea how all this happened.

[SolarSonnet]

I also want to throw away all of it and start from scratch.

I kind of agree that valuing things in 2010, 2011, or 2012 rares is kind of weird, but it's just the most convenient to have a number on them. (In my opinion)

But how do we start over when everyone is trading with the Old List and Horror's Guide? I like Horror's Guide/where it's going right now, but I don't know where to start.

For me, the important thing for the new guide is clarity.

I want it to be easy at a first glance to see how to trade between tiers without having to memorize much. And I want it to be easy for multiple types of people Which is why I like the idea of "Old Rares". It's why I like the idea of 50 of them equaling a Non. Makes Nons easy to figure out.

I've been basing all of my logic under the impression that pets between 2010-2012 (whatever the community decides on in Horror's Guide) will be the new baseline for trading for OMGSRs, and that ~50 of them will be able to trade for a non.

But throwing that out the window, the easiest way to start calculating it would be "If 2 -3:1 is fair for a VR, what's fair for an ER?"

And the problem is that it's a range already, starting at Rare to VR.
So 2-3.. 2009-2010 Rares = 1 09 VR (Possibly just set it to 3 10 Rares = 1 09 VR. I really like that valuation and it's what I do personally.)
Do 2-3 VRs = 1 ER?
And then suddenly its 4-6 2010 Rares for a Low-Tier ER.
Is it 6-8 for a Mid Tier? Or 4-12? How are we scaling?
How many Tiers of OMGSR are there?
How do we value them?

Basically, whenever the tiers are made, there is going to be a "Bulk" Option, unless you totally cut off 2010 Rares trading for lists.
Because even if (arbitrary numbers)

Low-Tier ER is 3 VRs, aka 9 Rares

Mid-Tier ER is 2 Low-Tier ERs, aka 6 VRs, aka 18 Rares

High Tier ER is 1 Mid Tier ER and 1 Low Tier ER, aka 9 VRs, aka 21 Rares

Low-Tier OMGSR is 2 Mid-Tier ERs, aka 12 VRs, aka 36 Rares

Mid-Tier OMGSR is 1 Low-Tier OMGSR and 1 Low-Tier ER, aka 15 VRs, aka 45 Rares

High-Tier OMGSR is 1 Mid-Tier OMGSR and 1 Low-Tier ER, aka 18 VRs, aka 54 Rares

you're going to be able to do the math to have bulk values, and OMGSRs are being valued in 2010 pets again.

It just turns 2010 pets into a currency, which personally helps me do the math better than "This pet is worth this pet + this other pet". I know it mirrors how commons/uncommons/rares trade just in different tiers of ERs and OMGSRs, but Idk what to do with that information when it's not plastered directly under the pet.

Whatever we decide for lower tier pets is going to carry and scale in value all the way up to OMGSRs. So it's going to be important that we don't over-inflate the value of lower-tier pets or scale too harshly. I think MAs were over-inflated like that.

I really want to group litters together again. Like, all of the sorbets should be grouped together, I don't care which one went OMGSR first, or if a group of people liked flop-ear dogs better. Tess said they were supposed to all have the same value, and just like nons, they'll make a really nice baseline pet.

Back in the day, who decided sorbs were worth 0.25 Nons?

Why?

The math maths very nicely, and I get it, there are 4 differently colored sorbet dogs so it would be a non if you had a full set. I really liked when that's what they were worth, but I don't want to shove that in to a guide with no baseline underneath it. Were they that much more common than the Nontag, Nonswirl, Nonjewel, and Noncoon in 08, that one of those pets could trade for four sorbets?

I don't think the nons look anywhere near as good as the sorbets.

If I were back in 08 before the rarities came out? I wouldn't 1:2 a sorbet for a non! They released at the same time, and the sorbs look better (imo). Were a lot more sorbs adopted than nons? Or is it that only part of the nons different litters turned into nons, and others turned into other outcomes?

How were they trading back in 08? And since "The" Rares List was started in 2010, how were they trading in 09, too, compared to post-rares-list?

I want to start at old 08-09 threads, and then make our way through each subsequent rarity update threads for our stuff.

Is there a thread way back from the first rarity update? Or is that long gone?

[Solloby]

The term "Old Rares" itself is confusing because people will think it literally means an old rare (e.g. a 2013 rare which is a decade old) instead of something very specific that a small portion of the community has decided. So the label itself is problematic.

Regarding the Sorbets, whoever decided to separate them did not understand how rarities work. When one changed rarities and the others didn't, that was a sign that the whole litter was on the cusp, and could have even been separated by a single pet. They stayed that way for months because sorbets are only added to the popular at Dec 18 outside of an old player coming back (and an old player going inactive is a more likely occurence, hence why pets tend to become rarer rather than less rare as the year goes on). So they never should have been valued differently, not in the long run at least.

The sorbets are functionally the same rarity because they were always very close to each other as intended. The pink may have been slightly rarer in one year, but that's irrelevant because the very next Dec 18 rerelease would have likely changed that. There is no possible way to know which sorbet is the rarest of the litter, and it likely changes each rerelease, because they were never intended to be different from each other.

The math maths very nicely, and I get it, there are 4 differently colored sorbet dogs so it would be a non if you had a full set. I really liked when that's what they were worth, but I don't want to shove that in to a guide with no baseline underneath it. Were they that much more common than the Nontag, Nonswirl, Nonjewel, and Noncoon in 08, that one of those pets could trade for four sorbets?

I don't think the nons look anywhere near as good as the sorbets.

If I were back in 08 before the rarities came out? I wouldn't 1:2 a sorbet for a non! They released at the same time, and the sorbs look better (imo). Were a lot more sorbs adopted than nons? Or is it that only part of the nons different litters turned into nons, and others turned into other outcomes?

How were they trading back in 08? And since "The" Rares List was started in 2010, how were they trading in 09, too, compared to post-rares-list?

2008 did not have distinct release months. Sorbets were released later into July than the other dogs, and left available a fair way into August, so they are essentially JulyAugs. So the 08 months in terms of rarity are July, JulyAug, August, September, Advent, October, November, Extended Release pets.

Very few people were on the site in July, but as the year progressed a lot more players joined and started adopting. This is why the oldest of pets ended up so incredibly rare. There just weren't many of us around at the time. The July dogs were firsted released in April before the website had accounts to host the pets on. We just bookmarked them. So some of us didn't adopt many because that was a pain and we didn't realise they would become account-bound pets and we probably should've adopted more T-T

I want to start at old 08-09 threads, and then make our way through each subsequent rarity update threads for our stuff.

Is there a thread way back from the first rarity update? Or is that long gone?

There are some old threads kicking around that I could help you look up tomorrow. Is there something specific you want to know about? I don't remember pets having rarities before 2009, so any references to rarity in 2008 may be to made-up ones we used to refer to pets based on our opinions of how rare they were compared to their littermates (e.g. we might say this outcome is rare, this outcome is common, but the pets did not have actual rarity tags so those were just educated guesses).

[Bilaz]

I just wanted to add to the spider demand discussion, that a while ago I used to run a very large old uncommon C$ store, and I always priced the spiders the same as the dogs, and they always sold well.
My rules were this:
cats and dogs: base value
malks and lions: +1
other species -1
As you can see spiders got a +1 malk bonus and a -1 for species xD, and it worked just fine