*DISCONTINUED* Rares List Guide (1 March 2019)

[The Last Raven]

As for that question raven, I would say we need to value them at their regular value. As we won’t know what the other people valued them at when they offered...?

I personally agree with this. Demand is so hard to pin down on some pets and it's different for everyone. Just because the person who received the trade or the person who offered the trade saw a pet as "bad demand" doesn't mean the next person will. There are people out there who value pets like the zebras and rats normally.

And I'd like to mention that along the same lines of this, trades involving crazy high demand pets like the Raven shouldn't be taken as the Raven "worth a non" or anything like that. They're not -worth- that rarity-wise and we all know that. If anything, we may need to just sideline those kind of trades or put them in their own section on the list of trades that says they're too hard to value because of a pet that has demand that brings its so called "worth" far higher than it should be.

-snip-

That was kind of what I was trying to say but only mentioned the “low demand” side of the equation.

I have to agree. If we are going to take a pet some people might consider “low demand” at face value then we should also take the “high demand” pets at face value too. Otherwise to me that seems a bit skewed to only take the high ones at their demand value that some people have placed on them.

But either way it needs to be established ahead of time so that trades are correctly estimated in worth to help us figure out an average of what the bun has gone for.

[myth;]

As for that question raven, I would say we need to value them at their regular value. As we won’t know what the other people valued them at when they offered...?

And I'd like to mention that along the same lines of this, trades involving crazy high demand pets like the Raven shouldn't be taken as the Raven "worth a non" or anything like that. They're not -worth- that rarity-wise and we all know that. If anything, we may need to just sideline those kind of trades or put them in their own section on the list of trades that says they're too hard to value because of a pet that has demand that brings its so called "worth" far higher than it should be.

We're trying to work toward focusing more on rarity when placing pets. And if that's the case, then we shouldn't be overvaluing pets included in a trade because of that sort of "demand". I'm trying to make as much sense as I can, so I'm sorry I don't. I just woke up. x.x

~ElijahWilkes

So, you want us to completely disregard the demand of any offered store pets? Even though we base these things off of average trades and commonly shared personal worth? If we go along with an idea like that, it'll take us an age to sort this out. You do have a fair point of course and I respect that, it's just going to make out lives harder if we cut out other store pets. ^^'

We need to try and make things as fair as possible, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who believes that going off of what the sender and receiver value the pets at is a good idea, or we're going to loose a lot of valuable data.

[SabrinaB]

High demand pets like the raven dog are tricky. They easily go for main list pets, so valueing them as an advent would give incorrect data. But deciding what they value it is also tricky.
I agree that those trades should be listed seperatly. We should not ignore them.

Please note i am talkig abut trades involving these pets, i am not saying we should move them.

Sorry for mistakes, on my phone and i am not englisch.

[The Last Raven]

All I want is consistency. I don’t care if we go with demand value or face value. You just can’t pick and choose when to include demand and when not to. The argument that is used for low demand pets can be used for high demand pets.

The reason I even brought this up to begin with is because I was looking at how some people were valuing the offers and wondered if those that were offering FOR the skelebun valued their side the same way the person was valuing the offer. I know this is confusing so example:

I trade a Red Cerb + non for a Sunback. I valued my cerb at 2 nons. The person trading it to me valued it at 3. To me I got a Sunback for 3 nons. To them they got 4 nons for their sunback.

[Erythro]

So if we want to remove/separate trades based on if they include store pets (and pets not added to the list like the cinnabun), we are left with 4 trades out of the 11 listed in my post before. I don't mind doing that, but I feel like we would alienate much of our information.

We can also simply denote successful trades from declined trades to show what was actually accepted. This may also combat the trades that seem to be just offers taken to get offers with no intention of being accepted.

[myth;]

So if we want to remove/separate trades based on if they include store pets (and pets not added to the list like the cinnabun), we are left with 4 trades out of the 11 listed in my post before. I don't mind doing that, but I feel like we would alienate much of our information.

We can also simply denote successful trades from declined trades to show what was actually accepted. This may also combat the trades that seem to be just offers taken to get offers with no intention of being accepted.

I think someone mentioned earlier the issue that comes about when we're only going off of accepted trades. There are so few around to use as standing points, and if we're removing store pets and unplaced pets from the trades as well, we're really going to be left with nothing. I traded for a skelebun and several other pets at the same time myself, so that trade is void.. and I know a lot of others traded for their bunnies with pets of higher demand (like sunbacks, BAs, ravens etc.) and were using those high demand values.

[The Last Raven]

We can also simply denote successful trades from declined trades to show what was actually accepted. This may also combat the trades that seem to be just offers taken to get offers with no intention of being accepted.

That might be helpful.
I noticed some suggested opening their skelebun up to offers to see what happens but I don’t feel like that actually helps us since there is no intention of actually accepting an offers. So we don’t know if an offer is good enough to be successful or not. We need to see both accepted and declined offers but not so much ones that are just dangling a skelebun without actual interest in trading.

[Sinbreaker]

-two cents below, I'm not able to keep up with the convo at the moment-

I've not been able to catch up with the rapid posting much but in regards to the Raven (and all store pets), I believe it's a special case that needs to be looked at. I'd like to compare it with the Joker and BA. And perhaps this perception of mine is shared with other users, and can help us when to place/move store pets like the Skelebun.

Now, removing the store pet value- which I'll get back to in a moment, the Joker and BA have a different sort of demand effect then the Raven. The Joker and BA from what I have noticed are often wanted because of their design/rarity and demand. Not to say the Raven isn't too, but the Joker and BA have had their demand stable for years.

The Raven had a spike in 2014/2015, and I don't think it was the same demand "style" as the Joker and BA, which go for massive overpay to their tier worth. They've always had this demand since their release. The Raven had a bandwagon effect. Yes, it was super popular but when I first joined I could complete a raven trade by offering a Mid September- and that was considered huge overpay.

The demand for the raven is not in the pet itself, unlike some other high demand pets, but in the idea of the raven. "If I get this pet, I can then trade it for x amount." not a "I like this pet, I'm willing to overpay to have it/complete my collection" <- there are users who still do this for the Raven, but the first mindset is the more common one.

I do not lean one way or the other on moving the Raven, or much of any List pets (specifically the bun we're talking about) on the list, because no matter where it goes- even if you knock it off, that bandwagon effect is here to stay. I just think, it is important to consider when moving it what will be the backlash- good or bad, from the community. Because the huge bandwagon spike happened as soon as the Raven simply moved up 2 tiers into the 7'th tier category, which is such a minor jump. (a 2009 rare or two) yet look what happened.

And because of the raven's bandwagon effect it's changed the other store pets. I believe the Orange Cerberus and Skelebun which are now for massive overpay aren't quite the same case, being the first store pets when C$ prices were higher, and less in circulation, they rightfully have their demand. But the other store pets around the Raven's time, the Red Cerb, Liontails and Drink/Eat have only risen so high because people are afraid if they do not get them at this moment, they will miss out on a big payday.

So wherever the bun ends up, I believe it should be given a lot of thought as to where it's going, and if it's movement will have such a change as the raven did, that it will disrupt the list trading even more, or if it will stabilize it.

Maybe this was a constructive post, maybe I missed the convo completely but I hope my two cents on the difference between demand and "store pet demand" makes sense.

[Erythro]

So if we want to remove/separate trades based on if they include store pets (and pets not added to the list like the cinnabun), we are left with 4 trades out of the 11 listed in my post before. I don't mind doing that, but I feel like we would alienate much of our information.

We can also simply denote successful trades from declined trades to show what was actually accepted. This may also combat the trades that seem to be just offers taken to get offers with no intention of being accepted.

I think someone mentioned earlier the issue that comes about when we're only going off of accepted trades. There are so few around to use as standing points, and if we're removing store pets and unplaced pets from the trades as well, we're really going to be left with nothing. I traded for a skelebun and several other pets at the same time myself, so that trade is void.. and I know a lot of others traded for their bunnies with pets of higher demand (like sunbacks, BAs, ravens etc.) and were using those high demand values.

We would list them all of course, just make a note of what was accepted and what wasn't. Sorry I didn't make that clear ^^

I agree with using all trades and sorting them by how the user valued them but I do agree with what Raven said that there may be some discrepancies like in her example. I think that's the only issue we really have. Is just that each side might have a different idea of value on the offer they sent/received.

I really liked your input Sin!

[myth;]

The earliest date I've seen the raven trade for a non was early 2012, but that was an accidental find and the user did say it was a huge overpay at that time. But that's off subject. I've also heard the cerb's demand is still going up and the skelebuns has dropped, if not stabilised.

Placing it might make the demand issue worse, or it might fix it. But if we don't place it, then we're going to be in the same bad position still, the one where new players and recently returning players will be getting scammed. I met a user who has been inactive since 2014, they have a skelebun or two and when the posted on the FTT asking for advice on a raven trade; not only were they swamped with trades, but trades that were really unfair to them. That user nearly lost out on a lot of worth because this list isn't to date. No matter what choice we come to, the skelebun has to be moved. No matter what.