New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[musicgurl333]

*+2 rule is when instead of 2:1 you just add 2 pets for each year different. Turns a trade into
1 2009 = 8 2013
Instead of
1 2009 = 16 2013

That still adds up fast, though! That would make a ‘20 rare equal 6 ‘23 rares. Sure, it’s better than the “2:1 rule” but that still seems VERY high to me, ESPECIALLY now that we have more specific rarities. Do people really think a ‘20 pet is worth SIX TIMES more than a ‘23 pet??

[SolarSonnet]

snip

OMGSR is it’s own ballpark bc the new omgsr are definitely not on the same level as ones that have been omgsr for years and years and at that level of rare it’s a much more high stakes game.

snip

*+2 rule is when instead of 2:1 you just add 2 pets for each year different. Turns a trade into
1 2009 = 8 2013
Instead of
1 2009 = 16 2013

Felt like these two things were worth addressing specifically.

Firstly:
I agree that new OMGSRs are not worth the same as old OMGSRs, however, there's no telling how close to the cusp of OMGSRs some VRs were before. We know the Pink Sorb was always close to OMGSR because it hit OMGSR for a short period of time before switching back to VR before the rarity overhaul, but what about the other sorbs? What if they were only a few accounts off from being OMGSR? On the flip side, they could've been so much less rare than the Pink Sorb that they weren't close to OMGSR at all and instead just firmly in VR.

We don't know what pets were like that before. I think the pets that were OMGSR "First" are obviously the rarest, with all of the OMGSRs in upcoming updates being progressively "less" rare than the "first" OMGSRs. Except the problem with that is I doubt that the 2010 UR Pets are any more rare than they were in 2010, I'd say there are probably a lot more of them now than there were in 2010, so who's to say that any of the other OMGSR pets are getting any rarer?

And then there's the Fairy Store Rats, all but one of them became OMGSR (the last is ER) It's the same with the Basilisk set. Are they on the lower end of the OMGSR scale, or was one of them just bought a lot more than the others? Is the ER pet the rule, and the other two are barely in the new OMGSR class? Or are they the outlier, and the OMGSR pets are solidly in their new class?


-

I LOVE that +2 Rule for normal Rares without any particularly special demand or value. Not really anything to add, just wanted to express my appreciation for that one.

(snip)

I don't want people to get taken advantage of, so I think that at the end of the day, basic trade guidelines being around the "minmax mindset" would end up making everything the "most fair" for everybody involved, and make people less likely to get taken advantage of. If the easy-to-find guides are the minmax ones, then people know when someone is trying to take advantage of their casual trading style.

I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think that this approach would benefit the community overall - I think we have threads like FTT & public guides about trading specifically so that players can avoid being taken advantage of as much as possible. And I think that if we made all the “base” guidelines around a strict minmaxing standard, then the tension around trading would just rise higher and potentially make it so that no flexibility is ever accepted in trading, because if it’s not “fair” according to those extremely strict guidelines, then anyone who isn’t a minmaxer and can’t keep up with the minutiae is the one in the “wrong” - or at least, is perceived to be.

The only problem with stuff like the FTT, is that it relies on actually getting a response and trusting the people who respond to you. How do you know if the person who responds to you is a minmaxer or another casual trader?

I try to post on there whenever I show up, but I don't go on there very often anymore. People have to go out of their way to post advice on there, and 9 times out of 10 when I post my own trades, I don't get an answer.
This seems to be the norm. You can say "That's why we have the FTT" but when you don't get a response, and post your trade multiple times, you're left figuring it out on your own anyway. So you visit the guides.

And if all of the guides are based around flexible/casual trading, then you see "Oh, this is fair" and accept.

I think it'd be important to include multiple guides if we go with the casual trading being the baseline, still making sure people know how minmaxers trade and to make sure you're not getting taken advantage of. Personally, the reason minmaxing works for me is because when I first started trading, I had no idea what I was doing. I felt I was getting taken advantage of at every corner, so I learned the ways to the best of my ability and went from there. I think if I had a better experience with trading when I first joined, that I would feel differently about trading now. As much as I want to be relaxed and fluid when trading, it feels impossible while trying to reach my goals at the same time. I have to minmax to get the things I want, because the tradeable value on my account is lower than the minmaxing value of the things that I want.

[Heda Vampiric]

*+2 rule is when instead of 2:1 you just add 2 pets for each year different. Turns a trade into
1 2009 = 8 2013
Instead of
1 2009 = 16 2013

That still adds up fast, though! That would make a ‘20 rare equal 6 ‘23 rares. Sure, it’s better than the “2:1 rule” but that still seems VERY high to me, ESPECIALLY now that we have more specific rarities. Do people really think a ‘20 pet is worth SIX TIMES more than a ‘23 pet??

I deal mostly in older pets as the ones I’m collecting fall around the 2014-2016 range! So that’s why this personally works for me. But for newer years (most people would probably say 2015, but I cutoff still 2016 bc of my trading needs), it could be adapted to just +1 per year. I don’t think they’re equal due to time given for them to be locked into collections, but I guess I can also see how it feels weird trading new rares at such a rate.

So it would be
2009-2015 (2016 for me) = +2 rule
2016 (2017 for me)+ = +1 rule

I think the biggest thing might be that anything after 2020 feels… too fresh. So maybe +1 for 2020+ only? Again, I only trade older pets for the most part, but yes even when I trade newer pets I follow the 2:1 and +2 (unless someone demands the 2:1 for year as well, I’m usually trading down so this only benefits me if they insist) (and unless I’m overpaying bc I do tend to do that).

[angst]

Just chiming in, a lil unrelated but:

- I feel like "demand" is allegedly useful to determine how many of something there are available for trade. If a pet is really popular, it's like, harder to find - supposedly - since all its users are keeping the pet on their account / not trading because it's well-liked. Right?

- Something I'm feeling though is that there are some pets that are *impossible* to find despite not being the "ravens" of the site. Like, there are some pets that feel like they are being kept on people's accounts & are rare despite not being actively asked for and asked about on the VR+ trading thread, etc.

- If there's going to be a new system I would love to sort of source this information and to make a distinction between pets that are and will likely to be highly requested and sought after, and pets that seem to belong to collectors and are hard to find despite not outwardly having insane demand (for example, if someone has a hoard of an OMGSR that isn't often asked about, it's still relevant to its rarity as that impacts the amount of that pet people can trade for, thus driving up the "price").

- I would love to hear from active experienced traders what pets are hard to find as well as utilize threads - like the one that was using data to determine which pets were most asked for on forums - in addition to looking at base rarity data, including when pets have changed rarities, how long pets were released, how many are listed under our self reported forum threads (i.e. store pet count, etc).

- TLDR; If someone makes another "list" or "guide" I would like it to be less based on demand "vibes" of that individual or a handful of users who happen to make that list/guide and instead very rooted in data crowdsourced and collected by the community. I would also love to help out with this if need be. Rarity we have more data for and is somewhat easier but demand is trickier and I think we need to do a better job of figuring it out.

[Loelya]

The only problem with stuff like the FTT, is that it relies on actually getting a response and trusting the people who respond to you. How do you know if the person who responds to you is a minmaxer or another casual trader?

I try to post on there whenever I show up, but I don't go on there very often anymore. People have to go out of their way to post advice on there, and 9 times out of 10 when I post my own trades, I don't get an answer.
This seems to be the norm. You can say "That's why we have the FTT" but when you don't get a response, and post your trade multiple times, you're left figuring it out on your own anyway. So you visit the guides.

And if all of the guides are based around flexible/casual trading, then you see "Oh, this is fair" and accept.

I think it'd be important to include multiple guides if we go with the casual trading being the baseline, still making sure people know how minmaxers trade and to make sure you're not getting taken advantage of. Personally, the reason minmaxing works for me is because when I first started trading, I had no idea what I was doing. I felt I was getting taken advantage of at every corner, so I learned the ways to the best of my ability and went from there. I think if I had a better experience with trading when I first joined, that I would feel differently about trading now. As much as I want to be relaxed and fluid when trading, it feels impossible while trying to reach my goals at the same time. I have to minmax to get the things I want, because the tradeable value on my account is lower than the minmaxing value of the things that I want.

But the thing is that I don’t know that I would say that encouraging the future use a “3 year rule” (or other similar guidelines) should be seen as “casual” trading because personally I don’t see any logical basis to stick with older, more rigid structures. I don’t personally see what benefit to trading that provides when it seems there’s no real reason to keep doing it “the old way” now that we have an updated system. the update was specifically meant to address the rigidity and inflexibility of trading because of how min maxing was being done to combat all the “what if’s” that we haven’t known before. but now I think we’re much better acclimated on the rarity side of things to think about how we wish to trade in more broad terms.

and as far as the FTT goes - yes, it’s true that responses there have gotten sparser over time. I believe this is a result of trading standards growing ever-more stringent and players being less and less sure how to respond to other trades. if the community is able to reach some agreement on new trading standards, and everyone is able to find & read up on those trading standards, then that will increase player confidence, and this update is a great opportunity to strive to do that. if player confidence increases on what is “fair,” then there might be more opportunity for responses and discussion on these sorts of threads. maybe there will even be less backlog if players don’t feel as reliant on other advice.

and lastly I think there should be multiple guides whether less-strict trading becomes the guideline or more-strict trading becomes the guideline. if we set one single guide that was as strict as trading guidelines could possibly be, and there were no other places for players to read & decide what they think is fair, then whoever managed that guide would have pretty enormous amounts of power over the entire site’s trading economy. that was one of many original problems with the “list.”

[auroraphoenix]

Just chiming in, a lil unrelated but:

- I feel like "demand" is allegedly useful to determine how many of something there are available for trade. If a pet is really popular, it's like, harder to find - supposedly - since all its users are keeping the pet on their account / not trading because it's well-liked. Right?

- Something I'm feeling though is that there are some pets that are *impossible* to find despite not being the "ravens" of the site. Like, there are some pets that feel like they are being kept on people's accounts & are rare despite not being actively asked for and asked about on the VR+ trading thread, etc.

- If there's going to be a new system I would love to sort of source this information and to make a distinction between pets that are and will likely to be highly requested and sought after, and pets that seem to belong to collectors and are hard to find despite not outwardly having insane demand (for example, if someone has a hoard of an OMGSR that isn't often asked about, it's still relevant to its rarity as that impacts the amount of that pet people can trade for, thus driving up the "price").

- I would love to hear from active experienced traders what pets are hard to find as well as utilize threads - like the one that was using data to determine which pets were most asked for on forums - in addition to looking at base rarity data, including when pets have changed rarities, how long pets were released, how many are listed under our self reported forum threads (i.e. store pet count, etc).

- TLDR; If someone makes another "list" or "guide" I would like it to be less based on demand "vibes" of that individual or a handful of users who happen to make that list/guide and instead very rooted in data crowdsourced and collected by the community. I would also love to help out with this if need be. Rarity we have more data for and is somewhat easier but demand is trickier and I think we need to do a better job of figuring it out.

I really like all of what you said here! Demand to me has always been a lot harder for a few reasons. One, there have been many times where pets far below the VR-OMGSR range have been clearly in high demand but traded as if they were worth the equivalent of an OMGSR in terms of how much people liked it. Two, though I believe demand has technically been rooted in numbers it's never really felt that way. It's always seemed to feel more like "I like this lineart more so therefore *personally* I think it has more demand." That may not have been demand but I wonder if there would be some sort of way to pinpoint what "demand" is? I think that might be part of where the issue lies -- no one actually knows what these terms mean as they seem to mean something different to each person.

Now, this is not to say that everyone has to follow one strict rule of trading, but if we could potentially standardize definitions it could help!

[Loelya]

Now, this is not to say that everyone has to follow one strict rule of trading, but if we could potentially standardize definitions it could help!

this is a great idea! there was something of an attempt to do this back in 2019, but it never really caught on. here’s what I remember from those discussions:

Rarity - How many of a given pet exists per active user on-site. This is a built-in site mechanism and each pet has corresponding rarity bars.

Demand - How desirable the pet is. In addition to its base rarity, how likely are players to wishlist the pet, or actively trade towards this pet for their collection.

Worth - What a fair, quantity-based trade for the pet would be. For example, a high-rarity pet might be “worth” 100 uncommons. (more of a function of rarity than demand.)

Value - What a desirable trade for the pet would be. For example, players are likely to trade a store pet for another store pet, even if theoretically, a fair, worth-based trade could be achieved with a number of standard-release rares. (more of a function of demand than rarity.)

^ these were just things that I saw being discussed a few years ago in case they interest anyone. I don’t necessarily think we have to try to work all of these in somewhere. Maybe if we just standardize the rarity & demand definitions we’d be good.

[preservedfawn]

personally, I’m really tired of people trying to milk a pet for every last drop. just because someone may choose to offer a rare for what becomes a common, doesn’t mean that everyone has to adhere to this. it makes trading miserable and frustrating because everyone feels entitled to so much. and I feel bad for the newer players trying to navigate the greed.

I think it's a playstyle thing, personally. There are people out there who play this game super hardcore, milking every last drop of value out of each pet they have, and there are people who play it more casually. I don't think there's a "wrong" way to play CS. I just know I get hyper-obsessed with technical value, demand, etc, because I don't want to feel like I'm getting ripped off. If I traded a rare for a pet, I want to get a rare out of it, no matter what it's value is technically.
It actually makes the game really stressful. I've been staring at a trade in my inbox that's "technically" fair but I still feel like I'm getting ripped off, so clearly something's wrong. I just can't place it. Sometimes the vibe is just wrong.

that’s true and I understand this!! I also think we’ve all been trading a specific-in depth way that took a bit of studying, and it feels unnatural to not think that way anymore. 😭

[auroraphoenix]

Now, this is not to say that everyone has to follow one strict rule of trading, but if we could potentially standardize definitions it could help!

this is a great idea! there was something of an attempt to do this back in 2019, but it never really caught on. here’s what I remember from those discussions:

Rarity - How many of a given pet exists per active user on-site. This is a built-in site mechanism and each pet has corresponding rarity bars.

Demand - How desirable the pet is. In addition to its base rarity, how likely are players to wishlist the pet, or actively trade towards this pet for their collection.

Worth - What a fair, quantity-based trade for the pet would be. For example, a high-rarity pet might be “worth” 100 uncommons. (more of a function of rarity than demand.)

Value - What a desirable trade for the pet would be. For example, players are likely to trade a store pet for another store pet, even if theoretically, a fair, worth-based trade could be achieved with a number of standard-release rares. (more of a function of demand than rarity.)

^ these were just things that I saw being discussed a few years ago in case they interest anyone. I don’t necessarily think we have to try to work all of these in somewhere. Maybe if we just standardize the rarity & demand definitions we’d be good.

Ooh I like this! I disappeared from this site for years and only recently came back this past June so that's probably why I wasn't aware of it - now that I look atthis, it's easy to see how people -- including myself -- got confused. Demand, value and worth all seem very similar at least to me. Also, when we use "What is this pet worth?" vs "What's the demand of this pet?" -- I personally had no idea these could potentially be different. Definitely agree that not everything needs a set in stone definition though but getting to a point where a newbie could easily learn it is probably the most realistic

Also, If we could somehow separate someone how much someone *personally* likes a pet from what *demand* or *worth* or *value* is, I think it might help combat how inflated values get? Like, sure, you may like a rare a lot because of design, but that doesn't mean it should trade like an OMGSR you know? I can't tell you how many times people have been trading regular rares (or even uncommons!) for "Nons" or "MAs". I don't see a problem with asking people to overpay for a pet a lot of people like but to inflate it so much feels ... wrong? Just icky ;-; Once again though that could be an entirely "me" problem cx

Edit: The example that pops into mind is the Gacha Dog from 2021. *PRE-UPDATE* it was a regular rare but trading for as much as a '10 rare because people liked it so much ? Which confused me ;-;

Edit 2: After reading closely, was the gacha dog's demand particularly high because people liked the design? Thus the worth went up? And therefore the trading value was a 2010 rare?. Also what I wrote above I think is just demand getting out of control maybe?

Idk if I'm being coherent or if what I'm describing could even be feasible but I'm trying to work it out LOL

[preservedfawn]

also, regarding C$ again, I thought it was ridiculous that a 2 non pet was worth C$4000, equivalent to $210 USD.

I know the worth is definitely high, but with all the OMGSR’s, I feel we should restructure the worth of UR’s & Non’s. if we continue to call them that. or am I the odd one out? 😭