Loelya wrote:
snip
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.”
I fundamentally disagree that the Rarity overhaul was meant to
decrease rigid trading structures.
When I voted for it, I voted for it because it would let me see what my pets are valued more accurately so that I could trade for them more fairly in the structures that work for me (I.E. Rigidity and set 'Rules' on value)
So I get more from my "better" rares and uncommons and know how to trade fairer for less valuable rares and uncommons, rather than all uncommons being worth a nebulous amount between common and rare.
I was never thinking of a more fluid trading structure when I voted for the rarity overhaul. I was thinking about it in that minmax mindset, because it's beneficial to that as well. People voted for it for different reasons, so I don't think it's fair to say that it was updated for the sole reason of reducing rigidity and promoting more flexible trading.
It seems like there are two or three "main" groups here. The people who want rigid trading, the people who want to be rid of rigid training entirely and just want one rarity to be worth itself across the board (I.E. A rare is a rare, period.) , and then the people who are somewhere in the middle of that, which is where you get stuff like the 3 month rule from.
I do think it will be important to have multiple guides on multiple forms of trading.
What's better than one list and set of guidelines for trading? Multiple people weighing in with multiple different guidelines for different types of people. If the standard "List" works for you, that's great. If the "List" was never working for you, or you wanna try something new, there will be a new guide for you.
The problem with that, is that in threads like the FTT, you'd have to get someone who also using the same guidelines you do.
I.E.
"Can I get someone else's input with this trade? I use [User]'s Super Cool Awesome Valuation Guide for my pets, and I think this is relatively fair, but I worry that one side might need to add [value] to it." and then you'd need someone else who uses [User]'s Super Cool Awesome Valuation Guide to weigh in and help you with that trade. Or at least someone who's willing to go see [U]SCAVG and calculate the trade using it to give an opinion with that method, even if they don't use it themselves.
I do have to admit that the fact that trading is so intimidating is probably why the FTT struggles so much. Nobody even knows where to start. I just don't know if there's ever going to be a reality without an intimidating valuation to some pets. Which is kind of disappointing on one hand, but on the other, having valuation be a thing that is calculate-able makes my brain happy.
I'd say I'm somewhere in the middle, in an ideal world, nobody would want to take advantage of anybody because trades would be equal and fair and pets would just be what they are. You could trade your rares for rares and OMGSRs for OMGSRs without there being discrepancy in
how rare an OMGSR is compared to other OMGSRs. Somewhat unfortunately, without like, a ton more new 'rare' rarities, I don't think that's where this is going.
-
Okay so I started typing this part as a joke but I actually seriously think it could be useful.
Imagine for a moment, if you will, a new, fourth tier entirely.
Ascending from the realm of Commons, Uncommons, and Rares.
The "OMGSR" Tier.
This seems super silly and over-the-top at a first glance, but there is SO much fluctuation in OMGSRs that this could genuinely be useful. Like, an OMGSR can be worth anywhere from 6 Nons to less than one. That is so much value to have under one rarity umbrella.
These pets are ALL OMGSR still, but now you have a fancy rainbow bar that tells you "How" Rare your OMGSR is.
Like there's an entire OMGSC to OMGSR scale
within the OMGSR scale.
For pets that're barely OMGSR, you'd have an "OMGSC-OMGSR"
For pets that're the rarest of the OMGSR, you'd have an "OMGSR-OMGSR"
(Names pending, OMGSC-OMGSR sounds so dumb and complicated, we could call OMGSC-OMGSR "Barely OMGSR" and OMGSR-OMGSR "True OMGSR")
For notches and the single star on the background, its easy. The little slider just goes where the OMGSC-OMGSR rainbow falls and the star changes color. So for a common-omgsr on the notch one, it'd be on the 4th notch, on the star slider it'd be green and on the "green" part of the rainbow.
For the others, it gets a little harder, but I'd suggest something like..
(Rarity Example for an 'ER OMGSR')
Is this kind of silly and unrealistic? Yes. Would it be helpful? Also yes.
Then 1:1 swaps between OMGSR tiers would be plausible.
Your Barely OMGSR could swap 1:1 with somebody else's Barely OMGSR, assuming demand is the same. No complicated maths or values, it's right there on the pet. No more arguing over what OMGSR is more OMGSR than other OMGSRs.
Trading solved, you're welcome. (/playful)
.png)
