New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[Another World]

I like the idea of a 5 year rule and then lets say one of a rarity below to bridge the gap

for instance 2013 common = 2018 common or 2020 common and very uncommon

[Solloby]

That's pretty much what I was trying to communicate with this, I don't think the wording is clear enough though. I'll have a think about how to make it easier to understand.

Guideline suggestion:

A pet is worth another pet with:

Same rarity tag
Similar age (within 3 years)
Similar demand (species/line edits)

Pets of different rarities can be swapped fairly at the boundary:

If a pet is both new and low demand, it is a bottom pet, and can be swapped for a top pet from the lower rarity tag.
If a pet is both old and high demand, it is a top pet, and can be swapped for a bottom pet from the higher rarity tag.
Alternatively, 2 bottom pets can be swapped for 1 top pet within the same rarity tag.

For pets with gaps that aren't both at the boundary, the following gap closers can be used:

If there is a large gap, a high pet from the directly lower rarity tag
If there is a medium gap, an average pet from the directly lower rarity tag
If there is a small gap, a low pet from the directly lower rarity tag, or a high pet from the rarity tag 2 below

Edit: How does everyone feel about something like this?

This chart supports basic rarity math with the tags, but removes unrealistic scenarios (because most people won't accept 16 commons for their rare). Happy to tweak the values, or feel free to make your own, it's just a simple Excel table.




This table demonstrates what I thought we were talking about in regards to a 3 year guideline. It essentially defines an upper band of 2 pets for 1 pet, if you have a large value gap between pets within the same rarity tag. So it does incorporate date into the value equation, but not to the extent it has been used previously. Now we have so many rarity tags, date becomes less important, but still has some value, which this chart aims to reflect. The years intentionally overlap - I wanted to show there is a bit of flexibility here.

[Lanayru]

I've been trying to put down the way I have been trading (and will continue to trade) into words but it's kind of hard when a lot of it is based on vibes, actually? Like, for rare+ swaps with just 1 year difference I will probably continue to use some form of 2:1 but swaps with larger gaps will just be based on vibes. Lower rarities matters a lot less for me, so I'll probably just be trading them equally with pets one year older or newer (so 2016 common could go for a 2017 one or a 2015 one, if that makes sense).

3/5 year gaps are way too big for me to feel comfortable with them, I'd inherently feel like I'm either scamming someone or getting scammed lol

[Loelya]

I think the reason we defaulted to repeating the 2:1 mechanic just over a longer period of years - 3/5 instead of 1 - is just a function of the idea of keeping changes simple but impactful. maybe that “3 months rule becomes 3 years rule” and it operates on the same 2:1 metric is a way to make a shift that helps with fairness in trading without completely changing up what the user base is familiar with in a way that means it doesn’t stick. that being said,

This table demonstrates what I thought we were talking about in regards to a 3 year guideline. It essentially defines an upper band of 2 pets for 1 pet, if you have a large value gap between pets within the same rarity tag. So it does incorporate date into the value equation, but not to the extent it has been used previously. Now we have so many rarity tags, date becomes less important, but still has some value, which this chart aims to reflect. The years intentionally overlap - I wanted to show there is a bit of flexibility here.

this chart is absolutely phenomenal omg I love this thing

[bluushi]

I don't think the new rarities reflect demand more granularly. They just reflect rarity more granularly. Older pets still have more value because they are more likely to be in someone's collection. Some of them are even less rare than they "should" because of this, but no more available (e.g. Shima the VR and the heart lionness the EU).

[auroraphoenix]

I don't think the new rarities reflect demand more granularly. They just reflect rarity more granularly. Older pets still have more value because they are more likely to be in someone's collection. Some of them are even less rare than they "should" because of this, but no more available (e.g. Shima the VR and the heart lionness the EU).

I mean, I think that was the whole point though? To my understanding the rarity update wasn't meant to necessarily reflect demand because it's harder to pinpoint. Demand is based off of what is circulating, yes, but it is also more subjective as it takes into account things like personal preference of species, lineart, etc, which isn't universal for everyone. Rarity is a more tangible measurement as reflected by the rarity bars.

[Loelya]

I don't think the new rarities reflect demand more granularly. They just reflect rarity more granularly. Older pets still have more value because they are more likely to be in someone's collection. Some of them are even less rare than they "should" because of this, but no more available (e.g. Shima the VR and the heart lionness the EU).

I agree this can be true for pets that are specifically desired for some reason or another (like the Shima LT or zodiac dogs) but I can’t agree that this is the case for every random 2010 rare out there, i think it makes more sense to apply a standard that puts the rarity granularity above the demand granularity and then provide exceptions for the pets that have specific demand.

[Wookieinmashoo]

I mostly trade for items that I valued at uncommon or less. I was looking for a way to do rarity math for the rares I have and all the other values. Most of the uncommons I had landed around the VUC range, which would make it 4:1 for rares. This is very close to what I was doing for animal eggs, so this is fantastic.

[conarcoin]

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

I like this version better, but ER and OMGSR should still depend on the pet IMO

[IndigoCat]

Edit: How does everyone feel about something like this?

This chart supports basic rarity math with the tags, but removes unrealistic scenarios (because most people won't accept 16 commons for their rare). Happy to tweak the values, or feel free to make your own, it's just a simple Excel table.

i'm not sure about implementing a 2:1 rule for rarities, simply because it's inconsistent with our previous rarity math and it's not clear to me why we believe we should change this aspect of our rarity math. before the rarity update, 2:1 was often used, but there were far fewer categories. implementing 2:1 now would mean that trading down a pet now from vc to omgsc, for example, would mean 4 omgsc's = 1 vc in comparison to before where it would be 2 omgsc's = 1 vc. naively, going from 7 categories to 11 categories, we should have something less than 2:1 to go from one rarity category to the next (e.g. 1 vc = 1 ec + 1 omgsc).

of course, i'm open to hearing why our previous 2:1 was flawed and why we shouldn't follow that, but i just didn't see that line of reasoning anywhere in the discussion.