NEW POLL CS Community Wants YOUR help on Trading Guidelines!

[musicgurl333]

1: Should the C$ Chart reflect trading as a whole?
I.E. If 1 Rare is 2 Extremely Uncommons, should 1 Rare be equal in C$ to 2 Extremely Uncommons? (Why or why not?)

No. It would make pricing absolutely ridiculous and snowball really easily. This quote taken from the "how much is this pet worth in c$" thread shows a good example of why (prices outdated)

Even if we just did it for rarity with normal pets. Say we're using the 2:1 method for this year's pets.

C=1c$ : U=2c$ : VUC=4c$ : EUC=8c$ : R=16c$ : VR=32c$

Thats the starting price. How much would a 2017 rare be worth? Say the price doubled every 3 years

2023=16c$ : 2020=32c$ : 2017=64c$ : 2014=128c$ : 2011=256c$

What you're saying is true using old calculations. With the new rarities, there's been a move not to value dates as much, so values wouldn't be doubling every year like they are now. I still agree that, even starting with 1C$ per common, prices will get high quickly as dates get older...even using the "3 year rule" that some have proposed (which I personally like). That's part of the reason that I'd like to see C$ prices start even lower. Looking at the Google form, it seems like quite a few people think commons should be under 1C$, which is also what I voted. Starting with a lower base would bring all the prices down.

Random Thoughts:

I dont think c$ prices should have a hard and fast guideline with a single set price for what is fair. Id definitely prefer price ranges, with acknowledgement that variations in price is normal, and someone setting a pet at 5c$ vs another setting it at 7c$ can both be fair.

I do quite a bit of purchasing at c$ shops, so I definitely already have an internal guideline of what i trade by. I'm interested to see what everyone else thinks, but in the future I'll probably still continue with a similar range

I actually agree. I think finding C$ values for every rarity, even the super common ones, is a bit unnecessary and is just going to over complicate things. I think anything recent that's common or below should be under 1C$. Older commons, I could see being worth a bit more. How people value it from there is up to them. Obviously things like species, demand, and date are all going to come into play...do we really want to go into that much detail for some of the most common pets on the site? It feels a bit excessive.

sorry I’m on mobile so it’s easier for me to double post and a pain to only quote parts of other posts.

but I think SolarSonnet’s point about maybe just valuing store pets differently is a good one. we’ve already kind of said they’re different and that we would likely separate the omgsr ones from the other omgsr pets, so it does kind of make sense to separate the less rare ones as well.

-kee

In THEORY I agree with valuing store pets differently, as they don't follow the same rules as other pets. In reality, when we're talking about C$, store pets are always going to be a point of comparison, regardless of whether or not they're part of an official guide. For an example (this is completely random), let's say it's decided that a 2023 rare is worth 15C$. Even if they guide says, "store pet values can't be compared with the C$ value of regular releases" (or however it would be phrased), people are still going to see that '23 rare as being 1/2 the value of a current store pet. It's not easy to just ignore that information.

Of course, all of this is assuming that the goal is a guide where C$ and pet values line up when it comes to trading. Based on the polls, it SEEMS like that's something people would like. But actually making a guide that makes sense would require a TOTAL rework of C$ values, so I don't know how practical that is.

[frogfan]

Starting with a lower base would bring all the prices down.

Even if I cut the price of commons in half it still has the same problem once you start reaching the higher years.

Only the price of rarities I'm calculating at a 2:1 increase. The dates are doubled every 3 years

C=0.5c$ : U=1c$ : VUC=2c$ : EUC=4c$ : R=8c$ : VR=16c$

For rares (still using the 3 year rule)

2023= 8c$ : 2020=16c$ : 2017=32c$ : 2014=64c$ : 2011=128c$

The problem is that it'll always seem pretty reasonable at lower dates, but scaling up it gets unwieldy pretty fast.

If we use the 2:1 method for higher then 2011 we get

2011= 128 c$ : 2010= 256 c$ : 2009= 512 c$

Again this is still base price.

I wouldn't pay 256 c$ for a random 2010. What about a 2010 VR? Would it be 512c$? Is a 2010 ER 1024c$?

C$ shouldn't be tied to rarity like this. It just doesn't work out once you start getting higher.

[SolarSonnet]

Starting with a lower base would bring all the prices down.

Even if I cut the price of commons in half it still has the same problem once you start reaching the higher years.

Only the price of rarities I'm calculating at a 2:1 increase. The dates are doubled every 3 years

C=0.5c$ : U=1c$ : VUC=2c$ : EUC=4c$ : R=8c$ : VR=16c$

For rares (still using the 3 year rule)

2023= 8c$ : 2020=16c$ : 2017=32c$ : 2014=64c$ : 2011=128c$

The problem is that it'll always seem pretty reasonable at lower dates, but scaling up it gets unwieldy pretty fast.

If we use the 2:1 method for higher then 2011 we get

2011= 128 c$ : 2010= 256 c$ : 2009= 512 c$

Again this is still base price.

I wouldn't pay 256 c$ for a random 2010. What about a 2010 VR? Would it be 512c$? Is a 2010 ER 1024c$?

C$ shouldn't be tied to rarity like this. It just doesn't work out once you start getting higher.

I don't know where you're getting these- they wouldn't double every 3 years.

This was an example of a C$ Chart I proposed for discussion on the old thread, the math is highlighted at the bottoms with the ratios I used between years. I don't think they should double every 3 years, I like the sliding scale idea and am not a huge fan of 2:1 every 3 years. I think it makes weird and funky things like if 2020-2023 are a year gap,
1: Where is 2024 going to lie?
2: Does that mean 2:1 between 2019 and 2020? Why is it the same for 2019 and 2023?
I just don't think it works and feels weird and arbitrary.



Since this chart, my opinions have changed, though. I'm going to set something new up and get back to this thread- depending on if more posts have been made since mine, I'll either edit or make a new post.

[frogfan]

I don't know where you're getting these- they wouldn't double every 3 years.

This was an example of a C$ Chart I proposed for discussion on the old thread, the math is highlighted at the bottoms with the ratios I used between years. I don't think they should double every 3 years, I like the sliding scale idea and am not a huge fan of 2:1 every 3 years. I think it makes weird and funky things like if 2020-2023 are a year gap,
1: Where is 2024 going to lie?
2: Does that mean 2:1 between 2019 and 2020? Why is it the same for 2019 and 2023?
I just don't think it works and feels weird and arbitrary.

There wasn't a proposed example on the forms or the thread so I decided to use this as an easy way to visualize my inherent issue with one of the concepts on the form. I thought we were voting on the concept that date and rarity would have a direct correlation to pet values. Not this specific example.

I used 2:1 for each increase in rarity and 2:1 every 3 years as a 1:1 comparison for the way I've seen people value pets. Which is how I assumed it would go based on the wording.

One of the questions on the form is

"Do you want C$ and pet values to be the same?"

With one of the answers

"Yes, I want to be able to add up pet trades and C$ trades the same"

A question on the front post is

1: Should the C$ Chart reflect trading as a whole?
I.E. If 1 Rare is 2 Extremely Uncommons, should 1 Rare be equal in C$ to 2 Extremely Uncommons? (Why or why not?)

And I don't think it should. So I talked about why I think it shouldnt

Edit: in my original post I'd linked a quote from the "how much is this pet worth in cs" thread FAQ. explaining how adding up c$ values like pet values can get out of hand when dealing with higher value pets. I think it has some really valid points even if the numbers are outdated

[SolarSonnet]

edit: oops posted the wrong one with just the quote lol

A question on the front post is

1: Should the C$ Chart reflect trading as a whole?
I.E. If 1 Rare is 2 Extremely Uncommons, should 1 Rare be equal in C$ to 2 Extremely Uncommons? (Why or why not?)

And I don't think it should. So I talked about why I think it shouldnt

Edit: in my original post I'd linked a quote from the "how much is this pet worth in cs" thread FAQ. explaining how adding up c$ values like pet values can get out of hand when dealing with higher value pets. I think it has some really valid points even if the numbers are outdated

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

I actually was thinking about that. I think that if an 09 VR ranges from like 90-120 C$, and if we value Old Rares as 2011-2012 rares, and if those 2011-2012 rares are like 40 C$ for one, on average, and a "non tier" pet is worth 50 of those old rares, then a non is worth 2000 C$.

Which, right now, is correct

All of my personal math is mathing with my latest chart.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Keep in mind that these are all just things I'm throwing out there, I'm not really heavily invested in any of the charts I've put out. Not enough to really argue very hard about them.

Here's a chart where the ratio is an even 1.2 across the board between years, meaning if
1 R = 2 EUC = 4 VUC
1/4 = 0.25

Each year-gap would be about 1 R + 1 VUC, it also puts a Current rare at 15 C$ which makes it ~1/4th of the 54 C$ that a 2009 Rare is worth here. It makes a right now store pet worth a this-year VR, but I still think they should shoot up in value right after they leave the store.



--

Here's another chart with a sliding-scale method (which I like the best, personally) with some different values but keeping an (about) 5:1 Current:09 value. Using "Current" as 2024 instead of 2023 as well.

Throughout the creation process of this chart, I said to myself, "Why am I focused on the value of an 09 Rare. I should be focused on the value of an 09 very rare" because I realized that the pets I was thinking about as "09 rares" are 09 VRs now.

So, I built this chart working with VRs instead of Rares.

On top of that, I changed the rarity math for EUC -> R to 1/3 instead of 1/2 for 2009 and 2010, making the maximum value for EUCs 25 C$. I think more than that is unreasonable.



--

Honestly I think I just like making these and theorizing. I think 150 might be on the high-end of 09 VRs, but it made the scaling down a little bit nicer.. I also like what it did to the EUC/VUC/UC values.

Okay let's try another one.

After this one I think I'm done though, I have no braincells.

[Solloby]

The survey responses are fascinating!

Some of the big takeaways so far are:
- People seem to have similar ideas on valuing lower rarity pets in relation to each other
- People don't like the current values of OMGSR/ER pets and actively want them to be changed
- People want transparency when a new guide is built among other things, with justifications for each pet placement suggestion
- People want demand to be incorporated into the guide in a managed fashion, nobody wants it overly favoured like it is now
- People consider store pets higher value than non-store VRs, but aren't sure by how much
- People aren't sure how to value pets in C$ at all. There are very varied responses across all of the rarities.

Item trading looks like it could be given a big overhaul to make it more accurate. Instead of just having a set pet rarity that trades for it, it looks like a better approach would be to estimate the average pet rarity for each year and set the item value for that year at that pet rarity. We could also do this on a smaller scale, with token items being worth the average token pet price for that event, or potentially more since some people don't collect items so they wouldn't have traded in for them, or only traded for 1 set. I think we'll need some follow up polling here, but the current survey results are really helping to suggest a good framework for item trading in the future!

As for C$, I'm wondering if we take a step back here and try to start with working out how pets are valued in relation to each other with more detail. Then we may need to use the existing store pet values to assign C$ values to pets that make sense. Because right now the survey results are extremely varied, and I can understand why completely.

I'll wait to see more responses collected before commenting further about pet or C$ values, but I do wonder if we have enough information about items to start looking at building a general trading guide for items right now?

[SolarSonnet]

Personally, I'm a fan of this item guide

I do not think that older items, things like the 2010 scarecrow set and such (currently valued at 1n for the entire set), could be re-valued to be worth a pet from their event. That makes it go from its current value at 1 non, to 3 2010 R-VRs. Which uh.. kind of just feels insulting to even think about.

Especially since pets from their events have since been re-released, and those items will never have a re-release. I think they're already significantly rarer than any of the pets from their year. This might be plausible for more current event items, but definitely not for older ones. 2008-2010 Items (+ some from the 2011 Medieval Faire) feel like the "List" of items, and, imo, should be treated as such.

[Solloby]

That guide only includes high value items, I was thinking more of a guide for all of the other items e.g. ones released this year. Right now people are just claiming everything is worth an UC regardless of age or the fact that UC is now spread over 3 different rarity tags. So a guide for 2012 - 2023, but we can talk about older items as well on top of that.

I do think we need to acknowledge that items are rarer than pets, especially old event items. Which is why we have things like that scarecrow set trading for so much more than a pet from its event. People just don't buy the items, so if they were pets they'd be much higher rarity tagged.

[frogfan]

-snip-
Item trading looks like it could be given a big overhaul to make it more accurate. Instead of just having a set pet rarity that trades for it, it looks like a better approach would be to estimate the average pet rarity for each year and set the item value for that year at that pet rarity.
-snip-

I really like this idea :3 I think it would be interesting to look at and would make a lot of sense!!!

-snip-
We could also do this on a smaller scale, with token items being worth the average token pet price for that event, or potentially more since some people don't collect items so they wouldn't have traded in for them, or only traded for 1 set.
-snip-

I also like the idea of valuing free event items and free monthly items at a different level then token items. It makes a lot of sense!!

The only issue is I could see it potentially being a bit difficult for people to remember which items were which on the fly. We have the archive of monthly threads which is useful for finding information like that. Spreading awareness of these and other guides might help (at a later stage of course)

-snip-
I do wonder if we have enough information about items to start looking at building a general trading guide for items right now?

I would like to say that I really hope we focus on building a framework for newer/low value items and leave the higher value stuff out completely for now.

I'd also hope that input from people with full item collections, who trade items often, or who respond consistently on the what is this item worth thread should be prioritized (to be transparent I am none of the above)

Item worth and item availability is really a murky subject for a lot of users and as someone who really likes buying and trading for items, it would make me really nervous if this was mostly decided by people who rarely trade items.

I also think that we should be clear that this is a framework, and that different people can value items at different levels and still have it be fair especially since trading around the entire site has changed (sorry for talking so much eek)

Thanks for making the form! It's an intimidating subject to weigh in on

[SolarSonnet]

One thing I'd like to point out, (moving away from items to address a C$ thing), is that every 3 years having its own value/range, to me, kind of feels the same as having a year-by-year value guide if its a range.

For example: If a 2020-2023 Rare is worth 15-20 C$, then a 2023 Rare is worth 15 C$, a 2022 Rare is worth 16.6 C$, a 2021 Rare is worth 18.2, and a 2020 Rare is worth 19.8/20 C$.

If you give me a date range and a value range, the oldest date will always be worth the most, and the newest date will always be worth the least. I wouldn't be buying a 2023 R for 20 C$ unless it's particularly good-looking.

I don't like the prospect that would come from it where people would use that range for values of pets by species. I.E. A 2023 Rare Rat is worth 15 C$ and a 2023 Rare Lion is worth 20 C$, it'd create a huge discrepancy in trading, which is why I like the each year having a solid value type of guide.

The only thing I'll never be able to agree on is giving a date range and a solid value at the same time.
I.E. 2020-2023 Rares are 20 C$.

I think there are minor differences of a few C$ between rares of those dates. I don't care about anything under like, Very Uncommon for those dates. I'd 1:1 Commons in that range all day, but not rares.