Deleting nons - A new trading system proposal

[sunka]

if a change like this was implemented, i think it would need to be an entirely new guide, with solid explanations for how to trade between values, how to trade up and down, clear c$ pricing and no more sliding values. without being explicitly clear in the value of a pet, the current issues would likely only have a bandaid slapped on them until people do exactly what they do now, and the system gets broken again.

again, i am absolutely in support of a change. however, i think its going to be more difficult than just getting rid of nons. i truly believe it would need to be another large scale change, like the change from the rares list to horror, and i think it would need to clearly define that value a pet is assigned is its value. the biggest issue right now is demand, and demand will never change if the grey area of people paying absurd amounts for pets isn’t at the very least shrunk to 1-2 ma’s instead of non level discrepancies.

[Daxx]

Even if the banana settled at say 8 ma theres no reason the ba would stay at 10 as it probably wouldnt being one of the higher demand 1 non pets currently. the banana + 3 ma however seems like a better offer and if its not enough then either the banana drops or the ba goes up. But if you then look at a more mid non for example the gwj, a banana + 2 ma for that seems not so bad right?

That still holds the exact issue i meant tho - to account for demand pets on the higher demand side need to go above their current value, and lower demand pets need to go down. You mentioned you just paid 1N for the banana - but if this were to be implemented, yoou would lose part of what you paid, and would need to add multiple MA's to make it swap with a pet that was previously the "same" value, even if you don't feed into the demand aspect. Which would make alot of people not want to use the system - they wouldn't be able to get what they paid back from pets they already own. Needing to add multiple MA pets to lower demand Non pets to make it fair for higher demand Non lists will inflate the value of the high demand pets farther - furthering the issues like the raven situation.

I get what youre meaning here however the zonkey is 2-2.5 with common demand spikes ( the TD is 2.5 solid though) Which almost sorta proves my point as they wouldnt ever go for a 1:1 swap unless it was something someone was after. the zonkey probably would sit about 22 ma going up to 24 with the demand spikes / 25 for the TD. and the marionette as its got store demand would likely settle above 25 ma probably closer to 26/27

Honestly i hear what youre saying and i do think it would be a lot of work to get the initial values but then in the long run it would be more streamline and would limit the potential to demand push from value. Demand as a concept isnt the issue. its more peoples ability to interpret the demand thats the issue

For example, the raven right? Was pretty solid at 7N - jumped to 10N out of nowhere. Even if it was solid at 70MA, it would have still jumped to 100MA, because people tend to follow high demand overpay trends and it makes the values fluctuate heavily. Im not seeing a way to combat that or the random small value fluxes. Because if a pet gets 2-2.5N most people wouldn't split the difference, theyd put it at 25 solid.

You saying the marionette would sit closer to 26/27 MA is a perfect example - all the list pets people like will go up multiple ma's and move higher on the value scale, which is only going to add to the problem you're trying to fix. If all the current high demand list pets continue to just go higher and higher - not only are we making the problem worse, it's encouraging it to sit higher due to it not swapping evenly with lower demand pets.

We can use the banana and BA again as an example - Most people who paid 1N for the banana wouldn't trade it for less, which would keep it at 10MA. But - since they don't swap, the BA would gain value since it has high deamnd. But how much? Most people wouldn't take a banana for a BA unless you added 2,3,4 MA - which makes the BA go from 1N to somewhere in 1.25N - or 12-14MA. TD's which get 1.5 currently would also go up - reaching closer to 1.75N.

and sadly, im not seeing a way to fix that issue - it would just be part of the change to watch alot of these pets gain value and go up which makes me really iffy on wanting to implement this change. It's a great idea, but it would need to have heavily solidified a majority of pets at a singular solid value - which a lot of pets don't currently have as many players value pets differently.

[Foxglove Jam]

I support this! ;u;

[Bluefly26799]

again, i am absolutely in support of a change. however, i think its going to be more difficult than just getting rid of nons. i truly believe it would need to be another large scale change, like the change from the rares list to horror, and i think it would need to clearly define that value a pet is assigned is its value. the biggest issue right now is demand, and demand will never change if the grey area of people paying absurd amounts for pets isn’t at the very least shrunk to 1-2 ma’s instead of non level discrepancies.

I do agree, changing up the terminology and going just off ma would just be the first step really. We would, as a community, have to come to a agreement on pets value so in essence it would be creating a new list once again. It would be a crazy amount of work and a large effort from the community as a whole but I cant help but think it would be worth it. Even if this isnt the right change, just chugging along as we are isn't the way forward.


I think you're so right in saying that demand will never change with the grey area how it is now, it's the main way people push for a profit without being outright 'unfair' but people interpret the grey area in ways that benefits them.

There is also the case of value messing up demand too. Pets that are harder to trade as they're stuck in their value means people stay away from them which in turn drives down their demand even further.

[meimopotato]

i'm definitely on board with this idea ,in the past when i used to do trades i had a pretty good understanding of demand and value it was much more so easier to understand when trading for a 0.25 non pet it would equal 2.5 non in value and that was that . However in the past year or so it has changed so so much 0.25 non pets but 3-4 Ma in value it was so so confusing and complicated getting to understand the "new" value of things and equally as stressful . I really think this new idea would benefit alot to new players or players wanting to start out high value trading and prevent alot of unwanted scams or ninjaing especially since dec 18 is right ard the corner . i just think there needs to be a well enforced proper system and to me using MAs for values makes sense to me ! <33

[bloodborne (2015)]

support. makes literally no sense that 1 non is 10-12 ma and 0.25 non is 3-4ma.
i ended up losing a lot of value when i came off hiatus for thinking that 4 .25non pets would add up to 1 non. ma is a fine system to categorize pet value and old rares are also necessary for calculating the value of a ma, but nons are a byproduct of the way pet values were calculated during the time of the old rares list and are an outdated system. the non dogs don’t even trade for some pets that are worth 1 non anymore lol.

[Bluefly26799]

support. makes literally no sense that 1 non is 10-12 ma and 0.25 non is 3-4ma.
i ended up losing a lot of value when i came off hiatus for thinking that 4 .25non pets would add up to 1 non. ma is a fine system to categorize pet value and old rares are also necessary for calculating the value of a ma, but nons are a byproduct of the way pet values were calculated during the time of the old rares list and are an outdated system. the non dogs don’t even trade for some pets that are worth 1 non anymore lol.

Thats sorta already the unspoken rules which is the issue one non pet is in value equal but demand not equal so people are adding fillers or taking underpay already just without it being an offical system



I could always knock up an example, maybe just covering the pets that are in theory worth 1 non at current just to help show the spread in value if we actually let pets sit where they need to

[Katsumi-Luna]

regardless of what you put people are terribly greedy on here so I doubt it would work. like when did the raven dog became 10 nons like seriously????

[Bluefly26799]

An example using pets currently valued at 1 non

Please remember this is just a rough idea at what the new system could potentially look like based on my personal experience with the demand of each of these pets

Current pets at 1 non / 10 ma

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

If for the example we put the spread of a values from 8-12ma

12 MA



11 MA



10 MA



9 MA







8 MA

I can't stress enough that this just a rough demonstration I've thrown together while highlights the unspoken rules were already following. If you look at all the pets at the start of the thread they're all worth 1 non yet lets not even pretend the majority of us would never consider 1:1 swaps for most of those pets.

This is what makes trading hard, these unspoken rules and expectations. For people learning you'll see the banana is 1 non as is the black advent but you will be turned down over and over and over again with a 1:1 swap.

[sunka]

^ as to the above. i do not see a reason to assign additional value to most pets. if anything, i think the reason so many pets are valued so high is because of the pets within their tier that don’t match up in value. personally, i think it would be more beneficial to only shift those pets that we know don’t line up with those within their tier lower in order to try and stabilize demand and stop feeding into it. there’s no reason a ba needs to be more than 1 non. i think the best practice if this system is utilized is to simply shift the pets that do not consistently trade for their value lower, while leaving the pets that trade for their value where they are at. with that change, i would think a lot of pets (such as the ba) would be acceptable to stay exactly where they are with no additional value added because the ‘demand’ they have in my opinion doesn’t warrant most pets being worth more than they are now. just warrants those pets that don’t trade for their value to be lowered to a more appropriate level.