Loelya wrote:I’ll update the summary post with a link to this revised chart so other players can see another approach~ ^^
it's kind of looking like this topic of rarity math is something that we're all a lot less sure about and have less strong opinions about. xD does anyone have questions they'd like to bring up instead? maybe we can think through what makes this confusing to handle.
Yeah, I watched the conversation slowly start to die here and have had less and less input to add. Especially with the
OMGSR discussion thread (linked so people can find it since I feel like it hasn't been linked enough), because that's what I'm most interested in discussing values for, but that one seems a little dead, too.
I think you should put the link to the OMGSR discussion thread at the top of this post as well.
--
As a recap for the current questions in the first post:
1:"2:1 Date rule becoming the 5-year/3-year rule"
I think most people have settled on what they're doing by this point. A lot of people go by 3-year now and some go by 5-year. I'm glad everyone has come to their own conclusions that can co-exist, and I'm glad that even the 1-year rule has been acknowledged in Horror's new list.
We have some great charts going around with everyone's rules on them, that are starting to seem more fair than 2:1. A lot of people have been swayed by conversation and seem to know where they stand now, at least more-so than they did when the update first came out.
If you have a rule that has not been represented, let's hear it. I wanna know. Especially if you're someone who's rules haven't been represented, and you don't know how to make a chart.
I'd make a chart for you if you can explain your rule to me.2 & 32:1 or 3:1 Rarity Rule.
I think the best chart is this one:
It's the one I'll be using and makes the most sense to me. I like the 2:1 rule for rarity still. I initially argued for 2:1 between categories and 3:1 when switching categories, but my opinion has changed.
I had also initially argued that I didn't want EUCs to become the new Rares just because the color is the same. I actually think that was part of the point of the color being the same, in hindsight. EUCs
should be the new 'Rares' in terms of how people treat them, especially because it bridges the gap mentally between Uncommons and Rares by making EUCs that color. I very much like this C$ Chart as well, minus the OMGSRs and store pet sections.
4This is not something I've weighed in on.
I really like the idea of keeping pets valued at "X [Year] Rares" but I also have observed that most 09 rares are now Very Rare, and that might bring
down the value of list pets by quite a lot if you're using the 2:1 rule for rarity. This
might make '10 rares more of a stable method to go on, unless we start valuing pets by how many 09
very rares they're worth. Which then makes regular 09 Rares worth half as much as they used to be worth, and makes literally every other pet that's worth less than an 09 VR, worth less than they used to be worth in terms of list pets.
Before, you could trade 2 '10 rares for the valuation of an 09 rare with the 2:1 method. Now that most 09 rares are very rare, using 2:1, you'd need 4 '10 rares to equal that valuation. Using my version of the years chart, however, you'd need a '10 rare and a '10 VUC to equal an 09 Rare, so that'd be 2 '10 rares and 2 '10 VUCs for an 09 VR. Which is a more reasonable ~3 '10 rares in value as opposed to doubling it.
If a non is still worth 100 09 rares, then suddenly, most pets from 2009 are worth double what they were previously in the context of a non. Now you only need, averagely, 50 09 pets rather than 100 to equal a non. Almost all of the pets
here were
regular 09 rares before the rarity overhaul. Now they're worth "double" what they were before in terms of trading value if nons are worth the same.
.png)
