Rares List Discussion *DISCONTINUED*

[JK341]

One thing i am definitely hoping for is that the creation of the new guides will eventually help balance some of that hyperinflation / deflation of many of those list pets demand wise. c:

[headsick]

so what will happen to the value of future special releases??

[UR Kob]

so what will happen to the value of future special releases??

They'll still be special and probs stay really rare since theyre special releases after all. That doesnt change ^-^

[SabrinaB]

One thing i am definitely hoping for is that the creation of the new guides will eventually help balance some of that hyperinflation / deflation of many of those list pets demand wise. c:

Me too but.. i am afraid one of them will end up like the rares list. A law and not a guide...

[Solloby]

I'm not sure which thread to ask this on... but does anyone else feel like it's kind of weird to go into FTT and see everyone saying "your 20XX very rare is worth a 20XX rare"?

Like ok age matters but with the new rarity system update I feel like it doesn't as much anymore. Because one thing I noticed with my trade pets is, all my newer pets dropped in rarity a lot, and my older pets rose in rarity. So I think the new rarity system has tried to correct this.

What do you guys think about this?
How can we respect pet age while still placing importance on rarity tags?
Should a 2017 very rare be considered more than a 2009 rare?

Also a lot of valuations seem to be made in "09 rares". Um, most of those are VR now, as they should be.
What does 09 rare even mean anymore??
Are non-list pet valuations out of date also???
*EXISTENTIAL CRISIS*

[Shinryu]

I'm not sure which thread to ask this on... but does anyone else feel like it's kind of weird to go into FTT and see everyone saying "your 20XX very rare is worth a 20XX rare"?

Like ok age matters but with the new rarity system update I feel like it doesn't as much anymore. Because one thing I noticed with my trade pets is, all my newer pets dropped in rarity a lot, and my older pets rose in rarity. So I think the new rarity system has tried to correct this.

What do you guys think about this?
How can we respect pet age while still placing importance on rarity tags?
Should a 2017 very rare be considered more than a 2009 rare?

Also a lot of valuations seem to be made in "09 rares". Um, most of those are VR now, as they should be.
What does 09 rare even mean anymore??
Are non-list pet valuations out of date also???
*EXISTENTIAL CRISIS*

I think what the last rarity update achieved would be something of a middle thing between "age matters" and "same-rarity pets are swappable".

"Age matters" was never a 100% accurate trading method. It was a good rule of thumb, because older pets were more likely to be on the far end of their rarity, but they weren't guaranteed to. There was always the chance that a newly released uncommon was actually "more uncommon" than one from 2010.
This is why it is, and always has been, useful to watch rarity changes closely.
If a common from last month turns uncommon with the next update, and then a 2011 common turns uncommon 6 months later? Yeah, the one from last month is likely the rarer one, and at the very least those two pets should be swappable.
This has always been the case, but nobody ever really traded that way.

...And that's not a bad thing or an accusation! Like I said, we know that older pets only get rarer over time, it's usually a safe assumption that they're worth more than newer pets. It's impossible to tell which of two pets is rarer until they change their rarity, so for as long as a pet has its initial tag, it's a complete guessing game which end of it they're on.
And let's be real, searching up rarity changes for pets is a pain if it's not a super popular one. Nobody is going to dig through the change threads to check on random uncommons.
So out of practicality, it's easier to say "age matters" and treat the older pet as more valuable.

But with the rarity update moving the thresholds between rarities, I think age will matter less.
The three month rule shouldn't have to be applied in this manner any more. Personally I'd say it would be more of a "year rule" now? I think the implication of the new update would be that we can be more flexible about release dates now.
I'd still lean towards valuing older pets slightly higher, but we wouldn't have to be as rigid about it any more to the point where people are expected to add to their side because their pet is from August and the other is from February.

As for "Should a 2017 very rare be considered more than a 2009 rare?"
A very rare should always be valued higher than a rare. They should never have been considered a fair swap regardless of age. A 2018 very rare is rarer than a 2009 rare, and that's a fact. It's right there on their tag.
I know people like to have some kind of system like this especially for store pets, but at the same time I'm thinking especially about store pets. They're never gonna be released again. How would a store pet VR ever equal any rare, when the store pet gets no re-release but the monthly rare does?
You can argue about availability (easier to find recent store pets up for trade than older rares) but value-wise? No.

[Erwin Smith]

I'm not sure which thread to ask this on... but does anyone else feel like it's kind of weird to go into FTT and see everyone saying "your 20XX very rare is worth a 20XX rare"?

Like ok age matters but with the new rarity system update I feel like it doesn't as much anymore. Because one thing I noticed with my trade pets is, all my newer pets dropped in rarity a lot, and my older pets rose in rarity. So I think the new rarity system has tried to correct this.

What do you guys think about this?
How can we respect pet age while still placing importance on rarity tags?
Should a 2017 very rare be considered more than a 2009 rare?

Also a lot of valuations seem to be made in "09 rares". Um, most of those are VR now, as they should be.
What does 09 rare even mean anymore??
Are non-list pet valuations out of date also???
*EXISTENTIAL CRISIS*

*YELLS ABOUT THE CRISIS IN UNISON*

I honestly think a 2017 VR (Store pet for instance) Should not be worth a 2010 rare as people have been saying. If that is the case, that means a 2017 VR = a 2015 VR which is also a 2010 Rare going by the same mechanics. But I agree with you Solloby, the date thing has been reset so there is no reason why Date should matter anymore in that manner. Because I believe there is no reason there should be mattering dates with some exceptions. I never agreed with a Stre pet being worth a Rare unless it was a rare when it was released and currently is one.

Like. I liked the old idea of there being a 4 year difference = double the value of that pet's value... that... If I can scramble my brain for a second was mentioned years ago. I'll edit it here if I remember it. It just means that it doesn't work now either. Nothing works, which means things need to change. It makes more logic sense visually and isn't CS Logic.

And the three month rule was good at the time, it helped with a lot of things. But I don't know if that is viable now for the same reason as listed before.

But... I mean I don't know.
I like to say that non-list values are out of date too, also the CS dollar pricing of the pets going by those guides. I'm guessing a '09 rare can't be worth 40-50CS anymore or whatever it was valued at. It'd be worth from 90CS+ now, the VR's should be worth more maybe. Or you go the other way and squash the values of newer rares and pets more so. Either way, that value has changed.

By making the changes to make trading more "easier" it's also debunked how terrible trading was wrong through this whole time. It's crazy. It's making the answering of the FTT hard because not only do you have to worry about giving incorrect information when there is not much to back you up now, but also all the fundamental trading guides don't work.

Someone had a trade which had 850 CS in it. I answered it saying that the CS value for list pets doesn't work now, especially considering the broken list. So the only way to deduct it's value is to try and break it up into '09 rares. And then that is a problem because the value of a '09 rare has skyrocketted due to the rarity change and the update of the rarity tag for most of them. So...

It's like a huge bomb. So many users weren't aware of how bad and ... Twisted the trading on this game became. Some did, most didn't. I didn't.

On topic, it brings up a question. How are pets valued now?

This is a trade I am using as an example of this

Would this be classed as overpay for the side with 144 pets, or the Joker?

Logic dictates that 1 VR =/= 144 Pets of various degrees.

But the list said this was unfair to the Joker.

So now what happens?

[Solloby]

^ Yeah I have no idea what to do about C$, I agree that the old values are really outdated.

As for "Should a 2017 very rare be considered more than a 2009 rare?"
A very rare should always be valued higher than a rare. They should never have been considered a fair swap regardless of age. A 2018 very rare is rarer than a 2009 rare, and that's a fact. It's right there on their tag.
I know people like to have some kind of system like this especially for store pets, but at the same time I'm thinking especially about store pets. They're never gonna be released again. How would a store pet VR ever equal any rare, when the store pet gets no re-release but the monthly rare does?
You can argue about availability (easier to find recent store pets up for trade than older rares) but value-wise? No.

This bit right here is my issue. Many FTT posts are about store pets and the consistent advice from all the other users seems to be that newer store VRs are less valuable than older rares and I don't really believe that's right. But it's SO widespread. It's on every page.

Is there anything we as a community can do to try and encourage a correction to this?
I'm not sure people realise just yet how the rarity system update has impacted things.
Age matters of course, but surely rarity tag matters more now.

[Erwin Smith]

I hope a good start would be with trying to get the information readily available for a read. I’ll recode this when I get home. Mardi grah murdered my head haha.

So.

Heading - What is this thread about? (Talking about the rarity change)

Brief bio of the rarity update from Tess - Summary of what Tess said and hyperlink the post.

Explain what this means - Go to explain that dates of pets don't really matter as much as they used to as the rarities are now all on the same timeline.

Hyperlinks to threads involved with the information (CS DOLLAR, CS item, CS rarity, CS Demand etc etc)

Explain the changes for each hyperlink briefly. (C$ values are no longer what they are listed to be. CS item value changes for the rarest items onsite and why this is, CS Rarity list on what they hope to achieve, CS Demand and what this list is to achieve etc.)

Hyperlink the end of each hyperlink to a post dedicated to each dot point explaining the changes and why they are happening and upon us.

I really think that there needs to be designated groups to do parts of the work at once. Like one group for the C$ situation, rarest pets scenario, demand etc. it’s already there I guess but maybe more so. Purely to explain things. It’s also a double edged sword in a good way because it is damage control for those who were involved in the list making to begin with. Because it can be seen as “CS users were wrong all along.” And that is the last thing I hope to happen.

[Shinryu]

I think the decision to discontinue the rares list may be exactly the catalyst we needed to introduce new methods of valuing pets into the trading community.
With official rarities updating and the list retiring, people are finally starting to re-think pet values, and that's the ideal circumstance to start talking about other outdated standards as well.

I can't blame people for considering new store pets somewhat "less valuable" due to their higher availability, so I'd see why someone may be hesitant to trade older pets for something that's still in everyone's r+ trade groups.
But it's not a fact that can be argued away that every VR is by default more valuable than a single rare of any year.

I really think it would solve a lot of issues if people became generally more flexible with age-based values.
The rarity math of "[year] rare = 2 [newer year] rares" causes this exponential mess where people have to fork over tons of new rares for a single old one, but if we even just widened the age range there it'd make that problem a lot less severe.
I think the new rarity update has adjusted rarities enough to make trades like "a 2010 rare for two 2013 rares" possible and okay to do. It may feel weird to think about because we're so used to something different, but... would a 2013 rare really be worth that much less? I don't really think we need to be that rigid about years any more that a rare from 2010 would end up costing double-digit rares from last year, and think what Zetirian brought up about "double the value at a x year gap" is way more reasonable than doubling the value for every.single.year.